U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–245 PDF 2003

S. Hrg. 108–84

INVESTING IN HOMELAND SECURITY: STREAMLINING AND ENHANCING HOMELAND SECURITY

GRANT PROGRAMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 1, 2003

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TIM RADUCHA-GRACE, Professional Staff Member 

JOYCE RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL A. ALEXANDER, Minority Professional Staff Member 

DARLA D. CASSELL, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 3

Senator Stevens ................................................................................................ 7

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 8

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 9

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 12

Senator Fitzgerald ............................................................................................ 16

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 24

Senator Specter ................................................................................................. 31

Prepared statement: 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 41

WITNESS 

Hon. Tom Ridge, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 14

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 43

Post-hearing qestions for the Record submitted to the Hon. Tom Ridge 

from: 

Chairman Collins .......................................................................................... 47

Senator Carper .............................................................................................. 55

Senator Levin ................................................................................................ 59

Senator Lieberman ....................................................................................... 63

Senator Voinovich ......................................................................................... 77

APPENDIX

Chart entitled ‘‘Tangled Web of Federal Homeland Security Grant Programs’’ 78

Chart entitled ‘‘12 Steps for a State to Receive Homeland Security Dollars’’ .... 79

Hamilton County Fire Chiefs and Sycamore Township prepared statement ..... 80

(1)

INVESTING IN HOMELAND SECURITY: 

STREAMLINING AND ENHANCING 

HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAMS 

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Collins, Levin, Stevens, Voinovich, Specter, 

Fitzgerald, Akaka, Carper, and Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS 

Chairman COLLINS. Good morning. The Committee will come to 

order. Today, the Governmental Affairs Committee continues our 

efforts to streamline and strengthen homeland security grant programs for States, communities, and first responders. 

I want to start by welcoming Secretary Tom Ridge, who will discuss the Department of Homeland Security’s ongoing challenges in 

providing the resources needed to protect our homeland. 

Mr. Secretary, let me start this morning by commending you for 

your leadership in building a more effective homeland security 

partnership with our States, localities, and first responders. But in 

some ways, I believe that Congress’ lack of guidance has left you 

with one hand tied behind your back. Despite these constraints, 

you are doing a great job, but we can and must do more to ensure 

that those who are on the front lines receive the information, 

equipment, training, and planning they require to be effective. 

The Homeland Security Act provides a framework to establish 

your new Department, yet the law contains virtually no guidance 

on how the Department is to assist those at the State and local 

level with their homeland security needs. Congress wrote a 187-

page law creating the new Department, yet only a single paragraph 

describes grant programs for first responders. As a result, the Department is allocating billions of dollars to States and localities 

with very little guidance from Congress as to how such decisions 

should be made. 

As with so many other important issues, much of the front-line 

responsibility for homeland security has fallen squarely on the 

shoulders of our State and local officials and first responders. Communities across America have risen to this challenge and have developed scores of innovative homeland security strategies. 

2

1 Chart entitled ‘‘Tangled Web of Federal Homeland Security Grant Programs,’’ submitted by 

Senator Collins appears in the Appendix on page 78. 2 Chart entitled ‘‘12 Steps for a State to Receive Homeland Security Dollars’’ submitted by 

Senator Collins appears in the Appendix on page 79. 

Instead of encouraging these new ideas, however, the tangled 

web of Federal Homeland Security Grant Programs is stifling State 

and local innovation.1 Instead of providing a foundation on which 

States and localities can build homeland security strategies tailored to specific risks, Federal programs present States and communities with a mountain of paperwork. Instead of giving communities the flexibility that they need, State and local officials face a 

one-size-fits-all grant structure. 

Mr. Secretary, in my judgment, the current homeland security 

grant program structure simply doesn’t work as well as it should. 

Congress should give you a map to replace the maze of homeland 

security programs with a straight path, to topple the mountain of 

paperwork, and to provide States and communities the flexibility 

that they need to be effective. 

Today, I am announcing principles for legislation that I will be 

introducing in coming weeks to streamline and enhance homeland 

security grant programs. This outline is based on extensive input 

from State and local officials and first responders and includes several key principles. 

First, my legislation will topple the mountain of paperwork by 

eliminating duplicative homeland security application and planning 

requirements that States and localities are now required to complete as a condition of receiving Federal funds. As this chart illustrates,2 on my right, a State must engage in a 12-step odyssey to 

obtain funding from a single homeland security grant program, and 

this is just one of several homeland security grant programs to 

which a State, community, police, or fire department can apply. 

Second, my legislation would allow flexibility in the use of homeland security funds. Instead of a one-size-fits-all formula determining how homeland security dollars must be allocated, the legislation will allow State and local officials to decide how to spend 

Federal dollars to meet their highest priority needs. 

Third, my legislation will make it easier to apply for grants by 

moving toward one-stop shopping within the Department for accessing homeland security dollars in a direct and timely fashion. A 

single source within the Department will provide States, communities, and first responders with information on grant programs, 

both within and outside of the Department. 

Fourth, the bill will help to coordinate the wide range of grant 

programs that provide homeland security funds for planning, preparedness, and response capabilities. Federal programs inside and 

outside the Department of Homeland Security provide much-needed support to ensure basic level of equipment and training among 

first responders, yet they often lack even basic coordination. The 

legislation I am proposing will coordinate these programs to avoid 

duplication, ensure that a broad spectrum of needs are being met, 

and maximize the return on the taxpayers’ investment. We simply 

cannot afford to spend Federal dollars in a duplicative or haphazard manner. The risks are simply too great. 

3

Fifth, the legislation will promote a community-based approach 

to homeland security funding. It will ensure that local officials and 

first responders have a seat at the table in the homeland security 

planning process and that they can access resources in an efficient 

manner. 

Sixth, we must allocate homeland security dollars according to 

need, while at the same time ensuring that each and every State 

receives a reasonable share of funds. Currently, the Department is 

allocating billions of dollars with little guidance from Congress. 

Seventh and finally, this legislation will not reinvent the wheel. 

It will recognize the importance of building on existing successful 

programs, such as the popular and effective FIRE Act. 

All States face security challenges, including our Nation’s rural 

and less populous States. Maine, for example, was the starting 

point for two of the September 11 hijackers and is home to one of 

New England’s busiest seaports. Unique challenges also face smaller States, such as Delaware, which must protect a major military 

base and an international speedway. In other words, the size of the 

State does not necessarily determine the seriousness of the threat. 

We don’t need to look far into our history to witness the tragic 

events that can occur in even relatively rural States. Just consider 

Oklahoma City, the highest casualty domestic terrorist event prior 

to September 11. 

We must engage in a thoughtful dialogue about how best to distribute homeland security funds or we may end up leaving some of 

our communities more vulnerable to attack because we inadequately assessed the risk. 

Again, Mr. Secretary, let me close by commending you for your 

efforts to simplify the grant process and make it easier for States, 

communities, and first responders to access funding. But Congress 

has provided you with an incomplete tool box. You need more to 

build an effective homeland security partnership with States, localities, and first responders, and I know that the Members of this 

Committee are committed to giving you the tools that you need. We 

look forward to working with you on legislation to build a stronger 

and more effective homeland security partnership in the months 

and years ahead. 

At this point, I would like to turn to Senator Levin for his opening remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and let 

me join you in welcoming Secretary Ridge to this hearing and join 

you also in commending him for the extremely great effort that he 

is making to put together a Homeland Security Department which 

reflects the needs of this country. I think you are doing a fine job 

and I join in that commendation. 

We obviously have a number of concerns which we want to raise 

with you today. The programs and operations of the Department of 

Homeland Security continue to be unclear to our people and to our 

local governments. The coordination or lack thereof between your 

agency and State and local governments is troubling. The interaction with State and local governments is still confusing, unclear, 

and of great concern to us. 

4

There are other issues, too, which I want to raise with you during our question period, particularly as to the relationship between 

your Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection and the CIA entities that now exist. There are now two entities in the CIA, the Counterterrorist Center and the new one 

which was apparently just announced yesterday, Terrorist Threat 

Integration Center (TTIC). So you have these two entities that are 

engaged in analysis of intelligence information, now both located 

apparently at the CIA, and how that is going to relate to your directorate, which was the place where some of the dots were going 

to be connected, at least, is very unclear and I think we need you 

to give us some guidance on that, as to what the intent is. 

There are also other issues besides the one that is the focus of 

today’s hearing that I want to raise with you, including access to 

information under the Freedom of Information Act and how that is 

going to work and what information would be protected from public 

scrutiny by corporations just simply filing with your agency information and thereby protecting themselves from the corrective remedies that might otherwise be indicated or from public access to 

that information. That is a whole issue which we kind of ducked 

at the time that this agency was put into place. 

I don’t want to repeat all of the concerns which our Chairman 

has just raised, but I will just simply highlight a couple of them 

that I hear a lot about when I go back to Michigan. 

I hear many complaints about how the Department issues grants 

and allocates funds to State and local governments and the first responders, like the police and the fire fighters. The first issue, which 

I hope you will address, is the overall budget issue. According to 

my figures, the Department of Homeland Security funds for first 

responders, when you add the Office of Domestic Preparedness allocation in 2004 and the fire grant program, which is not given any 

money in 2004, you have actually less money, the way we add it 

up, for first responders in your budget for fiscal year 2004 than we 

had in 2003, and I wish you would address that issue. The total 

is $3.5 billion for first responders in 2004, roughly, and $4 billion 

in 2003 when you put those two programs together, the Office of 

Domestic Preparedness and the fire grant program. 

There is still no 800 number where people can call just to get information, as far as I know. We had gone into that issue at the 

time we were considering the creation of your Department. There 

is still no one-stop grant process for State and local officials and 

there is the whole host of budget questions which were raised. The 

administration is proposing to basically drop the COPS program to 

decrease the Byrne grants and to eliminate or almost eliminate the 

local law enforcement block grant program, and that is not made 

up for, as far as we can see, in the budget dollars that have been 

proposed for your agency. 

So those are the big picture budget items that we hope you will 

address, as well as for first responders, as well as some of the 

issues which relate to the grant application process, whether we 

can’t have a one-stop grant process where people can go to one 

place or call one number to get information relative to what is 

available to local governments. 

5

We then have all the formula issues, which I think to some extent, at least, are based on legislative decision, but where you have 

made some recommendations which we would like to hear as to 

how these funds can be more fairly apportioned to where the greatest risks are. Some of those formulas make no sense to me. When 

we have flat-out minimums guaranteed, for instance, that is not 

based on threat. It should be based on threat. I understand you 

have some recommendations in that area, because I agree that we 

ought to put our funds where the greatest threats are and I don’t 

think that is the case where we have fixed formulas that go to 

States or to localities based on anything other than what the threat 

is and what their infrastructure vulnerabilities are. 

So you have got a lot of questions before you. I know there are 

a lot of challenges on your plate. And again, I just want to add my 

thanks for all the good work of you and your staff in attempting 

to address those challenges. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Levin. Senator Stevens. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is still a new agency but pressing 

questions about how it should function, how it should coordinate with other Federal 

agencies, and how it should interact with State and local governments are issues 

that Members of this Committee have now been raising for over a year. New questions are piling up, while many old issues remain unresolved. It is past time to get 

definite answers to some of these questions and to clarify how this Department is 

going to be set up and run to ensure the safety of our country. 

As the key oversight Committee for the new Department, our job is to identify 

key issues and help with the solutions. One of the key issues that I have been focusing on for the past year involves intelligence—improving our ability to map terrorist 

threats and prevent terrorist acts. The 9-11 tragedy exposed troubling gaps and 

weaknesses in our intelligence efforts and made it clear we need to improve the Federal Government’s ability to connect the dots, identify threats, and stop terrorism. 

Simply creating a new Department has not cured our intelligence weaknesses. In 

fact, the intelligence situation may have been muddled, not improved, by the creation of the DHS which appears to be causing new confusion over who has what 

intelligence responsibilities and who can be held accountable. The DHS will have 

a new intelligence capacity that will map threats and try to prevent future terrorist 

attacks. In addition to this, the administration recently announced the creation of 

a new intelligence entity called the Terrorist Threat Integration Center or TTIC. 

But frankly, I’m not convinced that anyone really understands what the TTIC will 

look like, what its mission will be, or how it will work with other intelligence agencies. 

We’ve been told, for example, that the TTIC is supposed to be a gathering point 

for all sources of intelligence on terrorism so that information can be analyzed and 

distributed. But that is also the mission of the Counter Terrorist Center in the Central Intelligence Agency. Today, the Counter Terrorist Center or CTC receives 

17,000 pieces of intelligence a month and produces about 300 outgoing intelligence 

products a month. All of the key agencies sit at the CTC table. But the same agencies are supposed to also participate in the TTIC. The question this Committee must 

ask is what is the expected relationship between the CTC and the TTIC? 

What are their respective intelligence roles and responsibilities? Will they share 

information and resources to minimize duplication and ensure effective communication? Or, by asking both entities to perform the same or similar tasks, will we diffuse responsibility, waste resources, and increase the risk of important information 

slipping through the cracks? 

In addition to defining the general relationship between the TTIC and CTC, it is 

critical to know which agency has primary responsibility for gathering, analyzing 

and distributing foreign intelligence to ensure this information is acted on. The statute failed to assign clear responsibility for handling foreign intelligence, which could 

be lodged in at least three places: The DDS, the TTIC, or the CTC. I have been talking about this issue for a year and a half, and it has yet to be clarified. 

6

On January 17, I asked Secretary Ridge whether the principle responsibility to 

analyze foreign intelligence would remain at the CTC. He said yes. At a hearing 

on February 26, I asked Deputy Secretary Gordon England the same question, and 

he also named the CTC. On February 26, I asked other administration officials with 

responsibility for intelligence matters to provide a written statement naming the 

agencies with primary responsibility for the analysis of foreign intelligence and domestic intelligence, and Chairman Collins seconded that request. It’s more than 2 

months later, yet nothing has been placed in writing. Given the size of the intelligence community, the potential for confusion, the importance of this matter, and 

the need for accountability, assigning the CTC primary responsibility for handling 

foreign intelligence needs to be placed in writing, and it’s unclear why that has yet 

to happen. 

A second critical issue involves the public’s right to know what the new Department is doing. When we first started the process of creating a Department of Homeland Security, a key concern was how to strengthen our national security without 

abandoning public oversight and the openness that a free society requires to function. It is frustrating to have to remind people that we reached a bipartisan compromise on this subject last summer—now almost 1 year ago—balancing the two 

concerns in a provision clarifying how the Freedom of Information Act would apply 

to the Homeland Security Act. But that bipartisan compromise, which also enjoyed 

administration support at the time, was dropped from the final bill in favor of much 

more restrictive language that over 50 public interest groups have been protesting 

ever since. To resolve this issue, Senators Leahy, Lieberman, Byrd and I have reintroduced the compromise as S. 609, the Restore FOIA bill. The Department also 

recently issued proposed rules on the subject, but that effort appears to have only 

further confused the issue and further inflamed public interest groups who believe 

the public has a right to reasonable amounts of information affecting their security, 

health, and safety. This issue continues to fester. 

A third critical issue that is only beginning to receive attention involves the role 

of the new Department in combating money laundering. Terrorists launder money 

to finance their schemes. Some terrorists also work with other criminals, such as 

drug traffickers, to obtain funds and other assistance to commit terrorist acts. For 

this reason, it is crucial to track down money launderers of all types around the 

globe and shut down their operations. It is also crucial to ensure that terrorists are 

not using our own financial systems against us, by moving funds through U.S. bank 

or securities accounts or misusing our trade laws to launder dirty money. The new 

Department has acquired some of the leading Federal experts on money laundering, 

including the Customs anti-money laundering unit known as Greenquest, which 

plays a key role in stopping terrorist financing and other money laundering efforts. 

But so far, it is unclear who at the new Department is in charge of the anti-money 

laundering mission and how the new Department is plugged into government-wide 

efforts to battle this problem. Money laundering is too important to get lost in the 

shuffle, and it needs to become much more of a DHS priority. 

That brings me to a final issue which is the focus of this hearing: How the new 

Department is working with State and local governments to fight terrorism. Complaints are increasing as to how the Department is issuing grants and allocating 

funds to State and local governments and first responders like fire fighters and the 

police. There is still no 800 number for grant information and still no one-stop grant 

process for State and local officials. Increases in DHS funds are apparently being 

offset by decreases in other Federal grants programs to the same units. For example, look at three grant programs for local police: COPS was funded in 2003 at $929 

million, but in 2004 the administration requested just $164 million, an 82 percent 

decrease; the Byrne Grants were funded at $651 million last year, but in 2004 the 

administration requested zero; and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program was funded at $400 million last year, but in 2004 the administration requested zero dollars. 

I was also extremely surprised and disappointed that when DHS announced recent grant awards to high-threat urban areas, absolutely no funds were allocated 

to Detroit. Detroit is the eighth largest metropolitan area in the country, it is home 

to the largest U.S.-Canadian border crossing in the Nation, it has a diverse immigrant population, and it has been the site of numerous recent investigations and 

prosecutions related to terrorism. Excluding Detroit from the initial round of funding for high-threat urban areas is a flat out mistake if homeland security is to be 

strengthened. It also indicates the current funding process is flawed, and that better 

criteria are needed for awarding funds to high-threat urban areas. There are also 

signs that key funding formulas need adjusting. For example, Wyoming now gets 

more funds per capita than Michigan for first responders, even though Michigan has 

20 times Wyoming’s population. This anomaly apparently results from the Office of 

7

Domestic Preparedness grant formula, which has a mandatory State minimum that 

many experts believe is set too high. Secretary Ridge has indicated that he would 

support adjusting at least some of the funding formulas, and I look forward to working with him to better target funds to match the country’s security needs. 

There is a lot of work that needs to be done, and I hope this Department will 

work with us in resolving some of the long-standing issues as well as addressing 

the new ones.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I 

am pleased to be here with Secretary Ridge. As a matter of fact, 

we have an Appropriations hearing going on right at this time on 

homeland security. I will be going over there from here. 

I am here for two reasons. One, I do really sincerely thank the 

Secretary for what he is doing and his responsiveness to our Congressional action so far. But I want to make this point. Legislation 

concerning homeland security should originate in this Committee 

and not on the floor of the Senate in appropriations bills, and I intend to oppose any such amendments now on appropriations bills 

to deal with the basic laws concerning homeland security. 

We have got to get back to the point where legislation is considered legislation. I think we are through the emergency phase after 

September 11, but we are setting the parameters for the relationships between the Federal Government and State and local governments on homeland security. I do not believe that all homeland security expenses, and costs should be underwritten by the Federal 

taxpayer and we have to define, in detail, in the legislation that 

comes from your committees and those in the House what that relationship should be. 

Clearly, we already have a substantial responsibility in supporting the National Guards of each individual State. Those are 

people involved and who have been involved in homeland security 

for years. 

There is a hope and a desire in every community in the country 

that we will find Federal money to assist in meeting the newly perceived requirements for homeland security. I, myself, have had one 

representative of a small area in my State come to tell me that I 

should help him get money for a new fire truck. When we looked 

into it, they never have had a fire truck. There is a limit to the 

amount of money that is going to be made available for homeland 

security, including first responders, but this Committee and your 

colleagues in the House should help us define, and Congress with 

the President’s approval should define what is that relationship. It 

should not occur on each individual appropriations bill that comes 

up. 

So I hope that you will join us in trying to decide that the authorizing committees are going to set those parameters. We will do 

our best to find the money within those parameters after you have 

established them. But I do believe it is time for us to come to 

agreement and to reduce the expectation of unlimited assistance 

from the Federal Government for homeland security that exists in 

State and local governments today. Thank you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Stevens. 

We have now begun a 15-minute vote. I am going to call on Senator Akaka. I am going to go vote. I would ask Senator Levin if he 

8

would call on my colleagues in my absence. I will get back as soon 

as I can, and if the time expires, we can take a short recess. Thank 

you. 

Senator LEVIN. I would be happy to do that. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I join 

you and my colleagues in welcoming Secretary Ridge to this hearing. 

Secretary Ridge, I share my colleagues’ concerns that since September 11, local governments have not received adequate funding 

to help them prepare for the possibility of new terrorist attacks. 

Just last month, this Committee heard from first responders who 

testified that sufficient funding for homeland security is still not 

reaching the local level. They told us that even when Federal assistance is received, restrictions prevent them from using grant 

funding for their specific needs. 

It is a huge challenge and we need to address this challenge. 

First responder funding is most effective when it is utilized for the 

specific needs of a community. For that reason, I am a cosponsor 

of Senator Collins’ legislation which provides States and localities 

with much-needed flexibility to use unspent grant funding. 

For example, an estimated 1.4 million people, including U.S. 

service members and tourists, are in Hawaii any given day. Formulas for first responder grants, however, are based on States’ permanent population. As a result, Hawaii is responsible for protecting a significantly higher population than is reflected in grant 

allocation formulas. 

Like other States, in the event of a terrorist attack, Hawaii 

would rely on support from Federal, State, and local officials. However, unlike most States, external assistance from the U.S. mainland is not immediately available. Hawaii’s geographic location 

makes mutual aid for mainland States impractical for that reason. 

Hawaii’s National Guard, State, and counter-response agencies require special consideration for additional homeland security funding to attain a comparable level of training and equipment to respond to a weapon of mass destruction attack. 

We must also maximize existing State capabilities which are so 

important to our homeland security. As an example, the State of 

Hawaii has an advanced database called the Criminal Justice Information System, or CJIS, which contains information which may 

be invaluable in preventing a terrorist attack. Currently, TSA is 

not accessing this information and I believe this is a mistake. We 

should promote better integration and sharing of possible terrorist 

information, which is the subject of a just-released GAO report. 

Secretary Ridge, I thank you for being here. As you and I have 

discussed before, funding for first responders is crucial to Hawaii 

given its strategic and geographic location, and I really do appreciate your willingness to work with me and our State officials and 

thank you so much for what you are doing for our country in your 

position now. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Senator LEVIN [presiding.] Thank you, Senator Akaka. Senator 

Carper. 

9

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Secretary Ridge, welcome today. I 

don’t think I have ever called you Secretary Ridge, Governor. It is 

nice to have you before us again. 

Secretary RIDGE. Thanks. 

Senator CARPER. I want to say thanks very much for joining us 

last night at the Fire Services Caucus dinner, where you hit not 

one home run, but maybe a couple with some men on base. 

The Chairman is gone. I want to thank her for holding the hearing, and her staff and our staffs for putting it together and certainly to you for being with us. We look forward to working with 

Senator Collins, Senator Lieberman, and others on trying to figure 

out how we can take this important program and make it better. 

I like to say that the road to improvement is always under construction and this road to improvement is going to be under construction for some time and we look forward to working with you 

on that. 

Last month, we had a hearing where, wonder of wonders, everybody agreed. Sometimes, I am sure you recall from the time that 

you served in the House, sometimes you have a hearing where all 

the witnesses disagree and it is hard to find a common thread. Last 

month, we had four local first responders—one of them was a police 

chief from Dover, Delaware—and they agreed on just about everything. They have been dealing with a number of their new homeland security responsibilities over the past 18 months or so and 

they told us that in doing their jobs since September 11, that they 

have been operating in what they described as an intelligence vacuum. They said they often learned about increases in our Nation’s 

terrorism threat levels not from the FBI or from our new Department but from the media. 

Again, any legislation authorizing a new Federal first responder 

aid program should streamline the grant approval process so that 

States and localities get the resources that they need faster, and 

I think we would all agree with that. It should also improve coordination between the Department of Homeland Security and States 

and local first responders. I would like to see more officials from 

States and localities given access to threat information so that they 

can deploy their scarce resources in the ways that they believe best 

protect their own citizens. 

I would also like to encourage the Department to begin offering 

States and localities technical assistance in putting together response plans and needs assessments so that emergency planners 

can better match what they are doing on the ground with what the 

intelligence community and the Federal experts think that is needed. 

This Committee would also, in my judgment, do well to consider 

creating a separate first responder grant program for localities. It 

is something that the Dover Police Chief and the other witnesses 

from our hearing last month were calling for. And while it is important that localities coordinate their emergency planning and 

equipment purchases with States, some, and especially in the larger urban areas, have special needs that might not be reflected in 

State plans. 

10

A new grant program for localities could also be used to encourage interstate coordination in metropolitan areas, such as those 

around Philadelphia, which include not only Southeastern Pennsylvania, but Southern New Jersey and the first State, the State of 

Delaware. 

With all that said, this Committee’s top priority should be to 

come up with a better formula for distributing first responder aid 

to States. The current formula is largely based on population and 

it shortchanges less populous States like my State that are home 

to some important critical infrastructure. Senator Collins actually 

mentioned a couple of them. Dover Air Force Base is one. We have 

the Northeast Corridor with all that it involves. Even though we 

don’t have a lot of people, we have a fair amount of threat for a 

State as small as ours is. 

I understand the need to give the larger States, especially those 

with densely populated urban areas, enough money to protect their 

larger populations. No State, though, should be less safe than our 

neighbors simply because we happen to have a relatively small 

population. 

The Federal Government should be working to bring every State 

and locality to the point where they are able to respond effectively 

to any potential threat. By distributing first responder aid to States 

based largely on population, I fear we will fail to do this. 

The current formula for distributing first responder aid ignores, 

as I said earlier, the fact that we do have a lot of unusual threats 

because of the Dover Air Force Base. About a third of the military 

airlift cargo material from the Afghanistan War went through the 

Dover Air Force Base, and a whole lot of it is going through that 

base again for Iraq and for the Middle East. 

I want to applaud your recent call, Governor Ridge, for a new 

formula that gives greater weight to risk and I urge you and our 

colleagues on this Committee to recognize that all States, large and 

small, must take certain steps and make certain expenditures in 

order to be minimally prepared for a major attack. 

When this Committee worked last year under Senator Lieberman’s leadership to create the Department of Homeland Security, 

I think all of our colleagues hoped that what we are setting up 

would help the Federal Government to be better able to prevent 

and respond to terrorist attacks. No matter how well you do your 

work, and your staff and team do their work, at the Federal level, 

we are not going to be much safer than we were before September 

11 unless our first responders are better prepared to do their work 

on the local level. 

While homeland security should certainly be a shared responsibility, it is vitally important that the Federal Government does its 

part to provide each State with enough first responder aid to ensure that our citizens are adequately protected. 

I would just add as a P.S.—Senator Collins mentioned this—she 

and I have introduced legislation that is designed to provide some 

greater flexibility to the State and local level. We don’t mandate redistribution, but we do provide the local folks with some greater 

discretion. I would urge you to take a look at that and hope you 

find some merit in it and perhaps can support it. Thank you, Mr. 

Secretary. 

11

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I’d like to begin by thanking you for holding this 

series of hearings on the Federal first responder aid program. I look forward to 

working with you, Senator Lieberman and the rest of the Committee on taking what 

we are learning here and finding a way to make this important program work better. In my view, there is much room for improvement. 

This Committee heard last month from four local first responders from different 

parts of the country, including Dover, Delaware Police Chief Jeffrey Horvath. All of 

them have been dealing with a number of new homeland security responsibilities 

over the past 2 years but have received little to no Federal aid. All of them have 

also been doing their jobs since September 11, 2001 in an intelligence vacuum, often 

learning about increases in the Nation’s terrorism threat level from the media before they hear it from the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security. 

I believe any legislation authorizing a new Federal first responder aid program 

should streamline the grant approval process so that States and localities get the 

resources they need faster. It should also improve coordination between the Department of Homeland Security and State and local first responders. I, for one, would 

like to see more officials from States and localities given access to threat information so that they can better deploy their scarce resources. I would also like to see 

the Department of Homeland begin offering States and localities technical assistance in putting together needs assessments and response plans so that emergency 

planners can better match what they’re doing on the ground with what they need 

to be doing to protect their citizens. 

This Committee would also do well to consider creating a new first responder 

grant program for localities, something Chief Horvath and the other witnesses from 

the last hearing called for. While it is important that localities coordinate their 

emergency planning and equipment purchases with States, some, especially larger 

urban areas, have special needs that might not be reflected in State plans. A new 

grant program for localities could also be used to encourage interstate coordination 

in metropolitan areas such as the area around Philadelphia encompassing southeastern Pennsylvania, northern Delaware and southern New Jersey. If a major incident were to occur in Philadelphia, first responders from neighboring jurisdictions 

in Delaware and New Jersey would certainly be called on to assist their colleagues 

in the city. The current first responder aid program, however, does not recognize 

that fact that planning and coordination does not stop at State borders. 

All that said, this Committee’s top priority should be to come up with a better 

formula for distributing first responder aid to States. The current formula, unfortunately is based largely on population so shortchanges less populous States like Delaware that are home to important critical infrastructure or that are situated in more 

dangerous, densely-populated parts of the country. 

I understand the need to give larger States, especially those with densely populated urban areas, enough money to protect their larger populations. No State, however, should be less safe than its neighbors simply because it has a smaller population. The Federal Government should be working to bring every State and locality 

to the point where they are capable of responding effectively to any potential threat. 

By distributing first responder aid to States based on population, however, I fear 

we will fail to do this. 

The current formula for distributing first responder aid ignores the fact that Delaware, small in population though it is, is located in the Northeast midway between 

New York and Washington. It ignores the fact that Delaware is home to a major 

port, oil refineries and chemical plants and everyday hosts scores of ships, trains 

and trucks as they make their way to destinations up and down the East Coast. 

It also ignores the fact Delaware is home to the Dover Air Force Base, a facility 

that played a crucial role in the war in Iraq. 

I applaud Secretary Ridge’s recent calls for a new formula that gives greater 

weight to risk. I urge him and my colleagues on this Committee to recognize, however, that all States, large and small, must take certain steps and make certain expenditures in order to be even minimally prepared for a major attack. 

When this Committee worked last year under Senator Lieberman’s leadership to 

create the Department of Homeland Security, I think all of my colleagues hoped 

that what we were setting up would help the Federal Government be better able 

to prevent and respond to terrorist attack. No matter how well Secretary Ridge does 

his work on the Federal level, however, we will not be much safer than we were 

on September 10, 2001 unless our first responders are better prepared to do their 

work on the local level. 

12

While homeland security should certainly be a shared responsibility, it is vitally 

important that the Federal Government does its part to provide each State with 

enough first responder aid to ensure that its citizens are adequately protected.

Secretary RIDGE. Thank you. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

I think we will now take a recess until Senator Collins returns, 

and I assume she will be back any minute. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman COLLINS [presiding.] The Committee will come to 

order. I would now like to call on Senator Voinovich for his opening 

remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chairman. As you know, I have a deep, abiding passion for improving 

intergovernmental relationships, and when it comes to investing in 

homeland security, failure is not an option. Therefore, I commend 

you for investing your time and energy and resources to investigate, evaluate, and develop solutions to improve the current 

homeland security grant process. 

I would also like to extend a warm greeting to my old friend, Secretary Ridge. I believe that you have one of the toughest jobs in 

the world. Merging 22 agencies into one Department comprised of 

over 170,000 employees is among the most significant challenges 

anyone has undertaken in the Federal Government since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. I think you have a 

tougher job than that. 

I am sure that the days when you were Governor of Pennsylvania, including the floods, seem heavenly compared to the challenge you are facing right now—— [Laughter.] 

And I just want to thank you and Michelle and your family for 

your sacrifice on behalf of your country. 

Secretary RIDGE. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I think people should really understand 

what a burden that you are carrying for our country, and I am glad 

that you are willing to do it. 

As former governors, we know what it takes to accomplish goals 

at the State and local levels of government. Executives’ decisions 

should be based on proper alignment and allocation of resources 

which are designed to meet a specific need within a community. 

Unfortunately, our current homeland security grant system is 

based on a fragmented structure that impedes the effective decisionmaking at the State and local governments, and I think you 

are aware of the problem. I am cosponsoring a bill with the Chairman of the Committee that moves the Office of Preparedness into 

your office. As you begin working in the Department, it is important for Congress to make small legislative changes to help you to 

get the job done and to respond to the needs of people on the State 

and local level. 

I think one of the biggest problems that we have, though, Mr. 

Secretary, is the fact that—and it is the one that Senator Stevens 

just mentioned before, and that is that there are big expectations 

out there about what we are going to do for State and local governments. We must put them in a position where they can respond to 

13

the new risks that they have because of September 11. I think it 

is really important to streamlike the grant dissemination process, 

but it is more important to clarify just exactly what it is that we 

are going to do in terms of helping State and local governments 

first and foremost. 

Senator Stevens made reference to a fire department that was in 

need of a fire engine, and because of September 11 and the new 

homeland security funding, they are going to obtain a fire engine. 

I have mayors that are telling me that they don’t like the fact the 

money is going into the States and then it is allocated to them. 

Some have expressed an interest in going back to the community 

development block grant program. As you recall, there is a large 

city entitlement program and then you have got the small cities entitlement. That might be a way of dealing with that problem. 

And then the other one that has been a problem is the issue of 

paying for personnel and do we anticipate paying for personnel. 

There is a provision, I guess, that you can only spend the money 

for equipment. Well, maybe that is what it is supposed to be. We 

are only going to pay for equipment or training. But are we involved in paying for personnel, adding new people to our fire department, police department, emergency medical services? Is that 

what this is all about? 

So there are a lot of these questions that I think that really need 

to be clarified, and my only suggestion to you would be that perhaps it is time for you to maybe sit down with the National League 

of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors and maybe our old National Governors Association and have a very honest dialogue with 

them about just who is responsible for what. 

I mean, we cannot prepare for every incident that can possibly 

happen and pay for it. If Osama bin Laden is alive today, the guy 

has got to be the happiest man in the world because he has 

wrought more on this country than probably any individual in the 

history of the United States of America, and if we keep going the 

way we are, we will bankrupt the country. There are just so many 

resources that we have and they have got to be allocated in the 

most efficient, effective way possible because you can’t possibly 

take care of everything. 

Madam Chairman, intelligence is probably the most important 

thing that we have in this country. If we have a good intelligence 

system and we can prevent things happening in this country, then 

we don’t have to spend the money to secure everything that we can 

possibly think of that could be in jeopardy. 

So you have a tough job and we want to work with you, and we 

know it is not going to happen overnight. I think that too often, 

those of us on the legislative side of government think you can 

snap your fingers and something is going to happen, and I know 

from my experience as Mayor of Cleveland and as governor, it 

doesn’t happen that way. I have to say that some of the most important changes I made in my governmental career took 3 and 4 

years to accomplish. It took time. And if I had rushed into them 

and tried to do it quickly, I would have fallen flat on my face. 

So I think that we need to be patient with you, and at the same 

time, I think you have to understand that we have got a lot of presVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:10 Aug 19, 2003 Jkt 088245 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\88245.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
14

1The prepared statement of Secretary Ridge appears in the Appendix on page 43. 

sure being put on us. People want action, and we just want you to 

know we want to work with you. 

Secretary RIDGE. Thanks, Senator. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. As 

a former mayor of a large city, your perspective is particularly 

helpful to this Committee as we try to define the appropriate relationships and roles of the Federal, State, and local governments for 

homeland security. 

I am now very pleased to welcome our witness today, Secretary 

of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, as we try to find ways to help 

our first responders and State Governments receive the resources 

that they need to succeed in their duties. 

Secretary Ridge officially assumed his position when the new Department of Homeland Security opened its doors on January 24 of 

this year. He had, however, been serving as the administration’s 

point person on homeland security since he was appointed as the 

first Director of the Office of Homeland Security in 2001. 

I would be remiss if I were not to mention that this past Tuesday 

marked the Department’s and the Secretary’s official first 100 days 

of work. In such a short time, Secretary Ridge and his team have 

put the new homeland security structure into place and completed 

the first phase of the largest Federal reorganization since World 

War II. He has also successfully implemented Operation Liberty 

Shield, deployed new programs and tools to protect our borders, 

and distributed billions of dollars in grants. 

I look forward to hearing the Secretary’s testimony today. Again, 

thank you for your hard work and for appearing before us today 

and please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. TOM RIDGE,1 SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary RIDGE. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Collins, Senator Voinovich, and to the distinguished Members of the 

Committee who I am sure will be joining us after the vote. 

It is a pleasure and a privilege to be here with you for my first 

appearance before the Governmental Affairs Committee—as your 

colleague Senator Carper mentioned—as Secretary of Homeland 

Security. This is, after all, the Committee’s principally responsible 

for the creation of the Department itself, and I thank you for your 

historic efforts in that undertaking and for your continued interest 

and support. 

I particularly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss possible ways to improve the Department’s homeland security grant programs. We, as Americans, have an appropriately deep sense of gratitude, respect, and admiration for the 

dedicated and courageous first responder community. They are the 

ones we turn to first in time of need and they never let us down. 

When something happens in the local community, whether it is by 

force of nature, a criminal act, or the force of evil, folks don’t dial 

area code 202 for help. They pick up the phone, and they call the 

local first responder. I think we now better appreciate that more 

than any other time in our Nation’s history. 

15

It is a priority of this administration and the Department of 

Homeland Security to effectively and efficiently meet our responsibility to support first responders as they play their critical role in 

counterterrorism efforts. I am pleased to be given the opportunity 

to work with leaders at the State and local level to ensure that this 

support, as all the Members of the Committee have noted very appropriately to make sure, is properly organized, properly focused, 

and properly funded. 

Today, we operate in both a fiscal and homeland security environment where we must ensure maximum benefit is derived from 

every security dollar. To do that, we must have the courage to 

question the way we do business and the will to make changes if 

we find that there is a better way. 

Two questions I would like to address today are, first, can we 

improve the way that the Department of Homeland Security’s first 

responder grant programs are organized? And second, can we improve the way that these grants are distributed? I believe the answer to both of these questions is an emphatic yes. 

Currently within the Department, the Office for Domestic Preparedness issues formula grants to State and local first responders 

from its placement within the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security. At the same time, the Directorate of Emergency 

Preparedness and Response issues fire grants to State and local 

fire fighters. At the same time, there is also an Office of State and 

Local Government Coordination, which serves as our principal liaison to State and local entities, but this office doesn’t administer 

any grant programs at all. 

All three of these entities are doing a superb job with their respective programs, but without a doubt, the degree of coordination 

is far greater than before the Department was created, and yet I 

believe, and I think it is shared by the Chairman and many Members of the Committee, that there are steps available to us that 

would streamline and improve the important work that they do in 

supporting our State and local partners in the war on terrorism. 

The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2004 proposes that 

all monies for both the Office for Domestic Preparedness and fire 

grant programs be administered through the Office for Domestic 

Preparedness. The request is a $3.5 billion commitment to support 

first responders, and it is a major step toward simplifying the administration and dissemination of first responder grants. It would 

also move State and local governments toward the much-needed 

one-stop shop they have been seeking, consolidate related functions 

within the Department of Homeland Security, and certainly would 

improve the coordination among these programs. 

S. 796, a bill written and cosponsored by Chairman Collins and 

Senators Lieberman and Durbin, takes a second and equally important step. It would move the Office for Domestic Preparedness from 

its current placement within the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security and place it within the Office of State and Local 

Government Coordination. It would also strategically place funding 

programs for State and local first responders within the office directly responsible for maintaining communications and coordinating Department activity with State and local governments. 

16

The administration supports the move of ODP as proposed in 

this legislation, and I look forward to the opportunity to work with 

everyone on this Committee, the Chairman and the Ranking Member, in a bipartisan fashion on the particulars of the bill. 

Both of the above-mentioned steps will substantially increase the 

efficiency with which these programs operate. There are additional 

changes, though, that are needed to reach similar improvements to 

increase the effectiveness of the grants. 

We have learned much about securing our homeland since September 11, 2001. One lesson that has become clear is that we certainly can improve upon the formula currently being used for distribution of ODP grants as partially defined within the PATRIOT 

Act. The concept behind the PATRIOT Act is valid. Security needs 

to be improved everywhere, and more protection is usually needed 

where more people reside or work. The current formula fails to recognize that linear population increases do not always equate to linear threat increases. Concentrations of people, critical infrastructure, and politically attractive targets can tend to increase threat 

levels exponentially. 

The need to separate out funds for high-threat urban areas was 

first recognized and addressed in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus 

Bill. That need was again addressed in the fiscal year 2003 Wartime Supplemental. While the steps taken in these bills are effective in the short term, I believe we need to address the cause behind the need for them, as well, and make long-term, better yet, 

permanent changes to the distribution formula. 

In that spirit, DHS is currently working to develop an updated 

formula that better takes into account threats, population density, 

and presence of critical infrastructure. We look forward to working 

with Members of this Committee, Members of Congress, our Nation’s State and local first responders, and stakeholder communities throughout this entire process to ensure that effective and 

equitable funding is provided. 

Let me close with a reaffirmation of the administration’s, of the 

Department’s, and my own personal commitment to our Nation’s 

heroic first responders. We all salute them for their patriotism and 

thank them for their service. The people at the Department of 

Homeland Security are committed to doing all within our power 

and purview to see that the first responder community and all 

those involved in protecting our homeland are part of a well organized, properly resourced, and focused team. 

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to share these 

thoughts on this most important topic and welcome any questions 

you might have. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Before turning to questions, I would like to give the Senator from 

Illinois an opportunity for any opening comments that he might 

like to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR FITZGERALD 

Senator FITZGERALD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would just 

ask unanimous consent to submit my opening remarks for the 

record. 

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection. 

17

Senator FITZGERALD. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Fitzgerald follows:]

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETER G. FITZGERALD 

Good morning, Secretary Ridge. I want to join my colleagues in welcoming you 

today. The last time you appeared before this Committee was for your nomination 

hearing on January 17. You and the Department of Homeland Security have accomplished a lot since then, and I want to thank you for your dedication and leadership 

in protecting our Nation and the American people from acts of terrorism. 

The subject of today’s hearing is streamlining and enhancing homeland security 

grant programs. I have heard from a number of Illinois officials regarding the need 

to streamline the homeland security grant process to expedite the allocation of 

funds, especially to first responders. Therefore, I want to thank Chairman Collins 

for holding this timely and important hearing today. 

As we consider this issue, it is important to ensure that tax dollars allocated for 

homeland security are invested wisely and that the investment is maximized to the 

greatest extent possible. 

One area for consideration is how funds are spent when localities respond to 

heightened alert levels. The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently reported that cities 

spend an estimated $70 million more per week when the national threat level is 

Code Orange, compared to Code Yellow. Localities across the country deploy police 

officers and other emergency response personnel for longer hours in what appears 

to be a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach. This leads to significant overtime expenses although there is no specific local threat. I look forward to hearing how the Department of Homeland Security is providing guidance and intelligence to localities to improve the allocation of limited resources. 

A second way to maximize the Federal investment is to minimize duplication and 

overlap of homeland security programs through close coordination at the State and 

local levels. The State of Illinois, for example, has a Terrorism Task Force that includes over 40 agencies, associations and organizations throughout the State. The 

Terrorism Task Force represents law enforcement, fire service, public health, emergency management, public works, and other disciplines. With limited resources, this 

Task Force is working to ensure a coordinated domestic preparedness strategy in 

our State. I would be interested to hear how the Department of Homeland Security 

is working with State and local officials to foster collaboration and coordination in 

the allocation of grant funds. 

Another way in which the Department can help ensure the best use of tax dollars 

is through rigorous audits and financial management. As the Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security, I have a special interest in the issue of independent audits of Federal agencies and in making our government more accountable to the taxpayers. 

In January 2003, the General Accounting Office (GAO) included the Department 

of Homeland Security on its so-called ‘‘High Risk’’ list as a program with Major 

Management Challenges and Program Risks. Strong financial management systems 

are necessary to ensure that homeland security funds are not misdirected at the 

Federal, State, or local level. Therefore, I look forward to hearing what steps the 

Department is taking to institute financial systems that will ensure sound accounting of homeland security grant funds. 

On a related issue, news reports indicate that the FBI this week issued an alert 

to State and local law enforcement agencies regarding nuclear power plants. Although no specific threats were reported, the FBI urged that the plant owners and 

operators should be aware of any suspicious activity that may signal a possible terrorist attack. In addition, on Tuesday of this week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued new security rules for nuclear power plants. I look forward to hearing 

your views on these developments. 

Again, thank you Secretary Ridge, for being here today and for your leadership 

on behalf of the American people. 

Thank you, Chairman Collins.

Chairman COLLINS. Secretary Ridge, I want to start my questions by following up on your testimony about the allocation of Federal funds. We all know that formula fights are never pretty. Pitting various regions or cities in the country against one another as 

they scramble for Federal funds is always a difficult task. 

18

The largest source of homeland security funding now is ODP’s 

State Homeland Security Grant Program, and it is my understanding that ODP currently distributes the funds based on a minimum State allocation of 0.75 percent and then adjusts the rest according to population. Is that essentially correct? 

Secretary RIDGE. That is correct. The States each get three-quarters of one percent of whatever the dollar amount is, the territories 

get one-quarter of a percent, and the rest is population-based. You 

are absolutely correct. 

Chairman COLLINS. And I know that you are looking at modifying the formula. You make the point in your comments that population doesn’t necessarily equate to threat, and we certainly know 

that population density would in no way have predicted the unwelcome role that my small State played in the September 11 attacks. 

In addition, population-based formulas don’t take into account 

the presence of historic monuments that might be attractive targets, seaports, whether the State is a border State, military bases 

or other particularly vulnerable targets. Could you expand for the 

Committee on what factors the Department is looking at as you attempt to come up with recommendations for a new formula? 

Secretary RIDGE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would be 

pleased to. We have run some exercises using the traditional formula, which is the basic allocation plus population, and have used 

varying weighting on threat, that is, the threat which would be acknowledged by the intelligence community, analysts from the FBI 

would take a look at the region or the State, from the Department 

of Homeland Security, from the CIA, so that we have taken a look 

at the basic funding formula plus weighting some factor for purposes of the threat assessment. Based on intelligence information, 

the threat may be higher in certain cities or communities than others. Then we plugged in a certain weighting factor for vulnerability. Vulnerability relates to the infrastructure, both public and 

private, in a particular region or community. And then, clearly, 

there is a place for population density. 

To date, we haven’t, in the numbers and the dry runs that we 

have done on a Statewide or national basis, haven’t found anything 

that’s acceptable. That’s why we welcome the opportunity to work 

with Congress to find something that is acceptable. 

It is much easier, and I think Congress may have given us a 

pathway that I think we should discuss, because I do start with the 

notion that every State needs a minimum level of funding, because 

there will be training. One of our jobs is to create national training 

standards and certify them, and so States will be, I think, ultimately in need of X-number of dollars for training their first responders and their first preventers. 

So, you start with a basic formula and then you add these other 

components of threat and vulnerability and population. It is much 

easier to apply that, we think, to either large urban areas or regions. What Congress did in the 2003 bill, by giving the traditional 

funding of $1.5 billion, and then there was $100 million for an 

urban security initiative. In the supplemental, there was a traditional funding and then $700 million for high-threat or urban security areas. 

19

There is a little bit more flexibility in that, and so I think there 

is possibly a combination of both where we may take a look at the 

formula, where we make sure all the States get a minimum level 

of funding because there are certain things that the Federal Government wants the States to do, and the Congress has said those 

dollars are distributed 20 percent to the States, 80 percent to the 

locals. And then, another pool of funding is available where I think, 

frankly, the threat assessment and the vulnerability assessment, 

more clarity and more precision is brought. 

But no matter what we do, Madam Chairman, we will attribute 

certain weight and certain value to the threat, the vulnerability, 

the population, and population density. We just have to see if we 

can come to some agreement as to what the weighting factor is. 

Having said all that, and I didn’t mean to give you such a longwinded answer to a very complicated problem, but at the end of the 

day, I hope that while we are discussing the formula, we say to our 

friends, governors, the cities, and mayors, as Senator Voinovich 

pointed out, we shouldn’t distribute a dollar, a security dollar, unless it is consistent with a plan, an overarching plan brought to us 

by the States. 

That doesn’t mean we are going to necessarily send all the 

money through the States to distribute through the locals. But 

every security dollar we should distribute should be distributed according to a plan rather than trying to respond to the individual 

requests of thousands and thousands of communities around the 

country. 

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. Secretary, let me follow up on your point 

about having a plan. One of the concerns that I hear from State 

and local officials is that there are too many homeland security 

plans required, each with its own set of benchmark and questions. 

I am told by emergency management officials in my State, for example, that they have to have an emergency management plan for 

ODP, for FEMA, for the Department of Health and Human Services, for the Environmental Protection Agency, that there are a lot 

of the same questions, that there is no coordination. That produces 

a lot of paperwork for them. 

Shouldn’t there be a way to consolidate some of those plans? A 

plan is very important, and we all agree that should be required. 

But do we need to require so many plans to so many different 

agencies? 

Secretary RIDGE. Madam Chairman, you and your colleagues are 

absolutely correct. One of the challenges we have, and I believe together we can solve it, is to eliminate the duplication in the planning process associated with dollars that not only relate to terrorism and counterterrorism activity, but as you indicated, there is 

a lot of overlap on basic questions, because some of the training 

and the exercise equipment that you may get from one agency are 

really relevant and useful in the event of another non-terrorist-related event. So I think there is enormous benefit that we could 

bring to the whole process of ensuring that every dollar is well and 

wisely spent if we work together to consolidate that process. 

We are doing the same thing. Over the years, there have been 

four or five national incident management plans. Congress said to 

this agency, you develop one, and said to another agency, you deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:10 Aug 19, 2003 Jkt 088245 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\88245.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
20

velop one. We don’t need four or five national incident management 

plans, we need one. 

And so I certainly would look forward during the 2004 budget 

cycle to working with this Committee to see what we can do to reduce the paperwork. Ultimately, our goal in the Department of 

Homeland Security is to have all plans submitted to us without 

paper, and I think a lot of the folks out there, the States and the 

locals, would appreciate having the opportunity to submit one 

paperless plan to one agency that would direct a substantial part 

of their funding. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I have additional 

questions for the next round, but I will now turn to Senator Levin 

and I want to thank Senator Levin for presiding while I was voting. 

Senator LEVIN. I am afraid I didn’t fully occupy that spot because 

I had to leave and had to recess, but sorry we couldn’t quite connect the dots. 

Chairman COLLINS. It went well. 

Senator LEVIN. Mr. Secretary, in your initial grant announcement of high-threat urban area grants, I was, frankly, quite surprised to see that my home town was not there given the obvious 

factors that exist, including the border location, the highest commerce point between ourselves and Canada, the whole population 

issue, what that population is, the nature of that population in 

terms of the immigration and so forth. 

But in your grant announcement, you said that the cities were 

chosen by applying a formula based upon a combination of factors, 

including population density. And then it reads, critical infrastructure and threat vulnerability assessment. Can you tell us something about that, that criteria that was used——

Secretary RIDGE. Yes. 

Senator LEVIN [continuing]. Critical infrastructure and threat 

vulnerability assessment. Was there a factor given to that? Was 

there a qualitative number given to all of the cities that were considered, or how did that work? 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, thank you for the opportunity to ex- plain the distribution of that $100 million. As I mentioned briefly, 

I think Congress gave us the discretion, but with some guidance, 

and said, come up with an assessment based on the factors that 

you mentioned, threat, what does the intelligence community view 

the nature of the threat based on information they have secured 

about either this city, this region, or this State. Again, we looked 

and got three different estimates from our own shop. We had the 

FBI take a look at it. We had the CIA take a look at it. And by 

and large, the estimates were pretty much the same. In a classified 

session, I will be happy to show you what we did. 

Vulnerability—you can’t confuse threat from vulnerability. 

Threat is basically an assessment based on information that the intelligence community has. Vulnerability has a lot to do with the 

kind of infrastructure that exists if subject to a terrorist attack 

could result in a catastrophic loss of human life or enormous economic disruption. 

And then, obviously, we weighted population. More often than 

not in the United States, the greatest possibility of a catastrophic 

21

loss is associated with infrastructure close to or proximately located 

next to a large urban area, and we weighted it, and admittedly, the 

factors that we put in the equation for threat and vulnerability and 

population density are a variation. You gave us the discretion and 

we did it. We came up with those cities, and obviously, your city 

of Detroit and other cities were assessed. 

I then made the decision, and I will take full responsibility for 

it, that instead of sending out a little money to a lot of cities to 

make significant investments in the cities that under our formula 

seemed to merit the support with that limited amount of money. 

I assure you, Senator, using basically the same formula, Detroit, 

because of population density, and infrastructure, will be there. 

But again, it is something I would be very happy to share with 

you privately. 

Senator LEVIN. I would like to see those numbers that were allocated——

Secretary RIDGE. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator LEVIN [continuing]. And the various criteria, and I assume other Members of the Committee would also be interested. 

But in any event, I would be interested. 

Secretary RIDGE. Yes. 

Senator LEVIN. Now, I want to go back to the coordination of intelligence question. There is a new independent intelligence agency 

called TTIC, or the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. The operation was announced yesterday. 

I would like to know the relationship between your Directorate 

for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection and TTIC 

and the Counterterrorist Center, the CTC. It seems to me that 

there is some duplication involved there. I don’t quite understand, 

and I read the article about the operational announcement yesterday describing it, and it sounds an awful lot like the CTC to me, 

both in the CIA, both analyzing intelligence, foreign intelligence. 

But what is your understanding, first, of the difference between 

the CTC and TTIC, and second, what is your relationship between 

your agency and both of those two entities, and finally, we suggested at our last hearing that there be a written statement as to 

what the responsibilities are, because if they are not clear, if they 

become vague, we are not going to have accountability and we are 

going to have a repeat of the intelligence failure that we saw prior 

to September 11. So we have got to be very clear on responsibility 

so that we have accountability in this process. 

So what is your understanding of those three relationships and 

will there be a written statement of those three relationships forthcoming? 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, the CTC, the Counterterrorism Center, the CIA, the FBI’s analytical team, DOD, the new Department 

of Homeland Security, and several other agencies, as you know, 

have their own independent analytical teams. There is no single 

place, no single venue, where all the information generated by all 

of those information gathering agencies within the Federal Government, as well as external international sources, is located. 

TTIC, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, will be the final 

and ultimate consumer and collection point for all of the information. The CTC feeds information as does the FBI. We have several 

22

intelligence gathering units within our Department. We will feed 

information in. 

So the Threat Integration Center is the venue that has access to 

all the information generated by everybody else on a day-to-day, 

real-time basis. It will continue to get stronger and better as each 

of the individual agencies improve their technology assessment capability within it. That is number one. 

Senator LEVIN. Because my time is up, what will it get in terms 

of information to analyze that the Counterterrorism Center does 

not get? What will TTIC receive in terms of information that it is 

supposed to analyze and be ultimately responsible for that the 

Counterterrorist Center does not receive? 

Secretary RIDGE. I think there are certainly occasions when information generated by Federal agencies as a matter of course, 

don’t necessarily get to the CTC. I think with the new Department 

of Homeland Security, as I have traveled around the country, and 

I think you have, too, as we are developing State and local sources 

of critical information relating to terrorist activity, that information 

will be poured into the TTIC. I think there are significant pieces 

of information that are out there in the world that don’t, as a matter of course, get to the CIA, and I think, again, this is the single 

collection point for all of that. 

Our unit, the information analysis and infrastructure protection 

unit, is both a consumer of that information from the TTIC and a 

provider of information to it. We will have some of our analysts 

working side-by-side on a daily basis with the other analysts in the 

CIA, the FBI, and DOD on a day-to-day basis, as well. 

So the advantage it gives to us in the new Department, and 

there was a lot of concern expressed by Members of Congress, is 

access to raw data. Will you have access to the work products or 

the raw material generated by all these other agencies? The answer is absolutely yes, because we will be placing some of our own 

analysts from the Department of Homeland Security to work on a 

day-to-day basis within the Threat Integration Center. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would just like to comment that I am as 

much concerned about this as Senator Levin is in terms of the coordination of all this intelligence because I think that is the best 

defense that we have against terrorism, and if we did that right, 

then a lot of these other costs wouldn’t have to be incurred. So I 

do think that is real important. 

Second of all, according to the General Accounting Office, there 

are 16 different grant programs for the Nation’s first responders. 

I would like to suggest that as you are looking at the idea of bringing the domestic preparedness into the State and local coordination, that possibly you might get in touch with Health and Human 

Services and the Department of Justice, who have programs, and 

see if there was some way that you would have a one-stop shop 

where it all comes into that one place. 

Also, about 3 years ago, I introduced a bill with Rob Portman 

from Ohio called the Federal Financial Assistance Management 

Improvement Act. The purpose of it was to untangle the web of 

Federal grants available to States and localities and nonprofits. It 

23

directs each Federal agency to develop and implement a plan that, 

among other things, streamlines and simplifies the application, administrative, and reporting procedures for Federal grant and loan 

programs and also reporting on them. I suggest you examine what 

other agenceis are doing to implement this law. I know HHS is 

spearheading one of the President’s E-Government initiatives 

called E-Grants. That might be a good place to start. 

The other issue, as the Mayor of Columbus is concerned about, 

he says, ‘‘I only can use money for equipment, but none for personnel,’’ and I suspect the reason why they can’t use it for personnel is that you didn’t anticipate that they would be using it for 

personnel, and some of them are saying, well, if you get the equipment, I need the personnel. I think that needs to be clarified. Are 

there instances where money is made available for personnel? 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, I think the answer to that is to support overtime payments for personnel, but here is one of those defining issues that I think, at least from our perspective, Congress 

may have a different perspective. From our perspective within the 

Department, historically, there has been primarily a State and 

local responsibility to provide for public safety. Historically, mayors, the Mayor of Cleveland, Governors of Ohio and Pennsylvania 

worked to provide money for police and fire and emergency responders and the like, and I think that is still very much a part 

of the Federal system that we have. 

And so I think the notion that even under the new circumstances 

under which we operate in the 21st Century, combatting international terrorism, that the Federal Government would be involved 

in the hiring of local or State police and fire fighters, that is just 

not, I think, consistent with the history or the appropriate approach toward the shared responsibility of dealing with this issue. 

I have heard from governors and mayors that they would like 

that some of the dollars that we are distributing now be allocated 

not just to training and exercises and equipment, but to overtime, 

because some of the things that we have asked them to do and 

some of the things they have had to do when we have gone to Code 

Orange or Liberty Shield involved keeping people at work longer. 

I think that is a legitimate cost that we should help them absorb. 

So as we go about talking about flexibility either now or in the future, I think overtime costs related to enhanced security, particularly at the direction of the Federal Government, should be an eligible cost. 

Senator VOINOVICH. That being clarified would help a great deal, 

I think. 

The other issue is that we have seven high-threat cities, and I 

think you have already answered that, that you allocated those 

funds because you felt, based on your assessment, those are the 

ones that were most vulnerable. But Detroit, Columbus, other cities—for instance, Columbus is the capital city. There are many defense installations and so forth. Are you contemplating adding any 

more? 

Secretary RIDGE. Absolutely, Senator. The $700 million, even 

with the same formula, gives us a lot more flexibility to make significant investments in additional cities, as well. There was a question of whether I thought the Congress wanted me to dilute those 

24

dollars or really make a significant investment in enhancing the security of those communities, and I thought it would be better to 

make that significant investment. Then you gave us the same flexibility with a lot more money, so there will be quite a few more cities that will benefit. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And I am just as interested in how that is 

going to be done. 

I am also concerned about the Emergency Management Performance Grant, the EMPG. As you know, they are the backbone of our 

Nation’s State and local government emergency management agencies. According to Dale Shipley, who runs our EMS situation in 

Ohio, EPMG’s have not been identified in the 2004 budget. How is 

that going to be taken care of? 

Secretary RIDGE. I have had that good conversation, maybe even 

with Dale, but when I was in Ohio a couple of times, emergency 

management professionals talked to me about that, some from our 

own State of Pennsylvania have, and the like. It is not identified 

specifically, but I know its role and how important it is to planning 

and then operational preparation. 

So I have assured the emergency management community that 

I supported those grants. One, I felt there was a good possibility 

that Congress may just restore the line item, but in the event they 

didn’t, I think it is a critical program and I would ensure they had 

funding similar to last year’s level at the minimum. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The last question would be just how you are 

going to continue the 100 percent grant program, because many of 

the communities are strapped right now for funds and they are interested in knowing whether their rules are going to change. 

Secretary RIDGE. Under the ODP program, as a matter of fact, we just went online yesterday with the $1.5 billion you gave us in 

the supplemental. The rules haven’t changed. While you gave us 

the discretion to send some of that money out based on threat and 

vulnerability and critical infrastructure, again, we worked hard to 

see if we could make a formula work. We weren’t satisfied with 

anything we came up with. We also saw you gave us $700 million 

where we thought the formula worked much better. So that $1.5 

billion is going out as Congress directed, 80 percent to local communities, 20 percent to the States under the traditional ODP formula. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Secretary RIDGE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. Senator Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The first question I have is about interoperable communications. 

We have had some discussion about this in this Committee, and I 

think you have been part of that and some of your people at Homeland Security have. Is there something that this Committee should 

be doing to encourage this and get interoperable communications 

systems in place? 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, Congress has been, I think, fairly generous, appropriating in excess of $40 million so that we can run 

some demonstration projects with regard to interoperability of comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:10 Aug 19, 2003 Jkt 088245 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\88245.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
25

munications. That is something that we are engaged in now. That 

is something that the science and technology unit of the new Department has as one of its highest priorities. 

There was an announcement in the past couple of days that the 

FCC has expanded the broadband that will be available for homeland security, so right now, Senator, it is a high priority. It is a 

work in progress, and at some point in time, I will get back to you 

either privately or publicly and respond to the Committee to tell 

you where we are and how the demonstration projects are working 

out. 

Senator PRYOR. Great. I know that today, there has been a lot 

of discussion about the grant process and the money and the complexity there has made it difficult to actually get the money to the 

local level. Obviously, this Committee has focused on it. It is important. You have acknowledged many times already it is important. 

But I want to talk about other things that are on your plate, 

other things that you are dealing with that are important, as well. 

And what I would like for you to do is just tell me, as a Member 

of this Committee, what should we be focused on to help you accomplish your mission? I mean, what tools do you need? What logjams do you need us to help break through? What do we need to 

be doing to help you accomplish your mission? 

Secretary RIDGE. Well, I think, first of all, the Chairman and 

Ranking Member have identified a couple of operational needs that 

we have so that we can streamline security plans and streamline 

the distribution process. We will have further consultation with you 

with regard to getting more and better information down to the 

State and locals. 

But I will tell you, I think one of the most important things if 

we could reach agreement on with Capitol Hill, which means we 

have got to get agreement with our friends, the mayors and the 

governors and the like, that security dollars are distributed according to plans, not on an ad hoc basis, because, obviously, we will 

need to build in the years ahead basic capacities around the country, so that within large cities and then within regions, there are 

certain kinds of equipment, training exercises, and protocols that 

are fairly commonplace. We need in the new Department to set certain standards for communications, standards for equipment, and 

then certify that certain manufacturers meet our standards and let 

the mayors, police, governors, and fire fighters negotiate the best 

deal. 

So we know we have a role here, but I think one of the biggest 

challenges we have in terms of using Federal dollars most effectively is getting everybody on the same page. There has to be some 

mechanism that we can compare the request for the dollars and the 

expenditure to an outcome that we all want and see as important 

to this country in enhancing our security. 

I have talked to the League of Cities. I have talked to the NGA. 

I have talked to the mayors, and there is a predictable and traditional preference that they just come down and make their own application and fund it accordingly. 

I understand the concerns of local governments. They are afraid 

that if we just send the money to the governor’s office that it is 

going to get tied up there. I think there are ways we can certainly 

26

obviate that. But I think the bigger issue is, let us agree on the 

strategic plan, capacity building over the years, and I think we can 

work out the funding stream rather easily. 

Senator PRYOR. Do you feel like the process is in place to get 

through that logjam, or is it——

Secretary RIDGE. No, it is not. Candidly, I have spent the last 

year trying to convince folks that this is the best way to go about 

doing it. We have made a lot of progress. Everybody out there 

shares the common goal. They want to do the best for their community. They want to access the most dollars for their community. 

And they do understand the need for mutual aid. But some are 

more inclined to do it than others, and I just think that if we can 

work together here at the national level and say to our friends out 

there, you are going to get the dollars, and we will assure you that 

you will get them in a timely way. But, they are Federal dollars, 

and we just want to make sure that they are spent according to 

a plan. I don’t think that is too much to ask. 

I think, just with your support, we will bring in the League of 

Cities and the NGA and everybody else to see how we can best do 

this, and I think if we streamline some of these grant programs, 

they might be far more inclined to do it. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Well, that is good to know, and I am about 

to run out of time, but let me ask one last question. In the past 

when we have talked about establishing the new Department, establishing a model agency, one that is very efficient, very effective, 

very good at what you do. And I know it is early in the history of 

the Department of Homeland Security, but if you can, grade yourself, grade the agency on how you are doing in terms of efficiency 

and effectiveness and completing your mission. 

Secretary RIDGE. We haven’t even had the mid-term first quarter 

exam yet. 

Senator PRYOR. I look forward to it. 

Secretary RIDGE. But I will tell you this. What I will grade is the 

interest, the desire, and, I think, by and large, the morale of the 

175,000 to 180,000 people working in the Department. Some of 

them have been involved in agencies that haven’t enjoyed the best 

public relations and they feel perhaps put upon, sometimes legitimately, sometimes not, but these people go to work every single 

day. They work hard. They work as smart as they can. 

Our job is to not only manage it better and organize it differently 

to build new capacity, but to train them better, to provide them 

more and better technologies. They are good people that are working hard. I will let somebody else give us a grade, but I think we 

have made a lot of progress in the first 100 days. But we still have 

an enormous amount of work to do, and on some of these critical 

issues, we will need Congressional support in order to get it done. 

Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Fitzgerald. 

Senator FITZGERALD. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Secretary Ridge, welcome back to the Committee. I want to compliment you again. I think you are doing a wonderful job, and keep 

it up. You are providing strong leadership for the new Department. 

27

I want to follow up with your answer to one of Senator Pryor’s 

questions. You point out the need that allocating funds for homeland security should be based more on a plan than perhaps we are 

doing now, and it strikes me that you are really hitting on a key 

problem we have with these grant programs. I know the requests 

that are coming into my office, including a lot of communities all 

over my State that come to my colleagues from the Illinois Congressional delegation and me asking for this and that. Every local 

community wants more money. 

Half of what we do all day is talk to people who want more 

money, but we are not proceeding according to a plan here. I imagine that we are allowing too many political considerations to come 

into play. Your Department is probably receiving letters from Senators and Congressmen demanding a grant for this town or this 

city, and some House Committee Chairman or some key Senator 

who is up for reelection, who knows. These political considerations 

are going to come into play too much. 

Do you think we should maybe consider revamping the whole 

system to try and wall it off more from the political considerations? 

This is serious business. These are not pork projects. They are not 

public works projects. We are talking about the people’s security. 

Is there something we could do to wall this off from politics more? 

Secretary RIDGE. First, Senator, I would share with you, and I 

think we all agree, anybody that has been in public service longer 

than a day, and I have been there 20-plus years and some of my 

colleagues here have been here longer, no one ever walked across 

my threshold in the Congressional office or the governor’s office 

and lobbied me for less. 

Senator FITZGERALD. Yes. 

Secretary RIDGE. No one ever walked in and said, well, you really 

gave me a lot of money last year. I don’t need as much this year. 

When it happens, I hope you will call me. 

So I understand. There is enormous pressure on all of us to try 

to find more resources, particularly during times when revenues 

are down at the State and local and national levels. So I understand that. 

I think that the existing grant programs that I have seen are 

products of the debate and perhaps compromise on the Hill as part 

of the political process. But like the ODP program or any of the 

other grant programs, I think Congress has pretty much immunized them from the politics of the town or the moment because 

there is a formula. We used the political system to decide everybody deserves a baseline and we used the system to decide, plus 

the baseline, you need to calculate and give credit to population 

and population density. 

So I am not worried at all about that. I think Congress has legitimized the process and made sure that the dollars go out absent 

any political considerations. This is why we need to engage ourselves in rethinking what that formula might be. 

Senator FITZGERALD. So you are saying all the letters we write 

don’t really matter? [Laughter.] 

Secretary RIDGE. I will tell you, there aren’t too many places, 

Senator, in the grant program that I have seen where you have 

given us discretion, we have used it, but we have used it based on 

28

calculations and weighting factors that you told us we could use. 

If the letter is consistent with the conclusion we drew from the 

weighting factors, you got the money, and if it wasn’t, you didn’t 

get it, so——

Senator FITZGERALD. I am glad to hear that, and if there is anything we need to be doing, let us know, because I think the money 

needs to be going out the door strictly on the merits, based on our 

security needs. 

With respect to the financial management of your Department, 

in January, the GAO included the Department of Homeland Security on its high-risk list, citing a number of major management 

challenges and program risks that you have. You are bringing in 

so many other components and consolidating them. Do you feel you 

are going to be able to get a grip on the financial records across 

the board and come up with clean financial statements that comply 

with the Chief Financial Officers Act that we are now requiring all 

the Departments to follow and hopefully get clean audit opinions 

every year? 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, that January report really just highlighted the circumstances around financial management practices 

of the different units that we began to consolidate on March 1. One 

of the things that we have done, we have taken a look at those 

GAO reports and Inspector General reports and basically gone back 

to those units saying, one of the first orders of business, since this 

is criticism with regard to either process or organization or fiscal 

management, is clean this up as we go about consolidating our effort. And I think, in fact, the process of consolidation and stricter 

accountability and more controls will help us address that. But 

those documents highlighted some challenges that we have and it 

is our job to meet the challenges, so we view them as constructive 

direction. 

Senator FITZGERALD. And finally, I just want to ask a question 

about nuclear power plant security. I saw briefly on the news yesterday some reports indicating that the FBI had this week issued 

an alert to State and local law enforcement agencies regarding nuclear power plants. I didn’t see much more about it this morning. 

We are heavily reliant in Illinois on nuclear power. Almost 50 

percent of our power statewide comes from nuclear power, and we 

have more nuclear power plants than any other State. Can you 

give me an overview of what your Department is doing with respect 

to nuclear power plant safety? 

Secretary RIDGE. Well, first of all, as you know, the nuclear facilities are under the control and regulated for both safety and security purposes by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Since September 11, 2001, there have been a series of initiatives that they 

have undertaken to assess vulnerability, and based on the assessment, improve security at each site. We work closely with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They have at least an individual accountable to them at each facility and we—and they monitor not 

only the assessments, but the actions that have been done, that 

have been taken in order to enhance security at those facilities, 

and they have the regulatory authority to direct that it be done if 

it is not. 

29

To date, it is my understanding that the assessments have been 

completed and that the enhanced security has been begun. Some 

of it is new construction. Some of it is with regard to perimeter security, cameras and the like. We have worked with them to do 

background checks, not only on employees, but contractors and subcontractors who come in, because there is constant work going on 

at these nuclear facilities. 

So I think there have been significant improvements since that 

time and because in the intelligence community that venue as a 

possible target pops up once in a while. I think what the FBI does 

is just send out a reminder, not too subtle, but a reminder that you 

might be a target to make sure you are following directions from 

the Regulatory Commission and you enhance the security protocol 

as you have been directed to. 

Senator FITZGERALD. Secretary Ridge, thank you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Governor, when I was succeeding Mike Castle as Governor of 

Delaware, he told me about a vision that he and his administration 

had for creating a Statewide interoperable communications system 

for fire, police, paramedics, and other emergency responders. The 

idea was an 800-megahertz system. We were just coming out of a 

recession at the time, however, so didn’t have the money to do anything about it. 

As you know, during the time that we were governors, we had 

better times financially. We were able to do a lot of things. We actually had the money to go out and to hire somebody to put that 

kind of system in place in our State. 

I always think of the States as laboratories of democracy. Because Delaware is so small, it is more affordable to use it as a laboratory. 

As we go forward, looking at interoperable communications and 

demonstration projects around the country to see what works and 

what doesn’t work and what the problems might be and how to address those, I would offer our little State. We have done it. We had 

some hiccups along the way. The folks at Motorola kept working 

with us until we got most of those resolved. But it is a pretty good 

case study and it might be of value. The folks who run the system 

are the Department of Public Safety and our DEMA operation, the 

Delaware Emergency Management Agency, so I would offer that if 

it is of any value. 

Second, I mentioned earlier, and so did Senator Collins, some 

legislation that she and I have introduced. I think Senator Akaka 

alluded to it, as well. The issue deals with flexibility. 

Secretary RIDGE. Right. 

Senator CARPER. I will just mention a couple of things. When we 

passed No Child Left Behind here a year or two ago, we provided 

more money for education, but we gave more money to States with 

greater flexibility to use in their schools. We said, in return for 

more money, more flexibility, we want results. We are going to hold 

you accountable. 

When we were working in the NGA—I see at least one NGA staff 

person sitting out in the audience there behind you—we sought to 

convince the Congress and the administration that if we are not 

30

going to provide a lot more money for passenger rail service, at 

least give State’s governors the ability to use some of our transportation money, congestion mitigation money, for passenger rail if 

that makes sense. I recall a time when we said, well, we can use 

this money for bicycle paths, we can use it for freight railroads, we 

can use it to build roads and highways. We can’t use it for passenger rail, even if that makes sense in our respective States. 

I think we have a similar situation here, and I would just recommend it for your attention. As I understand, the money goes out 

in four categories. I think they include planning, training, equipment, and maybe exercises. I think those are the four. And the legislation that Senator Collins and I have introduced, along with the 

support of others, allows States to apply to your Department for a 

waiver that would give them the opportunity to use some of the 

money across categorical lines. The Department, your Department 

would review the application from the State or from a local unit to 

ensure that the State’s planned expenditures is consistent with the 

emergency response plan for that jurisdiction. 

If this bill becomes law—and a lot of the things that Senator Collins and I work on together do become law, I have noticed, isn’t 

that right, Senator Collins? 

Chairman COLLINS. Absolutely. 

Senator CARPER. It is kind of amazing. 

Chairman COLLINS. We have a good record. 

Senator CARPER. We really do. We worked on something a year 

ago, and actually had a big success on the Senate floor, a big vote, 

and I said, you know, this the first time I have ever won anything. 

[Laughter.] 

And she said, ‘‘I have never lost.’’ [Laughter.] 

Chairman COLLINS. A slight exaggeration, but—— [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I said, well, let us work on some other things, 

so this is one of them. 

But if the bill becomes law, a State can get away with spending 

planning money on equipment, for example, or some other variation of that. I don’t know that you are familiar with what we proposed. Any initial reaction to it? 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, I am familiar with the purpose of the 

legislation and the fact that you have introduced it. It is certainly 

consistent with how I think we should, as a country, deal with 

homeland security issues. We don’t want to be so rigid that if——

Senator CARPER. So what? 

Secretary RIDGE. Rigid. I was afraid you caught that. [Laughter.] 

Secretary RIDGE. That we limit our funding so that it is not 

available to meet needs that they might have identified in the plan 

that I want them to have. 

I mean, you are right. We have four categorical areas, fairly 

broadly identified. But I would welcome the opportunity to work 

with you, because the principle is good of a little flexibility. I am 

not sure across the board. Someone mentioned earlier the notion 

that we just make it similar to a community development block 

grant. I am not sure that gets us where we need to be and assures 

that the security dollar gets the outcome that we want. 

But I look forward to working with you on that legislation and 

providing the locals and the governors some flexibility—you and I 

31

enjoyed some flexibility with financing. As long as it is consistent 

with a plan, there is a great deal of merit to giving the States and 

locals more flexibility. 

Senator CARPER. One last quick one, if I could. Governor, you 

have called on Congress to develop a new formula, we have talked 

about it a little bit here, but a new formula for Federal first responder aid so that the program places more of an emphasis on 

risk. As you know, the current formula is based largely on population. I talked to you a little bit about that in my comments. I 

think that can tend to shortchange less populous States. 

How would the new formula or a new formula that you envision 

take into account the need of less populous States like Maine or 

Delaware? 

Secretary RIDGE. I think you start, Senator, with the base that 

there is a certain amount that every State receives at the outset, 

regardless of population, whether it is percentage or a dollar 

amount. I do think we have to recognize that there are long-term 

needs that every State will have that we should help sustain. But 

I don’t know, Senator, whether long-term is a specific dollar 

amount based on population, if it is a percentage of the overall appropriation as it is now. It is just one of those issues that we need 

to review to get us much closer to the day when we are all more 

comfortable with the notion that the dollars are going where they 

are most needed. 

But clearly, there is a need to make sure that every State starts 

with a basic sum. How we arrive at that is in itself debatable. But 

then there are some add-ons that I think that we need to see if we 

can reach agreement on. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Secretary, we appreciate you being here 

today. We appreciate very much your stewardship and very much 

look forward to working with you, especially on the issue of flexibility of the legislation that we have introduced and hope that we 

can make some headway there. 

Secretary RIDGE. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. Senator Specter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SPECTER 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to follow up on some questions which I had 

asked yesterday during the Appropriations Subcommittee on 

Homeland Security. First, I hope that these sessions before the various committees are not draining you of too much time to impede 

the operation of your office. We have, as you well know, the two 

Houses. You were in the House of Representatives for so many 

years, and authorizing and appropriating committees. But we do 

appreciate your coming in. 

The reports that I talked to you about yesterday, the GAO report 

was just made available actually yesterday afternoon, the one on 

local law enforcement, and they are voluminous and really matters 

of some concern on the central question as to coordination and really as to whether the Secretary of Homeland Security has sufficient 

authority. 

I continue to think that you need more authority. This is something you and I have discussed repeatedly, and it was really too 

32

bad that when we passed Homeland Security last fall, the Senate 

had a ‘‘take it or leave it’’ situation, where the House passed a bill 

and left town, and then it was a matter of our offering amendments or not. I had been pressing this amendment which would 

have given you the authority to ‘‘direct the agencies to provide intelligence, analysis of intelligence, etc.’’

As I read through the voluminous GAO report and pick one of 

the conclusions on page 28, that to date, the Federal watch systems 

environment has been characterized by a proliferation of systems 

among which information sharing is occurring in some cases but 

not in others. This is inconsistent with the most recent Congressional and Presidential direction. 

And another voluminous report on local-Federal partnerships 

says this at page 64. ‘‘Current systems are simply inadequate. 

While progress is being made in certain regions, the lack of national information sharing severely limits the ability of law enforcement to prevent and investigate terrorism,’’ and repeated references to the FBI culture. 

I had decided not to introduce an amendment to give an opportunity to see how the system would work, and perhaps there hasn’t 

been sufficient time to really see, but if we did have legislation and 

if this Committee took a very incisive oversight view, hearing from 

CIA Director Tenet and FBI Director Mueller, and the other agencies, really as only Congress can do—these reports are one thing, 

but when the Governmental Affairs Committee, when this Committee, which has principal authority and jurisdiction over these 

lines, would dig into it, we can, I think, make the best assessment 

as to whether the authority is sufficient. 

It may be that I just have a lot of confidence in you, Secretary 

Tom Ridge, which is certainly true. But after having chaired the 

Intelligence Committee and after having seen the battles with the 

FBI and DOJ oversight on the Judiciary Committee and the culture of concealment, I just have very strong reservations as to 

whether any system is going to be as good as having a new broom 

like the Secretary of Homeland Security come in. 

Do you think it would be helpful, and I know it is our choice to 

make, but do you think it would be helpful if this Committee undertook such an analysis with a view to legislation to give you the 

authority to direct the agencies to provide intelligence? 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, under the President’s executive 

order—Senator Levin and I had a brief conversation about this in 

the earlier questioning—with regard to the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which becomes the ultimate depository of all information, all raw data, and the like. We have by virtue of this, our 

relationship with this Terrorist Threat Integration Center, the capacity to set intelligence requirements. Our analysts within the Department of Homeland Security will also be placed in the Terrorist 

Threat Integration Center and we can go back to the Terrorist 

Threat Integration Center and seek very specific information and 

actually set some intelligence requirements that we need in order 

to do our job to protect the critical infrastructure. 

So I think—you mentioned in your introductory comments—you 

are waiting to see the outcomes of how the reorganization might 

unfold and whether or not it addresses the concerns you have. I 

33

think, conceptually, it does, and I have no reason presently to think 

that it will not work operationally. We have only been up and running for a day, but I know that as we expand our intelligence analytical effort and as we begin to engage the State and local law enforcement community and the large cities around this country, they 

are developing their own analytical capability. As a matter of fact, 

they are starting to connect with one another, which I think will 

be enormous value added down the way, if they detect in different 

parts of the country different surveillance patterns, different kinds 

of activity, criminal and/or terrorist related. 

So I think we have that capacity right now, and I have no reason 

to think that the TTIC won’t be responsive to any request for information we need. 

Senator SPECTER. My red light is on, but I have one more question. I came in after being at a Judiciary Committee hearing, but 

I was informed that you had testified that the only the Department 

of Homeland Security could receive raw intelligence was through 

the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. Is that so? 

Secretary RIDGE. That is correct. Our information analysis group, 

and it is a concern that I think you raised even during our public 

discussions about this unit within the Department of Homeland Security, you expressed the concern of perhaps Senator Levin and 

others did, would we have access to the raw data. Since we have 

our analysts accompanying the CIA, the FBI, and other analysts in 

the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, we will. We will actually 

have DHS employees in that Threat Integration Center that will 

have access to it. 

Senator SPECTER. But that is only what the CIA or the FBI may 

voluntarily turn over. 

Secretary RIDGE. Well, Senator, I think that the President’s direction to the CIA and the FBI and everybody else is that everything is to be available to the Terroist Threat Integration Center, 

and——

Senator SPECTER. Well, unfortunately, as I have seen, there may 

be directives, but they are honored in the breach more than the observance. Maybe it wouldn’t do any real good to give you the authority to direct, but I would certainly feel a lot more comfortable 

if the new agency which has the ultimate responsibility was in a 

position to direct, as contrasted with waiting for the other agencies 

to comply. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary RIDGE. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Specter. 

I know the Secretary is on a tight schedule. We are going to do 

one final round of questions of 5 minutes each, and I would ask my 

colleagues to try to adhere to that 5 minutes in view of the Secretary’s schedule. 

Mr. Secretary, at our last hearing, we heard from first responders who talked about the communication between the Department 

and first responders. A report that Senator Specter alluded to that 

was requested by Senator Levin and Senator Grassley and released 

yesterday suggests that there are still problems as far as getting 

34

terrorist watch lists in a consolidated way available to State and 

local law enforcement officials. 

Similarly, the witnesses at our last hearing testified that they 

had all learned of the elevated threat status to Code Orange from 

television rather than any sort of formal communication. Could you 

address both of those issues and the issue of communication with 

State and local governments? 

Secretary RIDGE. Sure. First of all, Madam Chairman, I don’t believe there is any Federal agency that on a routine basis has as 

much interaction with States and locals as the new Department of 

Homeland Security. I may be wrong, but we have several phone 

calls a month with homeland security advisors where we engage. 

We have a very aggressive outreach effort, and it will continue to 

improve and I am not going to say here that all is right and is as 

complete and comprehensive as we want it to be. 

But we think we have a very strong foundation upon which we 

can build. The President has very appropriately noted that you 

can’t secure the homeland without securing the hometown, and the 

only way we do that is make sure that our partners at the State 

and local level are engaged. 

So we will continue to work on that. I think pulling in the grants 

into the State and local unit within the Department of Homeland 

Security, and as we staff up, that communication will continue to 

get better and better. 

Let me just briefly share with you the process, because I anticipated the question because I hear it from our friends all the time 

in State and local government, that we go through once we have 

made the decision to take the system up. We have done it three 

times in a year. 

We make the decision to raise the threat level, and that is another series of steps. We then give advance conference calls that I 

am engaged in to notify governors, State homeland security advisors, and key mayors, as appropriate. Simultaneously, there is an 

electronic notification to the Homeland Security Centers, the State, 

local, private sector, and other Federal agencies via INLETS, FBI, 

and the law enforcement community. 

Shortly thereafter, there is a conference call with the Big Seven 

and other State and local associations. There is a conference call 

with as many State and local law enforcement associations that we 

can get. And again, one of the challenges is that we admit that you 

can’t arrange these conference calls too far in advance because the 

decision hasn’t been made. We then engage the Business Roundtable CEO Link. We then make a public announcement through a 

press briefing. That is something we have done historically. Then 

we have conference calls with 14 critical infrastructure associations. We call other business groups. 

It is as much a frustration to those of us in the Department who 

appreciate the need to get timely and accurate information to our 

State and local partners as it is to them that on a couple of occasions—one occasion, we had made the decision, had talked about 

it with the President, and we weren’t 15 feet away or 30 seconds 

away when someone came in and said, somebody just announced 

that we have gone to Code Orange. Now, if I could figure out how 

that happened, obviously that is not the way I choose to have my 

35

friends informed. Now, the flip side of it, the last time around, we 

were able to get some information out. 

So it is a process. We will work continuously with you, Madam 

Chairman, and our friends at the State and local level to improve. 

I share their frustration. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

I would now like to switch to the issue of port security. 

Secretary RIDGE. Yes. 

Chairman COLLINS. It is my understanding that the Department has yet to allocate about $170 million in port security funding that 

is distributed by the Transportation Security Administration. Could 

you tell us what the Department’s plans are for distributing those 

funds? Some of us are concerned about the delay, given the tremendous need to improve port security. 

Secretary RIDGE. That distribution schedule should be made 

available to me. I think Congress directed, I may be wrong since 

we have gotten several directions from Congress with regard to certain dollars, but I think we had to run the distribution plan 

through OMB. I think that process is done. I think you gave us a 

June 1, 2003 date to get it out, and we are certainly going to be 

in advance of that date. 

The $170 million is there. It hasn’t been reprogrammed. It is 

going to be used for that purpose and the announcements will be 

made shortly. 

Chairman COLLINS. And finally, I just want to touch on the fire 

grant program. Of all the Federal grant programs that I have ever 

had experience with, none gets higher reviews from State and local 

officials than the fire grant program, and it seems that it is working well being administered by FEMA. The President’s budget 

originally has proposed transferring that program to ODP. Is there 

a way to keep the program administered by FEMA, but with oversight and coordination by ODP so that we don’t have a case of tinkering with something that is working extraordinarily well? 

Secretary RIDGE. Madam Chairman, I believe that if we are looking to consolidate and create a one-stop shop, we need to bring the 

program into the State and local, and put ODP under State and 

local. I think it is a good program and I think I can assure the 

Chairman, as I have tried to assure the fire and emergency services, that change in the venue where the program is administered 

will not affect the program. They have their own way of going 

about peer reviewing the applications. 

One of the reasons that it is such a successful program that it 

was designed by fire fighters, reviewed by fire fighters, and then 

implemented by fire fighters. That is the reason about 97 percent 

of the grants, when you farm them out the door, are used and are 

used well. 

So I would hope that with your support, we could convince—as 

long as we assured the fire services that we are not going to alter 

the program, but again, all those dollars that relate—and a lot of 

their acquisitions are dual-use. You can use a lot of this equipment 

whether responding to a natural event, a criminal event, or a terrorist act. So there is a lot of flexibility in that program. But my 

preference would be to have it administered under the State and 

local operation of the Department of Homeland Security with a proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:10 Aug 19, 2003 Jkt 088245 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\88245.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
36

viso that we are not going to alter the program itself. As a matter 

of fact, we might bring some of those FEMA employees over. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Levin. 

Senator LEVIN. Let me pick up there, also, on the fire grant program. When you say the program won’t be altered, in terms of dollars available to that program, it is going to be, as I understand 

it now, part of the Office of Domestic Preparedness budget. Is that 

accurate? 

Secretary RIDGE. That is correct, Senator. At least, that is the 

budget submission, hopefully. 

Senator LEVIN. You are right, and I do want to talk about budget 

submission. I don’t know that I have the budget resolution numbers yet. We tried to get them but could not disaggregate them. 

But just in terms of dollars, the Office of Domestic Preparedness in 2003 had $3.28 billion, let us round it off to $3.3 billion in 2003. 

The fire grant program had over $750 million. So together, they 

had about $4 billion-plus in 2003. 

Your 2004 request for the Office of Domestic Preparedness is $3.5 billion, roughly, which means together, you have a half-billion 

less dollars for first responders when you link together the Office 

of Domestic Preparedness and the fire grant program. 

So if our numbers are correct, even though you say the program 

won’t change, it is going to be put under great pressure financially 

because if you are going to keep anywhere near the same amount 

of money for all the programs that you got in ODP last year, then 

you have a half-billion-dollar shortfall. 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, first of all, the history, if I recall cor- rectly, of the fire grant program, in 2001, it was $100 million. In 

2002, it was $200 million. I think we requested $350 million in 

2003 and Congress more than doubled it to $750 million. So in 

terms of budget request, we are requesting $150 million more this 

year than we requested last year for the fire grant program. 

Senator LEVIN. I thought that there is no specific request for the 

fire grant program. 

Secretary RIDGE. In the——

Senator LEVIN. It is not in the administration request that we 

have. 

Secretary RIDGE. Well, the ODP, you will notice there is $3.5 billion, but you notice—I have got to refresh my recollection of the 

budget document, but I think we indicated out of that $3.5, we 

wanted to make sure there was $500 million available to fire fighters, and it was our intention to use that $500 million to continue 

this program. 

Senator LEVIN. That would be, then, $250 million less than what 

we appropriated last year, is that correct? 

Secretary RIDGE. Well, it would be $250 million less, but Senator, 

last year, my recollection—again, it is the budget process. We send 

up some priorities, and you have your priorities. At the end of the 

day, the budget reflects a compromise. But in fact, last year, assistance to the States and localities, if my numbers are correct, and 

this is across the board, our request was about $5 billion and we 

received less than that request from the Congress because you 

made decisions that were different than ours. That is just the way 

the process works. 

37

We wanted $350 million. We wanted to continue to see the 

growth of the fire grant program. That is why we took it to $350 

million. You more than doubled it. We think it is appropriate from 

our perspective to ask for more money than we requested before 

and you may choose to——

Senator LEVIN. But less than the authorized amount. 

Secretary RIDGE. Less than you authorized, correct. 

Senator LEVIN. Let me just quickly, because I have just a few 

minutes, on the question of population, I just want to kind of point 

out to my colleagues that in your ODP program, on a per capita 

basis, the small States in population have done very well because 

of that minimum grant. I was giving my good friend, Tom Carper, 

this information on the way out. Delaware, for instance, per capita, 

got $6.60 from the ODP programs, whereas Pennsylvania got $1.50 

per capita. They are doing very well. It is not necessarily reflective 

of the threat—maybe, and, by the way, small States could have 

greater threats than big States population-wise. I happen to agree 

with that. But this population distribution formula is not based on 

threat. 

Secretary RIDGE. That is correct. 

Senator LEVIN. And when there is a minimum amount that goes 

to small States, I mean, you have got Wyoming that gets almost 

$10 per capita, and you have got New York that gets $1.40 per capita. Let me tell you, they start with a pretty good floor, the small 

States, which is not reflective of threat. 

So I tried to persuade him that small population States were 

doing probably better logically than they had a right to expect. I 

don’t think I persuaded him, but I at least gave him——

Secretary RIDGE. You take information. 

Senator LEVIN. He is not one of the people who crosses your doorway who talks about less, either. 

My red light is on, but if I can take 2 more minutes, I want to 

get the leave of the Chair to do this, as well, and this has to do 

with the sharing and the analysis of intelligence information. 

We have still got a big problem here, obviously, as to whose responsibility and whose role it is to analyze all the intelligence that 

we get. Your answer before was that the difference between the 

Threat Integration Center and the Counter Terrorist Center is that 

more information will go to TTIC than went to CTC. They will both 

be analyzing a threat. I don’t see how that is quite true, since FBI 

is located at both and local and State law enforcement is located 

at neither except through the FBI. 

So I think it would be helpful here, rather than trying to sort 

this out right now, which I don’t think we can, is if you are able, 

obviously with CIA and with FBI and everybody else that is involved in this effort, to come up with a written statement of responsibility clearly laying out what information is going to what 

entity, obviously including your own entity inside your own agency, 

and who is responsible for what, but in writing, and I think that 

the Chairman was very supportive of this approach last time we 

had this meeting. I think it would be very helpful for the country——

Secretary RIDGE. I would——

38

Senator LEVIN [continuing]. And this will focus accountability, 

which to me is the key issue. 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, I would be pleased to take on the task 

of coordinating that effort with my colleagues from the FBI and the 

CIA. 

Senator LEVIN. And I greatly appreciate that, and one last question. Two quick questions, if I can. Is your State and local government office in your agency able to provide to State and local governments all necessary information on all grant programs anywhere in your Department for which State and local governments 

are eligible? 

Secretary RIDGE. Not yet, so the answer is no. 

Senator LEVIN. Is that your goal? 

Secretary RIDGE. Yes, sir. 

Senator LEVIN. That is great. That is, I think, precisely what the 

Chair and so many of us really need in terms of that one stop, is 

that piece of your agency, you have all the information on all 

grants that your agency offers to State and local governments. 

Secretary RIDGE. To your point, Senator, you suggested earlier 

there be a 1–800 number. There is one, but it only relates to ODP 

programs. We will make sure that there is the 800 number, is adequate staffed, but also on the DHS website, that kind of information is available to the State and locals. 

Senator LEVIN. That is great. And then one issue which I briefly 

had a chance to chat with you about was the New York Times article relative to your former aides lobbying your Department, and I 

think it would be good to clear the air on that issue as to whether 

or not you are in the process, or maybe already have, some kind 

of guidelines relative to that issue, to ethics guidelines. 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, absolutely. One of the first responsibilities and undertakings of the new General Counsel, who we announced, is to take a look at our ethics laws, since we develop our 

own internal code to deal with potential conflicts. I was aware of 

the article. I might say that I have known those people for a long 

time, but they have also known me for a long time. If they learned 

one thing in our relationship, is that the personal side won’t do 

them any good unless they have got the best product for this country. But I think it is very appropriate that the Department have 

its own set of internal guidelines relating to ethics and conflicts 

and we will. 

Senator LEVIN. And given the public interest in that issue, when 

you do complete those, if you could supply those to the Committee——

Secretary RIDGE. Absolutely. I would be pleased to. 

Senator LEVIN. I think I, and I am sure I speak for everybody 

around here, have great confidence in your ability to do exactly 

what you just described. You have set a very high ethical standard 

and we have great confidence that will be maintained through 

those guidelines, but also in just the day-to-day messages that are 

sent forth from you personally, because we know you well enough 

to believe that deeply. 

Secretary RIDGE. Yes, sir. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Levin. 

39

1Post-hearing questions for the Record submitted to the Hon. Tom Ridge appears in the Appendix on page 47. 

Secretary Ridge, thank you so much for being with us today. I 

have several additional questions, but I am going to submit them 

to the record.1 range from questions about the Coast Guard to 

questions about the fact that we have some five different Federal 

grant programs for interoperability, to achieve that goal, and yet 

there seems to be no coordination among them. So there are many 

other issues that I want to explore through submitting questions 

to the record. But you have been very generous with your time 

today and I don’t want to prolong your stay with the Committee 

further. 

I hope that you will direct your staff to continue to work with 

us on the formula and other issues that we have covered today. I 

do intend to have an additional hearing on this issue on Thursday, 

May 15, and we are going to hear from State and local officials at 

that time. We then are going to sit down, draft the legislation 

which I hope we will mark up shortly thereafter. We need your 

help and assistance in doing so. 

Secretary RIDGE. We will welcome that opportunity to work with 

you and the Committee, Madam Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

The hearing record will remain open for 15 days for the submission of additional statements or questions. I want to thank the staff 

for their hard work on this issue, and this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(41)

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN 

Thank you, Madame Chair, and thank you for holding these very valuable hearings on how we can reform and reengineer Federal homeland security programs to 

meet the needs of States, localities, and the first responders and preventers who 

protect us. I appreciate your bipartisan leadership and partnership. I also want to 

thank Secretary Ridge for being here. 

One of the Federal Government’s first responsibilities under the Constitution is 

to provide for the common defense. In the face of the threat of terrorism, that means 

more than building a mighty Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. It 

means strengthening the shared security of our fifty States and their cities and 

towns, as well as our territories. 

That takes money. To train and employ top-flight police officers, firefighters, and 

public health professionals. To buy new biometric security systems, install information sharing networks, and develop biological and chemical testing and treatment 

capabilities. To improve security around water plants and air ports. To revamp 

aging ports and protect chemical and nuclear plants. These tough jobs and countless 

others can’t be accomplished with wishful thinking or a magic wand. And they cannot be accomplished by placing an unfair share of the burden on State and local 

governments who are already facing the worst fiscal crises in decades. 

One challenge we face is clearly to improve the process for distributing funds to 

State and local governments. We need to make the funds flow faster, cut unnecessary red tape, and make certain that programs are adequately coordinated so that 

we get the most out of the dollars once they are appropriated. I agree that there 

needs to be more flexibility in the use of Federal funds—and I am pleased to cosponsor your legislation, Madam Chairman, to provide State and local officials with 

some the ability to move funds between accounts when it is necessary. I think we 

can certainly make a lot of improvements here. But this is more than just a red 

tape problem. It’s also a red ink problem. 

We didn’t spare a penny in fighting the war in Iraq. Our resources matched our 

rhetoric and our resolve. But here on the home front, there’s a gap between our resources and our rhetoric and resolve. And the gap is about the size of Texas. 

That’s unacceptable and it is unfair—and worst of all, it leaves our citizens in 

danger. States and localities are being spread thinner than ever at the moment they 

can least afford it. Their deficits are growing. Their homeland security and 

healthcare costs are rising. The economy remains sluggish. The fiscal straitjacket 

is getting tighter by the day. 

And in response, the Bush Administration offers no economic leadership to help 

get all of them and all of us out of the fix. In fact, it wants to pile on hundreds 

of billions of new tax cuts that won’t work, which will only make things worse, while 

shortchanging homeland security and other needs. 

Asking States and localities to bear a greater share of their security burden now, 

of all times, is like asking a runner to complete a tough new course in record time 

with bricks strapped to his back. 

I have called for $16 billion in funding in the next fiscal year above and beyond 

the President’s request for homeland security, much of which would go straight to 

States and localities—to provide our first responders, our public health networks 

and more with better troops, better training, and better technology. 

Let me give you one quick example of an urgent challenge facing many State and 

local governments that my plan would address: interoperable communications 

equipment. First responders must have the ability to talk to each other in an emergency. They don’t need that equipment 10 years from now. They need it now. If police, firefighters, and emergency medical workers across jurisdictions can’t talk to 

each other, they simply cannot react swiftly and effectively in a crisis that requires 

42

mutual support. We have been painfully aware of this for a long time. The problem 

first got major media attention over 20 years ago after an Air Florida plane crash. 

It reared its head again after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, 

and after the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building in 1995. And of 

course, firefighters lost their lives because of it on September 11, 2001. 

If ever a country could fix this once and for all, we’re living in it. Think about 

the genius of our innovation economy. Our communications technology is so advanced that we could view a war half a world away, in real time, on the television. 

But just last week, fire officials from different jurisdictions right here in the D.C. 

metropolitan area told this Committee that their departments still could not communicate with one another if both responded to a regional emergency. The Public 

Safety Wireless Network—a project of the Justice and Treasury Departments—

issued a report 2 weeks ago which stated that only 14 States have upgraded communications equipment enough so that public safety agencies can talk to each other 

during a terrorist attack or other emergency situation. The remaining States remain 

vulnerable during crises that require communications between police officers, fire 

fighters, paramedics, and other emergency personnel. 

This problem is still with us—because the Federal Government hasn’t made it a 

priority. Too little leadership, vision, and money. We have basically left it up to 

States, and many of them need our help. When will the administration come to realize that loose change can’t bring about real change? 

It’s true that a long-range solution to this problem will take several years to implement. But I don’t want to wait for the perfect fix. We have the technology to put 

working interoperable communications systems in place now. We have the way—if 

the Bush Administration finds the will. 

The Bush Administration also needs to find the will to support the SAFER Act, 

which will invest $7.5 billion over 7 years in communities across the country to hire 

new firefighters. Our fire departments are losing strength just as their responsibilities are increasing. That’s a recipe for disaster. 

Finally, I urge the White House to wake up to what’s happening in city halls and 

State capitals, and with police departments and State law enforcement agencies 

around the country as a result of the sagging economy and inadequate Federal support. The fiscal crisis facing State and local governments has forced one in four cities to layoff police officers in the past year, according to the National League of Cities. That is creating a double danger—threatening our homeland security and the 

fight against domestic crime at the same time. In 44 big American cities the picture 

is particularly stark. Since 2000, their police forces have been shrinking by 2 percent per year, and their crime rates have been going up by nearly 5 percent per 

year. Why, then, would the President’s budget for next year eviscerate the COPS 

program and other key law enforcement grants? What sense does that make? That 

directly compromises the fight against terrorism by placing an ever growing burden 

on the backs of our police forces. 

Madame Chair, I hope we focus not only on how to modify these key homeland 

security grant programs to get resources out to our States and local communities 

more quickly. That’s very important—but I urge us all to realize that getting the 

money out faster is just one part of the solution. Our States and localities need more 

support. More funding. And more leadership from the President on down. I hope we 

can work together to provide the brave, experienced, and hardworking men and 

women who protect us from terrorism the genuine assistance that they deserve and 

that our security demands. 

Thank you.

43


88245.001
44


88245.002
45


88245.003
46


88245.004
47


88245.005
48


88245.006
49


88245.007
50


88245.008
51


88245.009
52


88245.010
53


88245.011
54


88245.012
55


88245.013
56


88245.014
57


88245.015
58


88245.016
59


88245.017
60


88245.018
61


88245.019
62


88245.020
63


88245.021
64


88245.022
65


88245.023
66


88245.024
67


88245.025
68


88245.026
69


88245.027
70


88245.028
71


88245.029
72


88245.030
73


88245.031
74


88245.032
75


88245.033
76


88245.034
77


88245.035
78


88245.036
79


88245.037
80


88245.038
81

Æ


88245.039