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

85–336 PDF 2003

S. Hrg. 108–45

NOMINATION OF HON. THOMAS ‘‘TOM’’ J. RIDGE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON THE

NOMINATION OF HON. THOMAS ‘‘TOM’’ J. RIDGE TO BE SECRETARY OF 

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

JANUARY 17, 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, Deleware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Counsel 

JOHANNA L. HARDY, Senior Counsel 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

SUSAN E. PROPPER, Minority Counsel 

MICHAEL A. ALEXANDER, Professional Staff Member 

DARLA D. CASSELL, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 3

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 7

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 8

Senator Specter ................................................................................................. 10

Senator Durbin ................................................................................................. 12

Senator Sununu ................................................................................................ 13

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 14

Senator Bennett ................................................................................................ 15

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 17

Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 19

Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................................... 20

Senator Shelby .................................................................................................. 20

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 21

Senator Dayton ................................................................................................. 22

WITNESS 

FRIDAY, JANUARY 17, 2003

Hon. Thomas ‘‘Tom’’ J. Ridge to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland 

Security 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61

Biographical and professional information ..................................................... 71

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 83

Responses to pre-hearing questions from Ranking Member Lieberman ..... 164

Responses to post-hearing questions from: 

Senator Collins .............................................................................................. 191

Senator Shelby .............................................................................................. 206

Senator Voinovich ......................................................................................... 209

Senator Lieberman ....................................................................................... 210

Senator Levin ................................................................................................ 222

Senator Akaka ............................................................................................... 225

Senator Durbin .............................................................................................. 227

Senator Carper .............................................................................................. 232

Senator Lautenberg ...................................................................................... 238

APPENDIX

Congressman Robert A. Brady, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, letter of support dated January 17, 2003 ................ 241

(1)

NOMINATION OF HON. THOMAS ‘‘TOM’’ J. 

RIDGE 

FRIDAY, JANUARY 17, 2003

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in room SD–

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan Collins, Chairman 

of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Collins, Voinovich, Coleman, Specter, Bennett, 

Fitzgerald, Sununu, Shelby, Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Durbin, 

Carper, Dayton, Lautenberg, and Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. Good 

morning. Today, the Committee on Governmental Affairs is holding 

a hearing to consider the President’s nomination of Governor Tom 

Ridge to be the first Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. 

The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security will 

be the most significant restructuring of the Federal Government in 

more than 50 years. It will involve the merger of 22 agencies and 

some 170,000 Federal employees. Managing this new Department 

will pose extraordinary challenges and President Bush has chosen 

an extraordinary leader. 

September 11 focused our attention on homeland security as 

never before. Now, we understand all too well why it is a problem 

if our first responders do not have compatible communications systems. Interoperability has gone from being a buzz word to a matter 

of life and death. Now, we recognize the vulnerability posed by the 

17 million shipping containers arriving in the United States from 

all over the world, with few of them ever being searched. And now, 

we understand that our Nation’s 20,000 miles of land and sea borders present countless opportunities for our enemies. 

We also realize that we can no longer rely on an ad hoc approach 

to homeland security. Currently, as many as 100 agencies are responsible for our security, but not one had homeland security as its 

primary mission. When that many entities are responsible, none is 

really accountable and turf battles and bureaucratic disputes are 

inevitable. The homeland security effort will take all of us working 

together—the administration, the new Secretary, and the Congress—to ensure the success of this reorganization to improve the 

security of our Nation. 

2

At the same time, we must ensure that those non-homeland security functions moving to the Department are not neglected. For 

example, the Coast Guard has important functions related to homeland security. Its other responsibilities, particularly its search and 

rescue mission, are crucial in many parts of our country. On a typical day, the Coast Guard saves 10 lives, interdicts 14 illegal immigrants, inspects and repairs 135 buoys, and helps more than 2,500 

commercial ships navigate into and out of U.S. ports. That is why 

Senator Stevens and I worked with other Members of this Committee to include language in the law that would ensure that these 

functions are preserved. 

The need for stronger and better coordinated border security was 

the rationale for transferring the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service to the new Department, but the new Secretary must also 

ensure that more stringent border security does not unduly hinder 

routine and legitimate border crossings, particularly in border 

States. 

Another challenge for the new Department will be to effectively 

support those men and women on the front lines, our Nation’s two 

million first responders. The Homeland Security Act establishes an 

Office for State and Local Government Coordination, but it offers 

no assurance that the new Department will coordinate and communicate effectively with State and local first responders. Senators 

Feingold, Carper, and I would have placed a Department liaison in 

each State. Ensuring that our partners at the State and local level 

have sufficient attention, cooperation, and resources will require 

more work. 

Given the breadth of responsibilities, this cabinet post may well 

be the most challenging position created by Congress since it established the Department of Defense in 1947. It is, therefore, critical 

that the new Secretary possess exceptional leadership and management skills, as well as an unwavering commitment to serving our 

Nation. 

I believe that Governor Ridge is exactly the right person for the 

ground. His background, temperament, and experience make him 

ideally qualified to be the first Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security. His resume is impressive. In addition to his 

current service as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, he twice was elected Governor of Pennsylvania, served six 

terms in Congress, and worked as an Assistant District Attorney. 

But perhaps the clearest indication of his character is not something that you would find on his resume. It is the story of his service in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War. Governor Ridge was 

one of the first, if not the only, graduate of Harvard to serve in 

Vietnam as an enlisted man, and he did so with distinction. Infantry Staff Sergeant Ridge was awarded a Bronze Star for Valor. 

These impressive credentials speak to the character of a remarkable man. Governor Ridge, you have a difficult job ahead of you, 

but I want you to know that this Committee is ready to stand behind you and with you all of the way. 

While the new Department will not make us safer overnight, at 

the end of the day, its establishment must lead to new capabilities 

that will make our Nation more secure. Our goal must be a Department that enables our country to better deter, detect, prepare for, 

3

and respond to a terrorist attack. To attain this goal will require 

not only extraordinary leadership from the Secretary, but also the 

cooperation of the agencies transferred to the new Department and 

the full support of the Congress. Ultimately, the success of the new 

Department rests not just on the shoulders of Governor Ridge, but 

on all of us. 

It is my pleasure to welcome all of the Committee Members this 

morning, particularly the new Members of the Committee. We are 

very pleased to have Senator Specter returning to the Committee 

and to welcome the new Members who are here today, Senator 

Sununu, Senator Pryor. I want to welcome you. 

Now, I would like to turn to the distinguished Ranking Member 

of the Committee, Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman has been instrumental in the establishment of the new Department and it is 

a pleasure to call upon him for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, Governor Ridge. 

Senator Collins, I congratulate you and wish you well as you assume the Chairmanship of this very important Committee and I 

have every confidence that you will lead it forward in all of its best 

traditions of aggressive oversight of progressive initiatives and of 

a largely bipartisan spirit in conducting our business. I look forward to working with you and I join you in welcoming our two new 

Members, Senator Pryor and Senator Sununu, and welcoming back 

that old soldier who just doesn’t go away, the great Senator Arlen 

Specter. [Laughter.] 

As you have said, Madam Chair, this is an historic confirmation 

hearing literally, and I hope and believe it begins a new era of responsibility and readiness for America’s domestic defenses. 

Sixteen months ago, America and the world changed forever. 

September 11, 2001, will not only be remembered as the single 

worst attack on American civilians in our history, it will also, unfortunately, be remembered, and must be, as the most catastrophic 

breakdown ever in America’s homeland security. The attacks revealed that just about every link in our security chain, public and 

private, from intelligence analysis to border and transportation security, was either broken or brittle. 

The establishment of a Department of Homeland Security is the 

critical first big step forward in strengthening our homeland defenses. It will consolidate more than two dozen agencies and offices 

and organize them in a logical, accountable, and strong chain of 

command, and at the top of the agency, we will have a single cabinet Secretary with strong budget authority who will be responsible 

to the Congress and to the people. 

Governor Ridge, I know you appreciate the enormity of the task 

ahead of you and I appreciate, as I am sure we all do, your willingness to accept this challenge. Perhaps I should say your courage in 

accepting this challenge. You will oversee, as Senator Collins has 

said, the largest Federal Government reorganization since the late 

1940’s, and in this case, you must oversee that reorganization not 

before the crisis which it responds to, but in the midst of it. As I 

think I said to you once, you are in a position that Noah would 

have been in if the Lord had asked him to start building the ark 

4

after the rain had already started falling, and, of course, that 

means that you and we have to act with a sense of urgency as we 

go forward. 

Let me say for my part, as one who fought along with colleagues 

on this Committee for the new Department for as long as a year, 

I will do everything I can to support your efforts and I will do everything I can to ensure that the Department has the resources 

and the support it needs and deserves, because this is the most urgent responsibility our Federal Government has today. 

We, in the Congress, have historically managed to elevate support for our armed services above partisan politics and we must 

now do the same for homeland security, and I am confident that 

through this Committee, we will do just that. 

I want to say that I have never been under the illusion, and I 

am sure you are not either, that reorganization would by itself be 

the solution to our homeland security challenges. Of course, we 

need the right structure, but having the right structure is no guarantee in itself of success. We also need the right people, the right 

policies, and the right programs, and we need adequate resources 

to enable and empower you and the people working under you to 

get this critical job done. 

In this area, I must say that the administration’s homeland security efforts thus far have left much to be desired, and in my opinion, leave much to be done quickly. This is not only my personal 

judgment. Almost every independent assessment that I have seen 

says that in almost every way, America is as vulnerable today to 

terrorist attack as we were on September 11. 

The most persuasive of these assessments was produced by 

former Senators Hart and Rudman, who last October issued a task 

force report under the auspices of the Council on Foreign Relations, 

which concluded in part, ‘‘America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic attack on U.S. soil. 

In all likelihood, the next attack will result in even greater casualties and widespread disruption to American lives and the economy.’’

The facts are that our local and State law enforcement officials 

are operating in a virtual intelligence vacuum with no access to the 

terrorist watch list, for instance, that the State Department provides to our immigration and consular officials. In the words of the 

Hart-Rudman report, when it comes to combatting terrorism, the 

police officers on the beat, ‘‘are effectively operating deaf, dumb, 

and blind.’’ In my view, the administration has only taken small 

steps thus far to fix this problem. 

Container ships, trucks, and trains entering the United States 

over our borders and through our ports are subject to hardly any 

examination. Of the 21,000 shipping containers that come through 

our ports every day, no more than 2 percent are inspected, and the 

administration must—you and we must do better quickly to remove 

the dangerous risk that remains. 

Our first responders are still inadequately prepared, in many 

cases unprepared, for potential chemical or biological attacks. They 

lack the necessary training and their communication systems are, 

in most cases, incompatible with each other. Again, I know that the 

5

administration has talked about responding to this problem, but 

the solutions and the resources have not been seen yet. 

The National Guard is still oriented to supporting conventional 

combat units overseas, but we can and must make much greater 

use of their effectiveness and skill here at home. I have offered a 

plan for our country which I think will help us make better use of 

the Guard for homeland defense. 

And we still lack effective vaccines and medicines to counter the 

vast majority of biological and chemical weapons. It is unacceptable 

that we have not come further faster, and that is the mission I 

think you will accept as you assume this new position. 

In my opinion, the administration’s record on homeland defense, 

though under your leadership in the office which did not give you 

adequate power, some steps forward have been taken. Overall, it 

has been too weak, its vision has been too blurry, and its willingness to confront the status quo, including with resources, has been 

too limited. 

Bureaucratic inertia is a powerful force, and that is why the 

Homeland Security Act which we passed and the President signed 

needs to be implemented very boldly. Bureaucratic turf needs to be 

ripped up. Governor Ridge, you had a great comment you made last 

October, ‘‘The only turf we should be worried about protecting is 

the turf we stand on.’’ And you were absolutely right. 

Thus far, I have not seen indication in several critical areas that 

the administration is prepared to live up to that standard that you 

set in that statement, and I want to give you one crucial example 

where I think the reaction has been more reactive than proactive, 

and that is intelligence collection, dissemination, and analysis. 

We know that the failure of our intelligence agencies to connect 

the dots on September 11 was the single greatest failure among 

many of our homeland security systems leading up to September 

11. Nevertheless, the administration has thus far failed to challenge or adequately change the status quo of the intelligence community to fix what is broken. 

On paper, the passage of the new Homeland Security Act was 

meant to usher in a new era which would do just that. The bill creates a single source, all-source information, analysis, and infrastructure protection unit within the new Department that Senator 

Specter and I and others worked very hard to construct. But I am 

very disturbed by the early indications, and I hope you can turn 

this around, that the administration still believes that the primary 

responsibility of the Department’s new intelligence unit is to protect critical infrastructure and that performing analysis of intelligence to prevent other attacks is secondary or peripheral. 

The fact is that we can imagine horrific terrorist attacks that are 

not against critical infrastructure as we know it but against people. 

I hesitate to mention examples, but they are in our minds: A bomb 

in a shopping mall, a biological agent dropped from overhead onto 

city streets. Therefore, it makes no sense for the new Department’s 

intelligence division to put on critical infrastructure blinders rather 

than assessing and processing all information related to terrorist 

attacks against Americans here at home or anywhere. 

I am also troubled that the administration has not yet acted with 

sufficient urgency and directness to break down existing barriers to 

6

getting the necessary intelligence information to the new Department that you will head. The assumption in the Homeland Security 

Act is that unless the President or future Presidents determine 

otherwise, all FBI, CIA, and other government information about 

terrorist threats, including so-called unevaluated intelligence possessed by intelligence agencies, will be routinely shared with this 

new unit. 

Unfortunately, there are early signs reported in the media a 

month ago that the administration is acceding to the intelligence 

community’s predictable resistance to the change that the law 

would bring about and thereby undermining these provisions rather than implementing them faithfully. That is a deeply disturbing 

development and it really calls out for your strong leadership to get 

your Department what I think the Congress intended it to have. 

Finally, the critical problem of insufficient funding. We have dozens of Federal agencies, including many that are being consolidated 

into the new Department, that are already in the midst of urgent 

work post-September 11. The Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and others need to train their employees, for instance, to acquire new technology. But the administration has not yet provided them with the 

necessary funding, and, therefore, they will not be able to do this 

adequately. 

Indeed, as you well know, just yesterday on the Senate floor, the 

Republican leadership, I believe, shortchanged Homeland Security 

by nearly $1 billion compared to what Senate appropriators agreed 

to last Congress. As a result, now $627 million isn’t being provided 

to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, a part of the new 

Department, for a variety of critical border security measures. And 

local first responders are not receiving the money that they expected to get as appropriated or recommended last year. And the 

list goes on. 

The problem is most pressing, I think, at the local level, where 

local and State first responders, who also, if we use them well, can 

be our first preventers of terrorism, are not getting the support 

that they need. Late last summer, the President inexplicably 

blocked $2.5 billion in emergency spending that could have gone to 

Federal agencies and State and local officials for their homeland 

security efforts. That was wrong, and I think you and we have to 

work to turn that around, including turning around the disbursement of the money that has already been appropriated and not yet 

fully received at the State and local level. 

Governor Ridge, you know better than any of us that this war 

on terrorism and the critical work of homeland security cannot be 

won with a magic wand or wishful thinking. It is going to take 

strong leadership that you can provide and a lot of money that the 

administration and we must provide. It is going to take talent, 

training, and technology. It will take real, not rhetorical, partnership among every layer and level of government. It is going to take 

a clear vision and a consistent attention to achieving the goals outlined in that vision as expressed in the Homeland Security Act. 

And, of course, it will take tireless effort on the part of the thousands of Federal employees who will now report to you. 

All this will soon fall on your literally broad shoulders, and so, 

too, will the responsibility to be a vigorous advocate within the adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:15 Jun 19, 2003 Jkt 085336 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\85336.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
7

ministration for adequate resources for homeland security, from the 

President you serve on behalf of the American people that you and 

we must better protect. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Before calling on other Members for brief opening statements, I 

want to welcome two other new Members to the Congress. Senator 

Coleman of Minnesota, we are delighted to have you as a Member 

of this panel. Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey, welcome back to 

the Senate, and again, welcome to the Governmental Affairs Committee. 

We are going to follow the tradition of this Committee in recognizing people in the order that they arrived. Senator Voinovich, it 

is my pleasure to call upon you. I would ask my colleagues to keep 

their opening statements brief. We do expect early votes this morning and we are hoping to conclude as many opening statements as 

possible. In fact, if any of you wish to just put your statement in 

the record rather than deliver it, that would certainly be an acceptable alternative. 

Senator Voinovich, thank you for being here and you may proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Your statement and that of our Ranking Member, I think, pretty well lay out 

what most of the Members of this Committee think about the new 

agency and Governor Ridge. 

I am pleased that this Committee is moving swiftly to consider 

the nomination of Governor Ridge to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. There is no more urgent business before this Committee than to expeditiously move Governor Ridge’s 

nomination, and it would be wonderful, Madam Chairman, if we 

did it today, because Governor Ridge is eager to get on officially 

with his responsibilities. 

I have known the Governor for a long time. We served together 

in the National Governors Association and the Council of Great 

Lakes Governors. As you pointed out, Madam Chairman, he has 

served this country with distinction in the service in Vietnam, as 

Congressman, and also as Governor of Pennsylvania. I want to 

thank you, Tom, Michele, and the family, for answering the call of 

the President to give up your job as governor to come to work for 

the President and for your willingness to take on this very formidable challenge that you have. I believe that it is an opportunity 

for you to leave a lasting legacy to your country. 

The job is formidable. You are going to be responsible for some 

very serious missions, protecting the lives and livelihood of all 

Americans at home, orchestrating the merger of 20 different agencies. It is the most significant consolidation since 1947 when Congress established the Defense Department. In that consolidation, 

there was a common threat that ran through the agencies being 

brought together. With the current consolidation, there are several 

different threats, so you have a tougher job than they did back 

then. 

There are several aspects of the Department in which you know 

I am very interested: The relationship between your Department 

8

and State and local governments, the first responders program, and 

the structure of the Department’s human resources system. One of 

the things I think is really important here is that we are hearing 

from local and State Government. Too often, some of the requests 

coming in are for things that ordinarily they would pay for on the 

State and local level. We have to make sure that the money the 

Federal Government provides them is going for things like 

HAZMAT and other activities dealing with security and not just for 

things that they should appropriately pay for. 

The other critical issue is the Department’s workforce. We need 

the right people with the right skills and at the right place, at the 

right time. Part of the reason I think we had September 11 is that 

the Federal Government’s personnel system has prevented the 

proper configuration of staff and the needed flexibilities have not 

been in place. 

I really think it is important that while you are establishing your 

personnel system, the Federal Government’s intelligence agencies 

are doing the same thing in terms of having the people that they 

need to get the job done, and as Senator Lieberman said, to get the 

information flowing back and forth between those various Federal 

agencies. 

I will never forget the testimony of former Secretary of Defense 

Schlesinger before our oversight subcommittee, talking about the 

Hart-Rudman Commission’s report, when he said that unless we 

fix the personnel problem, we are not going to be able to repair everything that is wrong with the U.S. national security edifice. I 

think that this Committee and this country have to understand 

that we need the best people in government today, and that is why 

we really need to concentrate on this issue. 

I thank you for your willingness to serve and your sacrifice, and 

I want you to know I will do everything I can to help you. Thank 

you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. 

You have been a leader in Federal workforce development and we 

look forward to your continued contributions. 

I see that I neglected to recognize another of our colleagues who 

is new to this Committee, Senator Shelby of Alabama. Because he 

has been so instrumental in homeland security and intelligence 

issues for so many years, it seems like you have always been a 

Member of this Committee. But we are delighted to have you. 

I would now like to turn to Senator Levin for his opening statement. Senator Levin has been a stalwart on this Committee for 

many years and we work very closely and I look forward to hearing 

your remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome, 

Governor Ridge. The challenge before you is massive. It has been 

outlined. I believe you are up to the job, and that is the most important conclusion for each of us to reach and I hope that you will 

be confirmed with great speed. 

We have a lot of work to do on this Committee, in my judgment. 

Your work has been outlined. Putting together all these people and 

all these agencies and pieces of agencies is a huge job. But we have 

9

some repairs to make in the underlying legislation already, repairs 

that seem to me to be quite obvious. 

The most important one has to do with the analysis of intelligence, to make clear where that analysis must be done, first when 

it comes to foreign intelligence, and then when it comes to domestic 

intelligence, and then putting those together and comparing that to 

what information we have relative to vulnerabilities of our infrastructure. 

Where is foreign intelligence going to be analyzed? It cannot be 

analyzed in two places. We will be lucky to do it well once. It has 

not been done well once. As a matter of fact, the intelligence failures before September 11 were massive. In my judgment, at least 

September 11 may have been avoided had those intelligence failures not been there. Where will foreign intelligence be analyzed? 

In our bill, which came out of the Governmental Affairs Committee—it was a bipartisan bill—we focused responsibility for the 

analysis of foreign intelligence at the Counter-Terrorist Center. If 

that is going to be shifted, fine, but it has to be clear where it goes. 

There is another issue. Where will all the domestic intelligence 

that we have be analyzed? FBI intelligence, all our Federal agencies, State and local intelligence, where is that going to be analyzed? We have to focus responsibility for that, as well, and it is 

a different issue, but it is a critical issue. Intelligence is going to 

have a greater and greater role to play. I think we all recognize 

that. Truly, our first line of defense is to gather the intelligence 

from thousands of places, analyze it correctly, and get it in the 

hands of the people that need it. 

The few other things that we need to repair, I am just going to 

allude to and I will ask that my entire statement be placed in the 

record. 

The Freedom of Information Act language has got to be clarified. 

We are denying the public unclassified information in the current 

law, which should not be denied to the public. We had a bipartisan 

compromise here which was included in our bill. Senator Bennett 

lead that effort. That was dropped in the final legislation. We must 

address that. 

Whistleblower protection, we are not going to protect whistleblowers under the current law even though they blow the whistle 

on unclassified information. There is no reason why we should not 

protect whistleblowers. We will be more secure if we do. And again, 

I emphasize that we are talking about unclassified information 

that should not be shielded from the public. 

The appropriations needs have been outlined by my colleagues. 

We have already fallen way short of what we committed to do relative to appropriations. 

And finally, we need a central place where local governments 

and other organizations can come for information. One of the complaints that we hear regularly in our offices is that our local governments and other applicants for resources do not know where to 

go. Now, that may be cured in the long term. You will presumably 

have one phone number, one place where everybody can go to get 

information. But in the short term, in the next few months, because you and I have spoken about this in my office, it is important 

that there be one phone number where people can be at least temVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:15 Jun 19, 2003 Jkt 085336 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\85336.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
10

porarily told where to apply for whatever resources we have available. There is a lot of confusion out there relative to those resources, huge needs. We need that centralized location. 

Again, I look forward to your speedy confirmation, Governor. I 

think you are a wonderful selection for this absolutely essential position. 

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

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SPECTER 

Senator SPECTER. First, congratulations, Madam Chairman, on 

your Chairmanship. Congratulations on scheduling this hearing so 

promptly, just 2 days after you became the Chairperson. 

I am delighted to be here in a dual capacity, to return to this 

very distinguished Committee and also to introduce our very distinguished nominee for Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and I think it is a superb appointment for a man with a superb career, and I will have more to say about Governor Ridge in 

a few moments. 

I would pick up on the themes today about the importance of this 

new position on coordinating intelligence. This is definitely a job 

that needs to be done, evidenced by September 11. Exactly 1 month 

later, on October 11, Senator Lieberman and I introduced the legislation for a Department of Homeland Security. We were glad to see 

President Bush support the idea. This is really an historic occasion 

on your confirmation that I join in the wish that we will vote you 

Secretary today and waive the rules after this hearing is finished 

and the Senate is in session so that can be accomplished. 

But I do believe that had all of the dots been on the big board, 

September 11 could have been prevented. There was the FBI Phoenix report about a suspicious man taking flight training, interested 

in take-offs but not in landings, the big picture of Osama bin Laden 

in his home. There was the Zacarias Moussaoui incident where the 

FBI applied the wrong standard for a warrant under the Foreign 

Intelligence Surveillance Act. There were the two men in Kuala 

Lumpur known to the CIA, not passed on to INS or the FBI, became two of the suicide bombers on September 11. There was the 

NSA report on September 10 that something was going to happen 

the next day. It wasn’t translated until September 12. 

So it is my hope that under your direction and under this institutionalized approach that we will be able to put all the dots on the 

board. From our extended discussions, you know of my concern 

that there be adequate authority for the Secretary to direct, and I 

had pursued that legislative purpose last November and withheld 

at the request of the President, you, and the Vice President so that 

the legislation would not be delayed. But I intend to pursue that 

amendment and I believe there are also some refinements that 

need to be made on labor relations on the issue of collective bargaining. 

My red light just went up. I conclude. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Specter. Senator Durbin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and congratulations on your new assignment. 

11

Governor Ridge, thank you for joining us. I am pleased that the 

President has asked you to serve our Nation as our first Secretary 

of the new Department of Homeland Security. It is a difficult job, 

but the President could not have picked a better person. We have 

been friends and colleagues for 20 years and I have been one of 

your greatest fans. I am happy to report to you that you already 

have my vote no matter what you say today—— [Laughter.] 

And that I will enthusiastically and overwhelmingly support your 

quick confirmation by the U.S. Senate. 

But I have some concerns about the birthing of your new Department and I want to express them openly and publicly today. Last 

year, Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly supported the 

concept of this new Department, but we had our disagreements. 

One of those disagreements related to the question of employee 

rights in your new Department. I think you understand what happened to that issue in the last election. 

Those of us who raised questions about the policy of this administration relative to employee rights had our patriotism questioned. 

In fact, one of our colleagues on this Committee, a fellow Vietnam 

veteran, a disabled veteran, had this as a major issue in his campaign, as to whether or not he was truly patriotic to America if he 

raised questions about employee rights. 

I hope you will clarify today what your approach will be, and 

what your philosophy and values are. I see in your background 

that you once carried a union card. I think you understand, as I 

do, that on September 11 when those fire fighters went racing into 

the World Trade Center to their deaths, that they carried union 

cards in their wallets. They were professionals. They were Americans. They loved their country. No one who stands up for the rights 

of collective bargaining should have their patriotism questioned, 

yet that happened in the last campaign relative to your new Department. You can clear the air on that. I hope you will today, and 

share what your policy and philosophy will be. 

I won’t recount the long history of the creation of the Department 

on Capitol Hill. We had several conversations on the phone. But I 

will tell you, at the end, the bill came to us on a take it or leave 

it basis in the Senate. We were told there would be no amendments 

accepted on the Senate floor by the White House. I had an amendment relative to computers, the interoperability of information 

technology, and worked on it long and hard. It wasn’t partisan. 

There was really nothing in it that I think could be labeled Democrat or Republican. The idea was to try to get the computers in our 

Federal Government to communicate with one another. You and I 

spoke about it. You called it a force multiplier, and I quoted you 

on the floor, because I think you are right. 

Well, that section was not included in the bill. That amendment 

was denied. The White House wouldn’t accept it. Now, we have the 

responsibility to make the Department work, and I have spoken to 

you about it and I hope that we can continue to work together to 

improve and modernize the antiquated computer technology in our 

Federal Government, and particularly as it relates to security and 

homeland security and fighting terrorism. 

And finally, I am disappointed yesterday that we were unable to 

attract even one vote from the Republican side of the aisle to put 

12

more money into homeland security. It appears now that the sky 

is the limit when it comes to defense spending relative to overseas 

security. I hope that this administration will not give us a hollow 

homeland security, though it tries to fund at very high levels all 

levels of military spending. I think we need both. We need a strong 

Nation abroad. We need a strong Nation at home. You have a particular responsibility there and I will work with you to achieve that 

goal. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Senator 

Sununu. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUNUNU 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you very much. Welcome, Governor. It 

is a pleasure to be here as a new Member of the Committee. It is 

a little bit unnerving, though, when my predecessor, Warren Rudman, is mentioned three or four times before I am even given the 

chance to speak. He is a good friend and I know he has done a lot 

of work leading up to the information gathering and the restructuring of the Department that you have in front of you. 

Governor, I have been told that every member of the Senate, either secretly or maybe not so secretly, wants to be President. I 

haven’t been in the Senate long enough to know if that is true, but 

I will admit to you, as a member of the House Appropriations Committee from time to time, we would take testimony from the NASA 

Administrator, the head of the NSF. I would envy their role a little 

bit, the challenges that they had in front of them, the issues that 

they were dealing with. 

But I will tell you very bluntly, I can’t think of anything in your 

job or your role or the challenges ahead of you that I envy at all. 

We have heard about the bureaucratic hurdles you are going to 

have to face, the complexity involved in this restructuring, the information technology challenges, the intelligence gathering and 

analysis that is going to have to be refined if we really want to do 

the best possible job of protecting the homeland, and, of course, the 

scope and diversity of the task in front of you. Those are enormous, 

daunting challenges. It is the most major reorganization of government certainly that has taken place in my lifetime, perhaps in the 

lifetime of all of the Members of the Committee here today. 

So I wish you well. I will concur with my colleague on the other 

side that I will be happy to vote for you because you are the most 

qualified person that I can think to take on the job as Secretary. 

I mentioned the scope and diversity of the challenge in front of 

you. In many ways, that is typified by my home State of New 

Hampshire. It is a small State, but many would say a very important State. But on an issue like homeland security, so many of the 

issues before you are well represented. We have a commercial port, 

we have a military facility, we have an international border, and, 

of course, we have all the aviation and commercial infrastructure 

that you are going to be called on to work to protect. I want to wish 

you well in that task, because it does make a difference, not just 

to our big urban areas, but to even the small States like New 

Hampshire. 

I do agree with the statement that was made earlier that you are 

going to have to be willing to challenge the status quo to do that. 

13

You are going to have to be willing to fight that bureaucracy. I 

think the phrase that was used is ‘‘rip up the bureaucratic turf.’’ 

In making that point, I will underscore that that is precisely the 

reason we gave you the flexibility in putting the right people in the 

right place at the right time that we have given to other positions 

and Departments involved in national security. 

The debate that took place on that issue was not a debate or discussion about patriotism, it was a debate and a discussion about 

the best way to allow you to shake up the status quo. I don’t think 

anyone’s patriotism was ever questioned on that issue. I think people’s judgment or decision making was questioned. Is it right? Is 

it wrong? Is it in the best interests of the Secretary in the new Department of Homeland Security to give you that flexibility in hiring 

and firing personnel decisions? 

But I think it was the right decision. I think it is one that I hope 

the Senate and the House will continue to stand by because we 

cannot confront the status quo, we cannot rip up the bureaucratic 

turf unless we give you the power and the authority that you need. 

Good luck. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Sununu. Senator Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you 

for your leadership of this Committee and I look forward to working with you. Senator Lieberman, it is always great to be with you. 

I appreciate this Committee and look forward to addressing the 

challenges before it. 

Governor Ridge, thank you for being here. I want to personally 

thank you for your time and your accessibility and availability to 

me as I have had questions. You have come to my office and we 

have talked about a lot of issues today. I want you to know, like 

Senator Durbin, you have my support today regardless of how the 

questioning goes. I am very impressed with your commitment, your 

vision, your leadership, and look forward to working with you. 

I also must say that, like Senator Durbin, I do have some concerns about the organization and the restructuring. It is the largest 

restructuring of government in my lifetime and it does concern me 

that we do not really know how it is going to come out on the other 

side. We discussed this the other day, so that is no surprise. 

Again, thank you for being here and I appreciate your time. Also, 

like Senator Lieberman, I am a former Attorney General of my 

State and I know that we both share special concern for State and 

local government, State and local law enforcement and other agencies who are partners in this, and you have acknowledged that as 

we talked before and in some of your other statements that have 

been prepared for today. I appreciate that. 

I just look forward to working with you in this endeavor and look 

forward to working with this Committee during this term of Congress. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Bennett. 

14

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I add my congratulations to you on your rapid ascension from staffer to 

chair—— [Laughter.] 

With a couple of elections thrown in between that helped that 

process. 

Governor and soon to be Mr. Secretary, I also will tell you of my 

determination to vote for you, both in the Committee and on the 

floor today if we can get the rule set aside to get you confirmed by 

the close of business. You have seen a little bit of a replay of previous debates within this Committee prior to the passage of the 

legislation and people are trying to remake points that they made 

prior to the passage of the legislation, perhaps in hopes of reopening the legislative statement and trying to win fights that they lost 

last time. 

The one thing that I would say in this opportunity to speak 

through you and through this hearing to the American people is 

that all of us need a significant cultural change. We thought as a 

Nation that we were safe between two oceans. We found out on 

September 11 that we were not. 

The inertia of the old way of doing things will be enormously difficult to change. When people talk to me about the inertia of the 

civil service, they usually talk about the inertia at rest. A body at 

rest tends to stay at rest until moved upon by an outside force. My 

experience is that the far greater inertia is the inertia of motion. 

A body in motion tends to stay in motion and in the same direction 

unless there is some sort of outside force exerted upon it. 

You are taking upon yourself the challenge of exerting an outside 

force on the inertia of motion in a whole plethora of agencies where 

the culture is, the only thing they like better than things the way 

they are is things the way they were. To get them all together in 

the same direction, in a new direction that will challenge the culture of complacency that existed in the government, in the country 

as a whole, in States, local communities, first responders, everybody used to doing business the way they had always done business, is a challenge that will, frankly, extend beyond your tenure. 

All you can do is the very best you can to make the first changes 

in the outside pressure to change the inertia and get things going 

in the same direction. 

We in the Congress love inertia. We are firmly wedded to the 

19th Century way of doing things. We think it is just wonderful. 

We have got to face the challenge of how we reorganize ourselves 

around this new circumstance. It is not a new circumstance, it just 

came newly to our awareness on September 11. 

So as we address the question of how the Congress is organized, 

about how many committees you have to testify before, about how 

many people will claim jurisdiction over how many parts of your 

Department, we need to recognize the whole new culture of the 

world in which we live. Americans are not used to living in a society that is under threat. It is going to take us a while to get to 

understand that. 

People say this is the most dramatic and far-reaching reorganization since the reorganization of the entire defense and intelligence 

establishment at the end of the Second World War. The Defense 

15

Department still did not function properly until after the passage 

and absorption of the lessons of the Goldwater-Nickles Act some 

20-odd years after the creation of the Department. 

I hope we can do better than that. I hope we can change the inertia faster than that. But the first responsibility to exert the first 

force on the inertia of motion falls to you, and instead of complaining about this or that that we didn’t get when we tried to create the Act, we should all, regardless of party, regardless of experience, recognize the new culture that we face and do our best to join 

with you to bring some outside force to bear on the inertia of motion to try to cause things to be done a little differently. 

I congratulate you. Thank you for your willingness to accept 

what some evenings will seem like a very thankless task as you 

drive home in the dead of night and wonder, ‘‘Why in the world did 

I ever agree to do this?’’ But it is because of your willingness to 

do this and other Americans’ willingness to do this that this country moves forward in the right direction, and we are honored and 

blessed by your willingness to undertake this assignment. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Bennett. Senator Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. In the 

interest of time and per your request, I ask that my longer statement be placed in the record. 

Chairman COLLINS. It will be, without objection. 

Senator AKAKA. Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate you 

for your ascension to the leadership of this Committee and I want 

to wish you well and tell you that I am looking forward to working 

with you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Governor Ridge, I am so glad to have you here 

this morning. I offer my sincere congratulations to you on your 

nomination to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. You and I served together in the House and we did a great 

job there. I congratulate you and thank you for your service there 

and your future service. 

I was pleased to meet with you last week to discuss the future 

of the Department and I thank you for your time. As I told you, 

as far as I am concerned, your temperament is right and you are 

the right man for the job. You have my support. 

I want to share with you four concerns. First, the cost of creating 

this new Department cannot be at the expense of our fundamental 

freedoms and I urge you to take every precaution to uphold the 

rights of citizens. 

Second, we cannot afford to lose the critical non-homeland security missions of the agencies being merged into the new Department. For example, the Office of State and Local Coordination 

should rationalize and simplify Federal, State, and local coordination for all emergencies and disasters. There is a clear need for 

this, as I hear from officials in Hawaii who are unsure of whom to 

contact or what programs are available as they realign their natural disaster and terrorism response systems. 

Third, as we further protect America by reorganizing the government, we must not overlook the fundamental rights of the Federal 

16

employees, as Senator Voinovich just noted. The Department 

should not be used as a vehicle to advance untried management 

initiatives nor erode the rights currently afforded to Federal workers. They deserve the right to collective bargaining, a fair grievance 

system, equitable pay and protection from retaliation for disclosing 

waste, fraud, and abuse. I urge you to ensure that Federal employees actively participate in the development of any new personnel 

management system adopted by the Department 

My fourth and final concern is shared by many Americans. In the 

aftermath of September 11, there is a strong sense that there was 

a collective failure to respond to intelligence reports suggesting 

threats against America. In creating this Department, I think Congress is sending a clear message to you, as the one who is in charge 

of ensuring not only an assessment of the threat, but the reaction 

to it. We do not need another agency to analyze the danger. We 

need an agency to understand and respond to domestic dangers. 

Governor Ridge, as I said, you have a huge task before you. I 

commend you for accepting the tremendous responsibility of leading this new Department. I look forward to working with you and 

my colleagues in protecting the people and assets of our great country. I wish you well, and God bless you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. Senator Coleman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Governor Ridge, I offer my sincere congratulations on your nomination to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. You and I served together in the 

House of Representatives, and I want to thank you for your continued service to our 

country. You have an enormous and historic task before you in leading this new Department. Although I voted against the Homeland Security Act for several reasons, 

I want you to know that I stand prepared to help you as much as I can to ensure 

the creation of the new department enhances our security. I was pleased we got together the other day to discuss the future of the department. 

I want to raise four concerns in my opening remarks. 

First, the cost of creating this new department cannot be at the expense of our 

fundamental freedoms. The Department’s mission to help prevent—protect 

against—and respond to—acts of terrorism is clear. To accomplish these goals, the 

Department plans to collect, coordinate, and store vast amounts of personal data. 

Legitimate fears have been raised that the price of security may be our constitutional freedoms. Those freedoms are essential to the preservation of our democracy. 

I urge you to take every precaution to uphold the rights of citizens. 

Second, we cannot afford to lose the critical non-homeland security missions of the 

agencies being merged into the new department. I am particularly concerned that 

resources going to first responders, including the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency and the Coast Guard, may be sacrificed. 

This is not a zero sum game. Enhancing traditional missions will also enhance 

domestic security. For example, the Department’s Office of State and Local Coordination should rationalize and simplify Federal, State, and local coordination for all 

emergencies and disasters. There is a clear need for this as I hear from officials in 

Hawaii who are unsure of whom to contact or what programs are available as they 

realign their natural disaster and terrorism response systems. 

Third, as we further protect America by reorganizing the government, we must 

not overlook the fundamental rights of our Federal employees, who will staff this 

new agency. 

The Department should not be used as a vehicle to advance untried management 

initiatives nor erode the rights afforded to Federal workers. They deserve the right 

to collective bargaining, a fair grievance system, equitable pay, and protection from 

retaliation for disclosing waste, fraud, and abuse. These rights complement our ability to safeguard the country. Federal managers need the skills—and training to acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:15 Jun 19, 2003 Jkt 085336 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\85336.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
17

quire new skills—to effectively carry our the merging of so many agencies and accompanying personnel changes. 

As you stated in response tot he Committee’s questionnaire, ‘‘the focus of the new 

personnel system of the Department of Homeland Security should be on putting the 

right people, in the right jobs, with the right pay and incentives to ensure they are 

the most effective government employees they can be.’’

I have a slightly different expression which I used in testimony before the National Commission On The Public Service: ‘‘A strong workforce comes from having 

the right people with the right skills in the right place at the right time. Only then 

will government operate in an effective, efficient, and economic manner.’’ I am sure 

you will all agree with me on that as well. 

In addition, the right solution for civil service reform will require strong leadership and must complement the Federal merit system. 

I urge you to ensure that Federal employees actively participate in the development of any new personnel management system adopted by the Department. With 

about half of all Federal employees eligible for retirement over the next 5 years, employees transferred to the new department must feel secure in their work environment. Otherwise, we can expect a sizable number of them to choose retirement over 

employment. 

I share my fourth and final concern with many Americans. In the aftermath of 

September 11, there is a strong sense that there was a collective failure to respond 

to intelligence reports suggesting threats against America. The House and Senate 

Joint Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11 found that these reports 

‘‘did not stimulate any specific Intelligence Community assessment of, or collective 

U.S. Government reaction . . .’’

In creating this Department, I think the Congress is sending a clear message that 

you are in charge of ensuring not only an assessment of the threat, but the reaction 

to it. 

It should not be the responsibility of the directors of the FBI or the CIA, although 

their agencies will be involved. 

It is the Department of Homeland Security which must follow up on reports and 

ensure the appropriate response. 

We do not need another agency to analyze the danger. We need an agency to understand and respond to domestic dangers. 

Governor Ridge, we have a huge task before us. Again, I commend you for accepting the tremendous responsibility of leading this new department; and I look forward to working with you and my colleagues in protecting the people and assets 

of our great country. 

Thank you.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a great pleasure to be here, my first Committee meeting with you. I join with 

others in applauding you for your leadership in scheduling this 

hearing so quickly. We should move on with this nomination quickly. We should get it done. America needs it. And I will be with you, 

Governor Ridge, and look forward to working with you. 

I also ask that my prepared remarks be placed in the record. 

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection. 

Senator COLEMAN. Just let me raise two issues. The Governor 

and I had a chance to discuss these yesterday. Before the opportunity to serve here, I spent 8 years as mayor of St. Paul. I have 

a deep appreciation of the role of first responders, police, fire fighters, emergency medical service personnel, and others in providing 

defense of our Nation. Homeland defense is what it says it is. It 

is not Washington defense and it is not Federal defense. It is homeland defense. 

Shortly after September 11, the Nation’s mayors got together, 

and it was fascinating to me that the biggest concern was not necessarily about money—for mayors it is almost always about 

money—but it was also about communication. It was about those 

18

at the Federal level having a relationship with those at the bottom 

of the political food chain, having an understanding of what is 

going on at the local level, and getting the information to the local 

level so those on the front line of homeland security can do their 

job well. 

I have no doubt that Governor Ridge understands this. He has 

served at the State level. He has worked hand-in-hand with those 

at the local level. If we can understand that the things we pass 

here, whether it be financial resources or even things that we do 

in terms of information, if we can do a better job of connecting with 

those at the local level, America will be more secure. 

The next act of terrorism—unfortunately, everything I hear suggests there will be a next act of terrorism—will test the resolve of 

this Nation and our ability to respond. Governor Ridge, I think 

America and our country has great leadership with you at the helm 

of the Department of Homeland Security and I am very confident 

that we will do the best we can do. I look forward to working with 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Coleman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN 

Madam Chairman, Senator Lieberman, I am honored to be with you here today. 

This has been an incredible journey for this Senator from Minnesota—and today, 

in attendance and participating in my first hearing in the U.S. Senate, I continue 

to be humbled and honored. 

Today, we sit on the threshold of change far greater than any we have witnessed 

in our lifetime. Madam Chairman, Senator Lieberman, Members of this Committee—the importance of moving quickly to confirm the nomination of Tom Ridge 

as the Secretary of Homeland Security cannot be overstated. 

I applaud you for your leadership in scheduling this important hearing. 

Prior to my service here in the U.S. Senate, I served 8 years as the Mayor of Saint 

Paul, Minnesota. In this role, I came to understand the unique and critical role of 

our Nation’s public safety personnel in the defense of our Nation. 

As a former Mayor, I understand that the challenge facing our local units of government isn’t a lack of commitment or qualified people to help us to defend our 

homeland. The challenge facing them is all too often a function of a lack of coordinated Federal, State, and local resources. 

Shortly after September 11, I met with other mayors from across the Nation in 

Washington, D.C. as part of the U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting to address the 

challenge of terror in America. 

Without question, the number one issue that concerned all of us wasn’t just 

money—it wasn’t just resources—it was also communications and coordination. 

Governor Ridge, during his tenure, has shown that he heard the concerns of mayors by working with local units of government to communicate—and to fight hard 

to make sure important resources made their way to the local level. 

We have, rightly so, invested critical dollars into the defense of our Nation. The 

passage of the Homeland Security Act last year, which established the creation of 

the Homeland Security Department, was a historic moment in our Nation’s history. 

This department must find ways to use the vast resources of this Nation—the dollars, the people, and the infrastructure—to defend our shores from the villains of 

the world who would, and have, killed our innocents—attacked our liberty—and 

seek to rob us of our freedoms. 

I am so pleased that Governor Ridge will be the person who will lead our Nation 

through these troubling times as the Director of the Homeland Security Department. 

I know Governor Ridge. He has a history of leadership representing the State of 

Pennsylvania as a Member of Congress, and as Governor. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to visit with him. I shared my perspective as a Mayor on the situations 

our Nation has been through, and being a Governor, he understood. Together, we 

discussed the importance of having State and local entities that are prepared and 

ready to assist their communities in a time of need. 

19

Since President Bush requested Governor Ridge’s service to the Nation as leader 

of our efforts to reorganize our government to effectively battle the forces of terror, 

he has made great strides towards making our Nation safer and more secure. 

I am so appreciate of the understanding that Governor Ridge has of the unique 

role of local governments in making the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security successful. 

Important resources must make their way from the appropriations bills we pass—

to the local units of government that need them to protect our Nation. Our first defense is our best defense—and those defenses are our Mayors—our Fire Chiefs—our 

Police Chiefs—and the men and women who serve our Nation in the uniform of police and fire and first responder. 

Governor Ridge understands that nothing we do in Washington can replace the 

knowledge of local communities to best defend themselves. 

And, the safer and more prepared our local communities, the safer and more prepared is America. 

American cities and their leaders need funding for more training—more equipment for their personnel—and adequate facilities to care for victims of potential acts 

of terror. 

The next act of violence against our Nation will test our ability to respond and 

manage the crisis brought about by the cowardice of terrorists. 

We need a Nation prepared—and a Nation united. 

Governor Ridge has shown that he can bring us together to be better prepared 

to not only respond to terror—but to work hard to stop it before it begins again.

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Good morning. This is our first time to 

meet, Governor, and I look forward to seeing you at work, doing 

the job, the task that you have been assigned to with the full confidence that it is going to be done well. 

Madam Chairman, if they are not contradictory terms, we thank 

you for getting this hearing underway and for the opportunity to 

join this Committee. You have an important work schedule ahead 

of you and for all of us, and we are grateful that you are going to 

do it. This Committee has a reputation for bipartisanship and I 

hope that the Majority and the Minority will be able to continue 

working in that fashion. 

I am forced to make reference to a couple of remarks that have 

been made about the Senate liking inertia, and I take it from the 

distinguished Senator who works very hard that you could not get 

votes for inertia around here, let me tell you. There is a lot more, 

really, and I know that it was said in jest. 

The other thing, on a personal basis, was that one Senator’s 

opinion was that everybody in the Senate was looking perhaps at 

the Presidency one day. Well, I can just say this. I want to take 

myself out of it. [Laughter.] 

A few more terms in the Senate will satisfy me. [Laughter.] 

The subject is one that all of us are focused on and have to pay 

attention to, hear the concerns of our constituents coming from 

New Jersey, Governor Ridge, as you know, because we are neighbors and because you are so up to date on what the aftermath of 

September 11 was. 

I was the Commissioner of the Port Authority before I came to 

the Senate, and that icon of power and responsibility, economics 

and finance, was torn apart in front of our eyes, an almost unbelievable circumstance. And the impact left a wound that will take 

many years—decades—to repair. 

20

So what needs to be done is to take a bunch of disparate elements, and I say the word without criticism, disparate, because the 

assignments are so different, and bring them together under your 

leadership, and I believe that you are going to be able to get that 

done. 

The one thing that has to happen, it has been mentioned, Senator Durbin and others brought up, and that is that as we try to 

establish a cohesive, functioning unit, that we don’t trample on 

people’s rights, whether it be labor rights, civil rights, and so forth, 

and I am sure that with your experience, you will be conscious of 

that all the way. 

In keeping with the Chairman’s request to make this short, I am 

going to do exactly that. I will close with one notion, and that is 

that the State of New Jersey, having lost over 700 of its residents, 

an impact throughout our communities, not just the communities 

in the immediate region, because we are accustomed to long 

commutations in New Jersey. It is a crowded State, and finding 

places to live and places to work don’t always work out to the best 

convenience. The economic impact, the emotional impact were all 

so severe. 

We have in New Jersey a fantastic facility if the Department of 

Homeland Security needs facilities where they can accommodate 

lots and lots of people, have research facilities. I am talking about 

the area around Atlantic City where we have our FAA research 

plants. There is some wonderful work being done, that has been 

done and completed there in aviation security in terms of things 

like bomb-proofing cargo containers and things of that nature, very 

much akin to the assignment of searching for and finding ways to 

fight this terrorist menace that we see, so I offer that as a suggestion. We have got airports and harbors and all of the good facilities 

necessary to accommodate it. 

I close with comfort that your experience as Governor, your commitment to the country augers well for all of us. I wish you success, 

and if there is any way that this Senator can be of help, and I am 

sure I speak for all of my colleagues, on an individual basis, I hope 

that you will call on me. I intend to call on you and offer services 

and to raise the questions that we would all like answered. I wish 

you well. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Shelby, thank you for 

your patience. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELBY 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am glad to be 

here after 8 years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I will 

be brief. 

I am here to support Governor Ridge, both here and on the floor. 

I am also going to support you with appropriations, Governor. 

I have one quick observation. We have talked about this many 

times. I personally believe the success of homeland security will depend, for the most part, on what type of intelligence analysis center 

you put together. If we look back on all the failures in intelligence, 

it is the failure to share intelligence. You can put together here a 

fusion center where all of the intelligence comes in, where your 

people can analyze and then disseminate the intelligence. 

21

You can have all the people in the world. You can have all the 

resources in the world. But I believe if you don’t do this, your mission will fail. We want you to succeed, you understand that, and 

I believe you will do something about it. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Shelby. 

Senator Carper, we have about 1 minute left on the vote. We 

have called the floor, but please proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Madam Chair, I am delighted to be 

here today for this coronation—rather, confirmation of Governor 

Ridge. [Laughter.] 

I, too, join my colleagues in congratulating you on your new position of leadership on our Committee. You have a tough act to follow, but I am confident that you are certainly up to that job and 

I look forward to working with you, just as I have now for 20 years 

with Governor Ridge. 

He and I, 20 years ago this month, along with Senator Durbin, 

were raising our right hands, took an oath of office to defend our 

country and constitution and joined the House of Representatives 

as part of the class of 1982. Before that, we served at the same 

time over in Southeast Asia for a while. I was privileged to help 

lead one of our Banking subcommittees with him during the time 

we served in Congress and to serve as members of the National 

Governors Association. 

A lot of people here said that you have their vote even before you 

open your mouth. I think if we are really your friends, given the 

magnitude of the job that you are undertaking, we should all object 

to your taking on this role because it is a tough one. But the President has chosen well and I think you have been well prepared by 

your life experiences, not the least of those being a husband and 

father, along with everything else that we have talked about. 

Should you be confirmed, and I am starting to think you just 

might be, even today, the tasks that you have before you are, indeed, daunting. Congress has given you a Department, at least on 

paper, that should be able to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks more effectively than our government can today or last year 

or the year before. We have authorized the transfer of dozens of 

agencies and tens of thousands of workers and outlined the skeleton of an organization that should be able to pull together under 

one roof information on threats and vulnerabilities and use that information to improve security and prepare our first responders. 

Very little of what we have outlined, though, will be in place on 

day one—this could be day one—and a number of outstanding 

questions remain. Will the Department have access to the kind of 

intelligence it needs? We have talked about that and others have 

expressed their interest, as well. Will the intelligence community 

be capable of doing what it needs to do to get the Department information? And will the administration and Congress be willing to 

provide first responders with the level of aid that they need? 

While it is early in the transition process, I do hope we can begin 

to find some answers to these questions today and look forward to 

your comments and statement in response to our questions. 

22

Both in this Committee and on the Senate floor, we had a 

healthy debate over the details of how the transition to a Department of Homeland Security should work. I know some of my colleagues are uncomfortable with some of what we have wound up 

with and they have indicated as much here. I have some reservations, too, that we have discussed. But having said that, I know we 

are ready now to put aside any disagreements we may have had 

and do what is right and in the best interests of our country. 

On a personal note, I again thank you for your service to this 

country on many levels. I thank Michele and your son and your 

daughter for their willingness to share with this Nation a very 

good man. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Carper. The Committee 

will be in a brief recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. 

I would like to call on Senator Dayton for any opening comments 

that he might have before we turn to the nominee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAYTON 

Senator DAYTON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Congratulations 

to you on your chairing this Committee. I look forward to serving 

under your leadership. 

I will have to leave shortly because I am going to a briefing with 

CIA Director Tenet regarding a CODEL with Senator Warner and 

Armed Service Committee members leaving tomorrow morning, but 

I have already expressed to the Governor my very strong support 

for his nomination. I commend you, sir, for your dedicated service 

to our country and your leadership. You have a Herculean task 

ahead of you. I have expressed some of the areas, such as INS, 

where I think that your leadership is going to be particularly important. 

I just wish you well and ask that you share with this Committee 

and with the Congress whatever needs you have and bring this together as rapidly as possible. If it is a new computer system that 

integrates all these agencies and divisions, whatever it is, please 

let us know. You have my full support. 

Madam Chair, that is all I have to say. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. You are not prepared for that amount of brevity, are you? 

Chairman COLLINS. It was refreshing. [Laughter.] 

Governor Ridge, I know that Senator Specter and Senator 

Santorum hope to join you, but in the interest of time, we will proceed. 

I do want to explain that you have not been deserted by your Republican colleagues. There is a Republican conference going on. 

Senator Santorum is the chairman of that conference, so it is very 

hard for him to be in two places at once, but I know they would 

want me to ask you to proceed. So if you would please proceed with 

your opening statement after I administer the oath. Our Committee rules do require that all witnesses at nomination hearings 

give their testimony under oath. If you would raise your right 

hand. 

23

1 The prepared statement of Mr. Ridge appears in the Appendix on page 61. 

Biographical and professional information appears in the Appendix on page 71. 

Responses to pre-hearing and post-hearing questions appears in the Appendix on page 83. 

Do you solemnly swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but 

the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. RIDGE. I do. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS ‘‘TOM’’ J. RIDGE,1 TO BE SECRETARY 

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. RIDGE. Madam Chairman, Senator Carper, to you and to 

your colleagues and to the Ranking Minority Member, Senator 

Lieberman particularly, I want to thank you for moving so expeditiously to schedule this hearing. 

I also think it is very appropriate at the outset, having been a 

member of the Congress for 12 years to note the speed with which 

the Congress dealt with the legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security. It is referred to as an historic reorganizational effort, but the time frame in which the Congress deliberated, decided, and submitted the final measure to the President is also historic and I think Congress needs to be commended 

for that, as well. 

I think one of the reasons behind such a rapid assessment of 

need and creation of this Department was that the Congress and 

the executive branch realized that the current structure of our government limited our ability to protect America. Now, for the first 

time, we will have a Federal Department whose primary mission 

is protection of the American People. 

Chairman COLLINS. Governor Ridge, pardon my interruption, but 

Senator Specter has just arrived and I know he has a very eloquent 

introduction of you planned, so since you are right at the beginning, I am going to ask you to suspend and I will call on Senator 

Specter for a formal introduction that you deserve. 

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

had arrived before 9 o’clock to undertake this pleasant opportunity 

to introduce one of America’s really great patriots and a longstanding friend of mine, and then as the events of the Senate unfold, my schedule is somewhere between uncertain and catastrophic. [Laughter.] 

One of the facts of life is that when even a cabinet officer of this 

rank and a man of this distinction appears, the opening statements 

are interminable. [Laughter.] 

And then we have the votes which come and then we had two 

votes, and the two votes to be only one vote and a voice vote. So 

the scheduling is very difficult and I wish I had been here to precede the opening of what Governor Ridge has had to say, but I 

thank you, Madam Chairman, for permitting me to come in at this 

stage. 

Tom Ridge’s career resume is the great American success story, 

very humble beginnings. A number of us share humble beginnings, 

but Tom’s were truly humble. As he rose through the educational 

process, he went to Harvard and then Vietnam as an enlisted man, 

and then on to Dickinson Law School. He was an outstanding lawyer, could have had a very lucrative law practice at any stage of 

24

his career, especially now. He went on to be a prosecuting attorney, 

where great skills are acquired. In the criminal courtroom, there is 

an opportunity for analysis and questioning and organization and 

summation and case presentation, which is truly remarkable. 

I don’t know if Governor Ridge has had my experience, but people sometimes say to me, what is the best job that you have had, 

D.A., Senator, what not? I always give the same answer. The best 

job is Assistant District Attorney because of the skills which can 

be developed there, and I see them in Governor Ridge as I have 

worked with him and watched his career. 

He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982, then 

elected Governor of Pennsylvania and one of the Nation’s most successful governors. If it weren’t for Governor George W. Bush, I 

would say the Nation’s most successful governor, but perhaps one 

of the two Nation’s most successful governors. He was reelected in 

1994, and then reelected in 1998 by a landslide. 

When President Bush called on him to take on the job of homeland security as an advisor, he said yes instantaneously and he left 

at the crest of the tidal wave in the Governor’s office to come down 

to a very difficult milieu in this turf town. He has done very well 

in the kinds of considerations, the infighting, the razor blades on 

everybody’s elbows around here. It is pretty tough on the Senate 

floor, but even tougher, I think, in the Executive Branch. 

He has moved over to take on the job as Secretary, and he does 

that as a call to duty. I know, because—I won’t tell you why I 

know, but I know he has done this as a call to duty. He has got 

a road ahead of him where he is going to require the help of 

Madam Chairman, which you have pledged this morning, and all 

the Members of the Committee who pledged. 

And this business about being able to direct the analysis, I think, 

is critical to the future success of America, because I do believe, 

and I will not go into the details now, that had all those dots been 

put on the board, September 11 could have been prevented, and 

this is the man to do the job. But there has to be a little change, 

a little change in the statute which gives him the power to direct. 

He has got to be able to direct all of the intelligence agencies, the 

CIA and the FBI and the Defense Intelligence Agency, he has got 

to be given budget authority. 

If this man is given that authority, I think we can expect the 

best, not necessarily that it is going to be perfect. Who can tell in 

the age of terrorism? It is like finding a tiny needle in a gigantic 

haystack, but this man can do the job. 

I am really delighted to introduce him. It is a great moment for 

Pennsylvania, for Erie, Pennsylvania. Tom Ridge ran on a slogan, 

a guy nobody knows from a place nobody has ever been to. [Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. But Erie is very proud of him and Pennsylvania is very proud of him and America will be very proud of him. 

Congratulations, Tom. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Specter. I would note 

that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a strong tradition of 

producing outstanding public servants and we have two of them 

here with us today. 

25

Senator SPECTER. And now, Madam Chairman, I am going to resume my other role so I can question the nominee. [Laughter.] 

Chairman COLLINS. Governor Ridge, would you please proceed. 

Mr. RIDGE. Thank you again. Once again, Madam Chairman, I 

think it is appropriate to commend Congress for pressing forward 

and taking the very bold steps necessary to establish the new Department of Homeland Security. Together, the Congress and the 

Executive Branch realized that the current structure of our government limited our ability to protect America in spite of the best efforts of the men and women working in these different agencies. So 

now, for the first time, we will have a Federal Department whose 

primary mission is the protection of our way of life of our fellow 

citizens. 

There is complete agreement between the President and the Congress about our responsibility as public servants to ensure the success of this new Department. We have worked together successfully 

during this past year, and I say as a result, America is a safer 

place today than on September 10, 2001. Together, we have taken 

steps to protect America, from pushing our maritime borders farther from shore and professionalizing airport screening, to developing vaccination plans and tightening our borders. 

Public servants at all levels of government, private sector employers, companies, and citizens all across the United States have 

changed the way in which they live and work in a unified effort 

to improve our security since the September 11 attacks. Yet, in 

spite of all that has been achieved, we are only at the beginning—

let me say that again. In spite of everything we have done, we are 

only at the beginning of what will be a long struggle to protect this 

country from terrorism. 

Terrorism directly threatens the foundation of our Nation, our 

people, our freedom, our economic prosperity. We face a hate-filled, 

remorseless enemy that takes many forms, hides in many places, 

and doesn’t distinguish between innocent civilians and military 

combatants. 

While much has been accomplished, there is much more work to 

do. Our country is built from ingenuity and hard work. In spite of 

our success, we certainly can’t rest upon it. We will and must stay 

focused. We will and must stay vigilant. 

With your help, with the direction provided by the President’s 

National Strategy for Homeland Security, I certainly believe we are 

up to the task. The strategy provided in the President’s National 

Strategy will help organize and mobilize the Federal Government, 

in partnership with the States and local governments, as well as 

the private sector, behind a three-part mission: Prevent terrorist 

attacks, reduce our vulnerability to those attacks, and minimize 

the loss of life and maximize the speed with which we recover from 

an attack. 

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is only 

one individual who, without the support of the dedicated men and 

women who go to work every single day in the 22 departments we 

are talking about, many of them who risk their lives daily, will not 

succeed. Should I be confirmed as the Secretary of the Department 

of Homeland Security, and after the many kind words today I am 

fairly optimistic, at least I am hopeful, I will go to work every 

26

morning knowing that new funding, technology, equipment are important, but no more so than the people who willingly serve and 

have been serving in the agencies and units that make up this new 

Department. 

We must not forget the enormity of our task or their task. This 

is the largest and most significant transformation of government in 

over a half-century, as your colleagues have mentioned. We are not 

naive to the challenges of merging 22 separate work cultures, operating procedures, and management procedures into one comprehensive organization. 

The new Department will not, as has also been observed by 

Members on both sides of the aisle, the new Department will not 

in and of itself be able to stop all attempts by those who wish to 

do us harm. We must realize the value of cultivating partnerships, 

partnerships with Federal agencies, State and local government, 

the private sector, and the American people. 

As a former governor, I am keenly aware of the shared responsibility that exists and will continue to exist between the Federal, 

State, and local governments for homeland security to be effective. 

One of the fundamental principles we have operated under during 

my tenure as the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security 

I think sums up our basic challenge. When our home towns are secure, our homeland is secure. 

I am pleased to report that all 50 States and the Territories have 

appointed Homeland Security Advisors, that they participate regularly in meetings at the White House, and in bimonthly conference 

calls with the Office of Homeland Security. We have, for the first 

time, created a single entry point to address many of the homeland 

security concerns of our governors and mayors and local officials. 

We recognize again that in spite of that, much more needs to be 

done. We recognize that State and local governments must be engaged. They must be supported. We must develop and sustain new 

channels of communication and partnerships with private sector organizations. The new Department must provide clear, concise, scientifically sound, and easily accessible information so American 

citizens can be prepared in the event their community is affected 

by a terrorist act. 

To accomplish this mission, the new Department of Homeland 

Security will effectively refocus and reorganize the functions of its 

22 agencies into one coherent organizational structure. Now, as you 

all know, the Department will include four directorates, Border and 

Transportation Security, Information Analysis and Infrastructure 

Protection, Emergency Preparedness and Response, and Science 

and Technology. The Coast Guard and Secret Service will retain 

their independence and play key roles in supporting all of these 

critical missions. I would like to just share with you briefly a sense 

of how these four directorates will support the overall mission of 

protecting the homeland. 

America has historically relied on two vast oceans and two 

friendly neighbors for border security. Our country has long cherished its identity as a Nation of immigrants. However, the sheer 

volume of those wishing to enter our great country, coupled with 

the burden of processing all the information that is associated with 

that, without the ability to quickly garner relevant information 

27

about these individuals from Federal agencies, has severely taxed 

our border security apparatus as well as our immigration system. 

Even before September 11, it was apparent that this country could 

no longer determine who exactly was in our country and why were 

they exactly here. 

The new Border and Transportation Security Directorate will be 

organized to meet two strategic goals, as directed by the Congress, 

improving border security while at the same time facilitating the 

unimpeded flow of legitimate commerce and people across our borders. By separating the Immigration and Naturalization Service 

into one function for enforcement and one for services, we can 

greatly improve services for applicants and be in a much better position to ensure full enforcement of the laws that regulate the flow 

of immigrants into our country. 

The integrity of our borders goes hand-in-hand with the security 

of our transportation systems. Today, Americans, and for that matter the world, are much more mobile than ever before. We enjoy 

the freedom to go where we want, using the best transportation 

system in the world. This efficient transportation system is one of 

the engines that drive the economy, domestic and international. 

Shutting down that engine is not a viable option, but the destructive potential of modern terrorism requires that we rethink fundamentally the security of that transportation system, because virtually every community in America is connected to the global 

transportation network by seaports, airports, highways, railroads, 

and waterways. 

We have shown significant progress in securing our Nation’s airports, thanks to the vision and support of the Congress of the 

United States, as many have commented before on both sides of the 

aisle. The Transportation Security Administration has hired, 

trained, and deployed a new professional Federal screening workforce that is focused on providing the highest levels of security 

without hindering our aviation system. 

We need to build on that success, but at the same time realize 

there is much more progress to be made in other modes of transportation. We must take steps to secure our Nation’s ports. Programs like the U.S. Customs Container Security Initiative are helping nations spot and screen the highest-risk containers. Operation 

Safe Commerce focuses on business-driven initiatives to enhance 

security for the movement of cargo through the entire supply chain. 

And most recently, Congress passed the Maritime Transportation 

Security Act, which gives authority to the Coast Guard and Customs Service to develop procedures for screening and conducting 

port vulnerability assessments. Our goal must be to ensure that 

our seaports are open for the flow of goods and commercial traffic 

and closed to terrorists. We must enhance our risk management efforts and implement practices that allow for higher-efficiency 

screening of goods. Heightened security should not be an obstruction to legitimate and, hopefully, increased trade. 

We must realize, however, that our enemy will choose their targets deliberately based upon our weaknesses and our defense and 

in our preparations. So to counter this threat, the Information 

Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate will, for the first 

time, bring together under one roof the capability to identify and 

28

assess threats to the homeland, map those threats against our 

vulnerabilities, issue warnings, and then provide the basis from 

which to organize protective measures to secure the homeland. 

This means that the new Department will participate at all levels 

with the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the intelligence community generally, as well as other foreign and domestic intelligence sources to 

get the intelligence information we need to get the job done. 

More than just countering each identified threat, the Department 

will implement a long-term plan for protecting America’s critical infrastructure network that encompasses a large number of sectors, 

ranging from energy and chemicals to banking and agriculture. 

In the past year, the Office of Homeland Security made this a top 

priority and began working with the Federal lead agencies for each 

of the 14 critical infrastructure sectors. This, too, however, is just 

the beginning. As information is collected and mapped and 

matched against critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, our top priority must be to get this information to those Federal, State, and 

local officials who represent the first line of defense against a terrorist attack. We must make it a priority to keep them informed, 

keep them aware, keep them engaged. 

Our Nation’s three million fire fighters, police officers, and emergency service technicians are the first on the scene in a crisis, and 

as we all know, they are the last to leave. They are living proof 

that homeland security is a national, not just a Federal, effort. We 

must give these brave men and women all the assistance and support we can, as well. We will build on the strong foundation already in place with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

which for decades has provided command and control support and 

funding support in disasters, whether caused by man or Mother 

Nature. 

The new Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate will 

consolidate at least five different Federal response plans into one 

genuinely all-hazard plan, the Federal Incident Management Plan. 

This will eliminate the artificial distinction between crisis management and consequence management. 

In a crisis, the Department will, for the first time, provide a direct line of authority from the President of the United States to the 

Secretary of Homeland Security to a single on-site Federal Response Coordinator. In doing all this, we will build the capabilities 

for a proactive emergency management culture, one that is well 

planned, one that is well equipped to not just manage the risk, but 

it is obviously our job to reduce the risk, as well. 

We must also realize that our Nation enjoys a distinct advantage 

in science and technology, and just as technology has helped us defeat enemies afar, so, too, will it help us to protect our homeland. 

Now, for the first time, the Science and Technology Directorate will 

harness America’s ingenuity, its innovation, and its creativity. It 

will form new partnerships with the private sector and the academic community to develop and deploy homeland security technologies that will help us make America safer. This directorate will 

streamline access to technical resources of the private sector, academia, and the Federal Government for countering chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear attacks. 

29

We also understand, as so many Members have mentioned in 

their opening statements, before any new homeland security technologies are deployed, we will ensure that we are upholding the 

laws of the land in protecting their freedoms as well as their privacy. Any new data mining techniques or programs to enhance information sharing and collecting must and will respect the civil 

rights and civil liberties guaranteed to the American people under 

our Constitution. 

Now, there are also two vitally important agencies that will report directly to the Secretary, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. 

Secret Service. We all know that the men and women of the U.S. 

Coast Guard have been performing the mission of homeland security in a complex and dangerous maritime environment for more 

than 200 years. Every day since the September 11 terrorist attacks, 

the Coast Guard has pushed our maritime borders farther and farther from their shore. 

Let me say with confidence and conviction and be very clear 

about the direction that this office has received from the Congress 

of the United States. The new Department will not lose focus of the 

Coast Guard’s other critical missions. From search and rescue, to 

anti-drug and illegal migrant patrols, to fisheries enforcement and 

aids to navigation, I will work personally to ensure that the Department continues to support the entirety of the Coast Guard’s 

mission. 

The U.S. Secret Service, through its two distinct missions, protection and criminal investigation, is responsible for the protection 

of the President and the Vice President, the security for designated 

special events, and the investigation and enforcement of laws relating to counterfeiting, fraud, and financial crimes. The Secret Service is, and has been for decades, in the business of assessing 

vulnerabilities and designing ways to reduce them in advance of an 

attack, an expertise that will greatly benefit the new Department. 

And finally, I would like to reiterate one very important observation, because, again, Members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, in public meetings and private conversations 

have made it very clear that this needs to be a focus of my attention. No matter how this organization is structured, it will not 

achieve its mission without the dedication of its employees, just 

can’t do it. No matter what the organizational chart looks like, you 

need to make sure that the dedicated men and women who have 

been doing these jobs for a long time, long before we thought we 

needed a Department of Homeland Security, get the support and 

the empowerment they may need to get the job done as well as 

they possibly can. 

The key to assuring the Department’s focus throughout this very 

critical transition period will be the perpetual support of these men 

and women as they conduct their critical day-to-day work. We 

will—I will emphasize this again—we will eagerly solicit and consider advice from the men and women who work in the new Department, not only about professional matters, not only about the 

new human resource management system, but also about how to 

improve day-to-day daily operations that they are involved in and 

have been involved in professionally for years, if not decades. 

30

And finally, I will insist on measurable progress from all the 

agencies and bureaus in the new Department. America must and 

will know what improvements have been made, what additional capacities have been built. We also need to know how effective we become. 

In closing, during our darkest hour on September 11, American 

spirit and pride rose above all else to unify our Nation. In the time 

since, we have fought a new kind of war, one that has a new kind 

of enemy, new methods, and new soldiers. It is fought on a new 

battleground, our homeland. I think our response has been strong, 

measured, resolute, and bipartisan. But nothing has been more 

profound than the creation of one Department whose primary mission is the protection of the American people. 

The Department of Homeland Security will better enable every 

level of Federal, State, and local government, every private sector 

employee, and ultimately every citizen to help us prevent terrorist 

attacks, reduce our vulnerability to terrorist attacks, and effectively respond and recover when these attacks occur. 

We all know that the road will be long and we all know it is an 

extraordinary difficult mission, but I think we all understand, and 

it is reflected in the observations made by men and women on both 

sides of the aisle, that we need to take on this task together. We 

know its complexity. We know its enormity. We know, as public 

servants, it is our mission to work together to defend our country, 

our fellow citizens, and our way of life. And I am absolutely convinced, Madam Chairman, that working with you, working with all 

of your Committee Members in the Congress of the United States, 

we can do just that. 

I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you 

at this confirmation hearing this morning. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Governor, for an excellent statement. 

Governor Ridge has filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, answered pre-hearing questions submitted by 

the Committee, and had his financial statements reviewed by the 

Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information 

will be made part of the hearing record, with the exception of the 

financial data which are on file and available for public inspection 

in the Committee’s offices. 

In addition, pursuant to the Committee rules, both Senator 

Lieberman and I have reviewed Governor Ridge’s FBI file. 

The nominee has also met with Committee staff to discuss a variety of issues and all of this information will be placed in the record. 

Pursuant to Committee practice, however, there are three standard questions that I need to ask you. First, is there anything you 

are aware of in your background which might present a conflict of 

interest with the duties of the office to which you have been nominated? 

Mr. RIDGE. None that I am aware of, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Second, do you know of anything personal or 

otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security? 

Mr. RIDGE. None I am aware of, Madam Chairman. No. 

31

Chairman COLLINS. And third, do you agree without reservation 

to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before 

a duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. RIDGE. I am going to do my very best to respond to whatever 

requests I get from the Congress of the United States because we 

need to not only build this Department together, but we need to 

sustain and make sure that we work together to make it as effective as possible. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. We will now turn to the first 

round of questions. We are going to do 6 minutes per Senator so 

that people don’t have to wait for an interminable amount of time 

to ask Governor Ridge some questions. 

Governor, a task force of the Council on Foreign Relations, which 

was chaired by Senators Rudman and Hart, concluded last year 

that a year after September 11, America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack 

on U.S. soil. I know you are familiar with the report. 

Mr. RIDGE. Yes, I am. 

Chairman COLLINS. In your opening statement, I believe you testified that you thought we were better prepared. Could you comment on the conclusion reached by this task force that America remains unprepared to respond to a large-scale terrorist attack? 

Mr. RIDGE. Madam Chairman, I believe that the collaborative 

work undertaken by the executive branch and led by the President 

of the United States, as well as the Congress, has enabled this 

country since September 11, 2001, to effect significant change to—

resulting in a far safer country than we were prior to that terrorist 

incident. 

There have been dramatic, significant, tangible, visible improvements at our airports. 

The Customs Service has taken upon itself several significant 

initiatives dealing with cargo security, to the extent that we are 

now in the process of developing protocols with foreign ports so 

that we can place Customs officials there with non-intrusive technology in order to inspect the cargo before it even gets on the ports. 

I have on a day-to-day basis witnessed the collaboration, the enhanced collaboration among all of the intelligence agencies within 

the Federal Government. The CIA and the FBI have worked and 

continue to work very closely with the Office of Homeland Security 

and I expect that that collaborative relationship will continue once 

the new Department is established, and we continue today as we 

prep for that new Department to work on memorandums of understanding to ensure that all the intelligence we need to get the job 

done will be made available to us. 

We see on a day-to-day basis two opportunities, two occasions on 

every single day with the intelligence community to get together 

twice a day to review the threats and to make assessments and decisions with regard to protective measures that we may have to 

take as a country in order to meet these threats. 

I see the enhanced awareness. We did not have to authorize it 

or legislate it, but I have visited enough border areas to know that 

the men and women of INS and Customs subsequent to September 

11, their vigilance, without any encouragement from any of us, has 

32

been enhanced remarkably and they continue to find ways to work 

and collaborate together. 

I have seen literally hundreds, if not thousands, of demonstrations of new technologies, some of which we began to deploy within 

this country, and the list goes on and on and on. Every single day, 

either on the initiative of a citizen, a private sector company, the 

State, the governors, the mayors, and with the help and support 

and sometimes funding from the Federal Government, things are 

considerably different. They are better or safer. 

But having said all that, in spite of all those achievements, do 

we need to do more at the borders? You bet we do. Do we need to 

do more and focus on other forms of transportation other than airplanes? Yes, we do. Do we have to bring strategic focus to all this 

research and development money that is out there that can engage 

the private sector to develop the technology that we can deploy 

around the country? Yes, we do. 

So I have worked very closely and admire and respect Senators 

Hart and Rudman. They were one of the initial proponents of a 

new Department of Homeland Security. But we are better prepared. We still have, as I said before, a long journey to undertake, 

and every day, that is our mission, to make sure that when we 

turn off the lights and leave the office that night, that we are safer 

because of the work we have done in the Department of Homeland 

Security when we flip them on and enter the office in the morning. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Governor. You touched on, in 

your response, the issue of port security. When I assess our 

vulnerabilities, our ports strike me as being our greatest, still 

largely unaddressed, vulnerability. If you look at the facts that 90 

percent of the world’s cargo moves by container and the United 

States alone receives some 17 million containers per year, I think 

most of us, when we used to look at a large container ship coming 

into a port in Maine, for example, we thought, what a marvel of 

international commerce. Now, we look at that same ship and we 

wonder if one of the containers includes a dirty bomb or some other 

weapon that would harm our country. 

In Portland, Maine, alone, we have experienced a 43 percent increase in the number of containers coming into our ports, and in 

the past, the screening has taken place has been very minor, some 

2 or 3 percent of containers, and it has largely taken place in the 

United States, not where the container first was shipped. 

In the recent report that I have referred to already, Senators 

Hart and Rudman make the point that we have hired some 50,000 

Federal screeners to be at our airports to check passengers and 

bags and cargo, but only the tiniest percentage of container ships, 

trucks, and trains that enter the United States each day are subject to examination. 

Could you describe some of the initiatives that you have underway and will be pursuing to increase the scrutiny of cargo containers? I am particularly interested in your efforts to secure and 

inspect containers at the point of origin. Furthermore, I would ask 

that you describe the level of international cooperation that you are 

getting and whether you are satisfied with it. 

Mr. RIDGE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. First of all, I would 

like to just make an observation with regard to the statistic that 

33

says that, presently, two to three percent of these container ships 

and their cargo are inspected. I think that is fairly accurate. But 

what I think the American people should know is that it is—they 

are inspected not on the whimsy—it is a fairly sophisticated targeting system that the Coast Guard has developed over the past 

couple of years. I won’t necessarily relate all the elements in the 

equation that leads them to conclude that it is in the country’s interest to board the ship, sometimes not at the port of the United 

States, port of entry, but sometimes out at sea. 

So the 2 or 3 percent is fairly accurate, but it is not a random 

act, it is a specifically targeted effort once various kinds of information is secured and conclusions are reached about that ship, its 

crew, and the cargo. 

Your notion of the international dimension of commercial shipping was brought home to me very graphically when I boarded a 

cargo ship in the New Orleans harbor. It was interesting. It was 

registered in Singapore. The crew was from India. The cargo was 

American grain. And it was going to Japan. So at the outset, there 

are four countries that are interested in safe international commercial shipping. 

What the Office of Homeland Security did, with the support of 

the President and the leadership of the Customs Office, was recognize that we get about 70 percent of these shipping containers from 

20 ports, mega-ports, around the world. The initiative of the Coast 

Guard, while going to these 20 ports, working with the foreign governments to get approval so that we could establish a protocol that 

enabled us to locate our Customs people in that port, locate some 

non-intrusive technology in that port. It included some regulations 

that require those who are going to be shipping to provide additional information, timely information to us before the containers 

and the cargo is even put on the ship. 

And so the Container Security Initiative, reaching out to the 20 

mega-ports first, is a very significant initiative undertaken. They 

have reached agreements with 16 of the 20 mega-ports, and once 

that is completed and while we are deploying people and technology, it will be the continued effort of Customs through the new 

Department of Homeland Security to expand that initiative at 

other ports around the world. 

The cooperation on a bilateral basis has been profound. I think 

the world understands that on some of these issues, it is not just 

an American interest at stake, it is an international interest at 

stake, and we find that the collaboration has been instantaneous. 

They have been very receptive and we plan on getting the 20 

wrapped up and moving on shortly. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Governor Ridge, the Department of Defense established the 

Northern Command to defend the people and territory of the 

United States against external and other threats and to coordinate 

the provision of military forces to support civil authorities. Hawaii 

is not within the jurisdiction of the Northern Command. Instead, 

Hawaii falls within the jurisdiction of the Pacific Command. 

We discussed my concern that Hawaii not be ignored as the 

United States coordinates its homeland security policy. I am still 

34

worried about decisions being made without fully considering the 

factors affecting Hawaii due to its geographical location. 

Governor, what assurances can you give the people of Hawaii 

that the Department of Homeland Security is working with the Pacific Command to guarantee that Hawaii and the Pacific Territories 

receive the same military support and coordinated homeland security effort as the rest of the United States? 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, you were kind enough to raise that issue 

with me privately and I would like to express to you publicly my 

response to your very appropriate question. You are right, the 

State of Hawaii is outside NorthCom. That new command will add 

enormous value, I believe, to the Department of Homeland Security 

because of the opportunities it gives the new Department, working 

in conjunction with Secretary Rumsfeld and the North American 

Command, to do some scenario planning to determine in advance 

the timing and use of very specialized assets that only the Department of Defense has in times of emergency. 

I know that it is my responsibility, and I accept it, the same kind 

of assurance that we are able to give to the governors of the other 

49 States and the Senators and the Congressmen with regard to 

the ability to access Department of Defense men, material, assets, 

whatever they might be. I need to work with the Department of 

Defense either through NorthCom or PacCom in order to give you 

and your fellow citizens of Hawaii the same assurance, and I 

pledge to you personally that I will do just that. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. Governor, the homeland 

security grant programs appropriately require States to develop 

mitigation plans and to identify risks. One criterion used to grade 

State plans is the use of mutual aid agreements with neighboring 

and nearby governments. Hawaii was told that it needed to enter 

into such mutual aid agreements during a review of Hawaii’s bioterrorism preparedness plans by the Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

FEMA has suggested that Hawaii seek agreements with Guam 

and other Pacific Territories and perhaps even California. However, Guam and the Pacific Territories rely on Hawaii for support, 

and any help from California is a minimum of 5 hours by air and 

up to about 7 days by boat. That is assuming that planes are flying 

and ships are sailing. 

I appreciate your willingness to identify Hawaii’s unique needs 

because of its geographical location. Governor, what steps can be 

taken in the interim to ensure that Hawaii is not overlooked as 

areas in the contiguous United States enter into mutual aid agreements? How will you ensure that the State’s applications are not 

penalized? 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, it may be just as simple a thing as to giving 

some folks a geography lesson. You do have some unique challenges because of the geography of the State. 

I am aware that on September 11, there were certain national 

decisions made, including closing down air traffic, that meant that 

for a period of time, even that kind of interaction based on a mutual aid pact would have potentially been precluded. 

So I think what we need to do is understand that while we go 

about designing formula, that we do need to drive some of these 

35

dollars to help build a national capacity to help us prevent, reduce, 

or respond to an attack. We need to understand that one size 

doesn’t fit all. To call on friends in Hawaii to create mutual aid 

pacts with the adjacent States conceptually sounds like a pretty 

good idea, but in the practical world, we would have to make an 

exception to that rule and overcome that by being sensitive to your 

unique location. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Governor Ridge, I think you know 

that the final provisions included in the act on civil service and 

union protections were, and I mentioned this to you, a disappointment to me. I do not want to see the treatment of Homeland Security employees made into a political issue. I believe arbitrary treatment of these men and women will undermine the effectiveness of 

the new Department. I certainly hope that what I fear will not 

come to pass and that this administration and future administrations will not overstep bounds and overexert their authority. 

In particular, I know that you, Governor Ridge, have pledged to 

safeguard the civil service and collective bargaining protections of 

employees in the new Department. My question to you is, what will 

you do as Secretary to honor this pledge? 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, the Congressional intent with regard to the 

men and women that work in the new Department and the protection afforded them, a variety of civil service requirements, is embodied in the legislation. Whistleblower protection is embodied 

there, Hatch Act protection, veterans’ preference, and it is clear 

that this is a point of view shared by bipartisan Members of Congress as well as the Executive Branch. 

You gave us flexibility in 6 of the 70 areas, but we read the law 

to say that there is flexibility in only 6 of the 70 areas and all the 

other protections and all the other matters associated with civil 

service protection are inviolate. You are going to give us some flexibility in hiring, firing, discipline, appeals, and some others, but the 

balance of those protections are sacrosanct and not to be touched. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your response. My time has expired. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Levin, would you like to proceed 

now? We are doing 6 minutes per Senator for this round. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. Governor Ridge, as you know, I am 

very much interested in the question of analysis of intelligence and 

where that is going to take place. The Counter-Terrorist Center at 

the CIA receives perhaps 10,000 pieces of intelligence a month. 

They have 1,000 to 2,000 analytical products a month. But you are 

talking about foreign intelligence, I emphasize, and the analysis of 

it, not the collection of it and not domestic intelligence. So we are 

talking about the analysis of foreign intelligence. 

A couple hundred analysts work over there, and the question is 

whether you are going to attempt to duplicate that function of the 

Counter-Terrorist Center. Given the language creating the Department, what is your intention? How do you read that language? 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, it is not our intention to replicate the work 

that is going on at the CTC or within the CIA as it relates to foreign intelligence. It is our intention to use whatever foreign intelligence that may be generated by the intelligence community as it 

relates to a potential domestic terrorist attack as we go about our 

36

mission of matching threat information with potential vulnerabilities in the United States, using that information to make a determination as to whether there is a warning that needs to be rendered and using that information to make a decision as to whether 

additional protective measures need to be deployed. 

But we see the mission of this particular unit as narrowly defined and as getting access to all the information we need for the 

exclusive purpose of—for the primary purpose of protecting America’s critical infrastructure. 

Senator LEVIN. Who has the primary responsibility, in your view 

of the law, to analyze foreign intelligence? 

Mr. RIDGE. The CIA. 

Senator LEVIN. And then their analyses will be forwarded to you, 

is that correct? 

Mr. RIDGE. That is correct. 

Senator LEVIN. And then you will determine what additional information you want, what additional analysis you either want from 

them or you yourself might make to supplement their analysis, as 

I understand it. 

Mr. RIDGE. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator LEVIN. But the principal responsibility to analyze foreign 

intelligence from all sources will remain in the CTC? 

Mr. RIDGE. That is correct. 

Senator LEVIN. I think it is very important that that be stated 

in the law or in a regulation, because we had that language exactly, almost verbatim what I just said, in our Governmental Affairs Committee bill. It did not end up in the final bill. Instead, the 

language becomes blurry. This gives you the authority, not the authority, the responsibility to analyze and it doesn’t state that the 

principal responsibility to analyze foreign intelligence will be at the 

Counter-Terrorism Center. 

So would you take steps, either by requesting amendments to 

this law or through Executive Order or through some regulation, 

to make it clear that the principal responsibility to analyze foreign 

intelligence will be at the CTC? 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, I think that is consistent with how the administration feels, certainly consistent with the history and the 

mission of that Department, and if further clarification is needed, 

we would obviously entertain—if the Congress felt further clarification is needed, so be it. 

Senator LEVIN. I can’t speak for the Congress. I can speak, I 

think, for this Committee because we did adopt that language, and 

so if you will look at that language, and since you said that is what 

the intent is——

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, I will be pleased to look at the language. 

Senator LEVIN. All right, and to let us know whether or not a 

statement of that will be forthcoming, because otherwise, if responsibility is blurred, if we don’t focus responsibility, we are not going 

to have accountability. 

Mr. RIDGE. That is right. 

Senator LEVIN. One of the problems with the whole September 

11 issue is that there is no accountability for failure. No one was 

held accountable. I am not looking to hang anybody. I am looking 

for accountability in this system, and unless you focus the responsiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:15 Jun 19, 2003 Jkt 085336 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\85336.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
37

bility for the most critical issue, which is the analysis of intelligence, we are not going to have accountability, and that means 

we are going to have less of what we really need, which is the thorough analysis where people know that if there is a mistake made 

and a failure, that there could be accountability that results. If you 

will get into that, it would good. 

Mr. RIDGE. I will, Senator. And just to share with you, I think 

the notion that you articulated is one that will guide us as we set 

up this new Department. Responsibility needs to be clear, direct, 

unmistakable, because accompanying that responsibility does come 

the accountability. 

Senator LEVIN. There is one other issue that I wanted to raise 

and that has to do with information which comes into the new 

Homeland Security Department which is unclassified. I am only 

talking here about unclassified information. Under the bill which 

was passed, anyone who divulges that information about critical infrastructure will be subject to a criminal prosecution. 

Now, there are real problems with that. That means you can get 

information that, for instance, a company is leaking material into 

a river that you could not turn over to the EPA if that company 

was the source of the information. You could not even turn it over 

to another agency. It means that a Member of Congress that finds 

out about that information through oversight cannot act on that information, even though it is unclassified information. We would be 

stymied from acting on it, making it public, for instance, or doing 

anything else in relation to information which comes to us, or 

comes to you——

Mr. RIDGE. Right. 

Senator LEVIN [continuing]. As a result of a voluntary submission. That is much too broad and there are some real dangers there 

because then companies could actually protect themselves from actions against them, either agency actions, Congressional action, or 

whatever, by simply giving you the information and at that point, 

that becomes a security blanket for the company. 

So we need you to look at that language. It is way too broad, 

both on the Freedom of Information Act side of it, on the whistleblower side of it, and on this language that I particularly made reference to, where a criminal penalty would be attached to the public 

disclosure of unclassified information where it was voluntarily submitted by a company. There could be some very unintended consequences there which could give protection for wrongdoing that 

threaten our health and environment which we should not be giving to wrongdoers. 

Mr. RIDGE. It certainly wasn’t the intent, I am sure, of those who 

advocated the Freedom of Information Act exemption, to give 

wrongdoers protection or to protect illegal activity, and I will certainly work with you to clarify that language. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Sununu. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Governor, could you talk a little bit about the organizational 

structure that you envision for the Department? Are you going to 

rely on field offices? Are you going to rely more on a centralized 

bureaucracy? And have any decisions been made about the disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:15 Jun 19, 2003 Jkt 085336 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\85336.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
38

tribution of potential field offices or regional offices and what kind 

of a role they would play? 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, we are obliged to, under the law, and very 

appropriately so because we are partners in constructing this agency, to return to Congress and consult with you about any reorganization efforts that we are going to undertake. We presently have 

under review a reorganization plan, but since it is still subject to 

Presidential approval before we submit it to you, I think it would 

be a little premature to share with you these preliminary discussions. 

Let me give you a couple ideas with regard to the principles that 

are guiding the reorganizational effort. The Congressional intent 

has been pretty clear with regard to stronger enforcement at the 

borders, looking at it and saying, how can we do a better job with 

the multiple tasks given to this agency at the borders. Congress 

has made it very clear and the President has embodied that notion 

in his national strategy, that whatever organization or structure 

you put together has to build and then sustain relationships with 

the State and locals as well as the private sector. We look at that 

and determine how we can organize this effort. 

We know that there is a requirement not only for us to share information at the national level, but at the end of the day, as so 

many Members have talked about, getting critical information 

down to the States and locals, to law enforcement and to other first 

responders is very important. We take that into consideration. 

And then everyone, again, on both sides of the aisle says that because there will be so much interaction between the Federal Government and programs and the Federal Government and dollars 

and the Federal Government setting standards, you need to have 

an organization that is sensitive to its outreach responsibility and 

sustaining that relationship. 

So those principles will guide us, Congressional direction, ability 

in sustaining the partnerships will be at the heart of what we do, 

and we hope to be able to come up and consult with Congress in 

the near future. I can’t tell you——

Senator SUNUNU. Do you have a timeline for the release of the 

reorganization plan? 

Mr. RIDGE. I do not at this time. We are doing everything we can 

in the transition phase to accomplish the organization and submit 

it to the President for approval, but we are also simultaneously 

still recruiting some members of the management team. We would 

like to get their input on it, as well. So we are going to do it as 

quickly as possible, because the President has directed us to move 

as expeditiously as we possibly can, to attract the talent we need, 

and then to set up this organization and start making it work. 

Senator SUNUNU. We visited a little bit yesterday and I had some 

questions about information technology. I think the use of technology and different ways, new ways, is going to be critical to creating a standard for protection and for security and then building 

on it over time. I think technology is going to be one of the keys 

to continuing to improve our border security, continuing to improve 

the way we move goods and services across our international borders safely and efficiently, and the way that we identify and potenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:15 Jun 19, 2003 Jkt 085336 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\85336.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
39

tially track visitors to this country where we might have security 

concerns. 

Two questions. One, do you have an estimate of the needs, the 

financial needs for implementing a strong information technology 

system or information technology upgrades in the new Department? And two, we spoke specifically about the biometrics requirement and INS and do you have an estimate of what the cost for 

implementing that would be and whether sufficient funds have 

been appropriated to implement it? 

Mr. RIDGE. First of all, Senator, we examined the technology 

budgets, the IT line items in the departments and agencies that 

are moving in under the new Department and we think there are 

sufficient dollars in existing appropriations to wire us together. 

It is interesting. The Congress in very specific language directed 

the Secretary to take—make a reasonable effort—I assure you it 

will be more than a reasonable effort—to make sure that as we pull 

these units together, that all the information they generate, much 

of which is relevant to other units’ work, is wired together as effectively and as quickly as possible, and then to make sure that once 

we set up our own information infrastructure, that we tie it in to 

other agencies with whom we work. 

And to that end, we are working with Bob Mueller and the intelligence community to see how we can use technology that is out in 

the marketplace today to take what have heretofore been stovepipes, unique, centralized, rarely shared databases, and make sure 

the right people at the right time have access to them so they can 

pull relevant information out. So I think we have enough money to 

do that within the budget and we are going to proceed accordingly. 

The biometrics requirement that Congress imposed on the entryexit system, it is difficult for us right now to estimate the cost. 

Again, our task is to do the best with the extraordinary amount of 

resources you have given us and I think the President, when we 

submitted the budget, and I was responsible for certifying the 

budget last February, there was almost a 100 percent increase in 

security dollars, from about $19 billion to nearly $38 billion. There 

was a substantial increase for INS. 

So, one, I can’t give you a definite figure. Biometrics needs to be, 

will be a significant part of our entry-exit system. I just allude to 

the challenge we have, and I say this to my colleagues, we need 

to work this out. 

Ultimately, there needs to be an international standard, and we 

can just see it coming in our discussions with other countries. 

While we try to ramp up our entry-exit system, at the same time, 

we are going to work with as many, on a multilateral basis and a 

bilateral basis, to see if we can get international buy-in to a common standard, because I can envision a day in the not-too-distant 

future where we are requiring biometrics identification for people 

to come across our borders, and our friends and allies and others 

are going to require the same kinds of information as we visit their 

countries, as well. So we need to be mindful, I think, of establishing some international standards in this effort. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Governor. Thank you, Madam 

Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Durbin. 

40

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Governor Ridge, let me follow up on my opening comment about 

the role of the new employees in your agency, and particularly to 

follow up on something that has been referred to earlier, whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are a real pain for administrators, but 

they perform a valuable function. Were it not for whistleblowers in 

the FBI, one of whom was recently cited in Time Magazine as a 

Person of the Year, we might not know the details of the information that came out before September 11 and what we could have 

done to protect America. 

After September 11, there were two people who worked for the 

INS in Border Patrol, two agents, who went to the press and said 

that the statements made by many government officials about safety on our borders and security were misleading, that there were 

not enough agents on the Northern border protecting the United 

States from the infiltration of dangerous people. As a result of 

those public statements, these two Border Patrol agents suffered 

punitive actions by the agency, in fact, demotions and suspensions, 

because they blew the whistle and said we are not as safe as we 

should be. Were it not for their union fighting to restore their 

rights, that might have gone unnoticed, but the union stepped in. 

Let me ask you, at this moment in time, do you believe that this 

new law exempts your agency or changes in any way the general 

law or rule as to whistleblowers in the Federal Government? 

Mr. RIDGE. I do not, and more importantly, I think there is specific language in the statute that reminds the Secretary and reminds everyone associated with the new Department that there 

shall be no reprisals for legitimate whistleblower activity. So I 

think it is not only understood, but I think it is affirmatively reinforced by the language of the law. 

Senator DURBIN. In your earlier statement about the rights of 

the employees, you said those rights may not extend to questions 

of hiring and firing, if I am not mistaken. I don’t want to put words 

in your mouth. But again, go back to this example I have used. 

Were it not for a union stepping in to protect these employees who 

blew the whistle on misstatements by the Federal Government and 

the lack of protection of our Nation, were it not for that union, 

those two employees would have probably suffered those consequences. So how will you protect your employees who exercise 

their whistleblower rights, then, from retaliation from your agency? 

Mr. RIDGE. Well, first of all, I have pledged publicly and Congress has specifically directed, I think with very explicit language, 

that that historic protection is part of the work environment in the 

new Department of Homeland Security for all. 

Second, we are about to begin a process where we develop a new 

human resources management system and the Congress gave us 

the opportunity to do that and gave us a framework within which 

we were to do that. But we have begun just initial discussions with 

the representatives of organized labor and others, not on content, 

but on the process itself, to make sure that they are involved on 

the very front end of this deliberation, discussion, debate, negotiation, what have you. 

So we recognize our obligations under the statute. I say, from my 

experience as governor, dealing with about 80,000 State employees, 

41

most of whom were unionized, we had a, I think, very good dayto-day working relationship. We negotiated some difficult and challenging bargaining agreements, had enormously effective labor 

leaders. We were candid with one another. We got the job done, 

and I hope we develop the same kind of relationship with the people in this Department. 

Senator DURBIN. And so you will protect the appeals rights of 

your employees if they exercise their rights? 

Mr. RIDGE. Whistleblower is endemic. It needs to be a continuing 

part of the work environment of these men and women. 

Senator DURBIN. Let me go back to the point raised by Senator 

Levin, too, on this FOIA question. It is understandable that if a 

private entity, a corporation, were to give you information that 

they believe is necessary for you to know to protect America, that 

there be some sort of protection there. But the law goes beyond 

that and suggests that once they have made the disclosure, even 

a disclosure of wrongdoing, perhaps a disclosure that has endangered the public health, once they have made the disclosure to your 

Department, they, in fact, are held harmless from civil lawsuits by 

the mere fact that they have made the secret disclosure to your Department. 

Are you concerned about what impact that might have on the redress which an ordinary citizen or a community might have in 

court, for example, an environmental disaster disclosed to your 

agency by a private corporation which is now indemnified from private and civil lawsuits because of that disclosure? 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, I am concerned with that potential outcome. 

I guess I am equally concerned about differing interpretations of 

the statute, which leads me to believe that one of the first responsibilities I have when we get this information analysis and infrastructure protection unit set up, even before then, then I need to 

come back to you and your colleagues like Senator Levin to get 

clarification that makes us both comfortable. 

Senator DURBIN. I hope you will. I think it is an important topic 

and I am glad that Senator Levin raised it and I would like to follow it. 

The last one is the issue that I have raised to you time and time 

again that Senator Sununu mentioned, the interoperability of information technology. The INS today, as part of the Department of 

Justice, has utterly failed in integrating its information technology 

system with the FBI. It has resulted in some very terrible consequences. 

Now, INS is moving out of the Department of Justice into the 

Department of Homeland Security. My concern is that now they 

are getting further away from the agencies that they need to be integrated with and work with more cooperatively. Where is the authority that will bring together the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, all the intelligence agencies to try to create something which I called the ‘‘Manhattan 

Project,’’ to break through this information technology barrier that 

seems to have stopped us, even since September 11, from achieving 

what we need to achieve in exchanging information? 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, you and your colleagues in Congress gave 

that specific task to the new Secretary and it is a task that actually 

42

was undertaken even in the Office of Homeland Security several 

months ago, not just in anticipation of the new Department, but in 

recognition that one of the big challenges we have in this country 

is not necessarily assimilating more information. We have got plenty of information. We just have heretofore been unable, not necessarily unwilling, but unable to connect it so that the right people 

had access to the right information on a timely basis. 

That will be one of the highest priorities within this new Department. It is a very high priority for the President and the administration as we set up a new Department, to bring it in immediately 

to the 21st Century to connect our own internal databases and 

then with those with the external agencies with whom we have to 

work, and it is a measure that, again, we have begun working on. 

We have done an inventory of who has what and what we need to 

put together. We think we have a way ahead where we don’t need 

necessarily to design a whole new system, but there are commercial 

applications in the marketplace today that enable us to tie this together. 

It is also getting that information to consular offices necessarily, 

and some of this information is going to have to go international. 

It is a huge undertaking and I look forward to working with you 

to solving the puzzle. There are a lot of pieces of that puzzle we 

have got to put together. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. I want to work with you. Thank 

you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Governor, in your comments or your statement earlier, you 

touched on air security, and we are reminded of that every time we 

check in an airport and prepare to board an airliner. In her comments, our new Chair spoke to port security, something that is of 

interest to us in Wilmington, Delaware, as it is in any number of 

States. 

I indicated to you when we met earlier this week, and I thank 

you for the visit, but I indicated to you that a lot of us have interest in rail security, too, not just passenger rail security, but the rail 

security that involves the movement of freight throughout our 50 

States. Regarding rail security, I believe you stated that the Transportation Security Agency is developing a proposal that would require transportation facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments 

and to develop security plans to address vulnerabilities. 

I am wondering, would such plans be required for all modal facilities, including aviation and highway facilities? Who would pay 

for these assessments and for these plans? Would the TSA be offering technical assistance or grants to assist facility managers and 

owners in preparing their plans? 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, that outreach to transportation in addition 

to airports has begun with Secretary Mineta and Admiral Loy at 

TSA, working with the Federal Highway Administration, working 

with the Federal Railway Administration, working with the Federal agencies that deal with mass transit, to begin the effort to 

identify vulnerabilities and best practices. Much of the—not all of 

the work has been done, but much of it has been done internally. 

43

I see as one of the critical functions of the infrastructure protection unit, the one unit we call IAIP, Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, consistent with the President’s directive 

under his National Strategy, designed a national critical infrastructure piece around the 14 sectors of the economy that we view as 

critical. Transportation is one, and there may be opportunities in 

the future, depending on need and priority, that the Federal Government may assist. Our Department will fund—work with TSA 

with Federal dollars to assist in doing these vulnerability assessments. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. I have sort of a related 

question, if I could. In the case of Amtrak, as I believe you know, 

the railroad is in serious jeopardy of shutting down this spring unless we provide in the fiscal year 2003 budget for Amtrak roughly 

$1.2 billion, a figure that does not include major spending on security. I certainly hope that the TSA is not poised to require Amtrak 

to prepare thorough security assessments and plans without some 

additional Federal support above and beyond the annual appropriation that we worked on just last night for Amtrak. I think to ask 

them to do more with respect to security without providing that additional funding is an unfunded mandate, and I would just ask for 

your view on that thought. 

Mr. RIDGE. I know, Senator, you have, as well as your colleagues 

along the Northeast corridor, an interest in the continued viability 

of the railroad itself. That is an issue that we wrestled with back 

in 1983, and every couple of years, Congress has to wrestle with 

it again. 

I think there is a need for us to take a look at the legitimate security enhancements with Amtrak and, obviously, through whatever appropriation measure that the Congress may be supportive 

of in the future, hopefully you will be mindful of that, Congress will 

be mindful that that is an additional cost, and if you don’t fund it, 

then we will have to work with you to find some other ways to help 

them on a priority basis deal with the most problematic vulnerabilities. I can’t tell you what they are, but we need to do a vulnerability assessment and then set priorities and then go about addressing them. 

Senator CARPER. If I could put a more human face on this, today, 

as people went to work throughout the country, hundreds of thousands of people went into New York through tunnels that are badly 

lit, badly ventilated, from which evacuation is very difficult. 

Under Baltimore Harbor, there is a tunnel, as I am sure you 

know, and a lot of passenger traffic passes under there, but a lot 

of freight traffic, as well, and a fire literally shut down the tunnel 

last year. It is over 100 years old. It is actually in quite similar 

condition to the New York tunnels. Literally not more than 100 

yards from where we are sitting today, there is a tunnel that goes 

under the Capitol, through which hundreds of thousands of people 

pass every day. 

The rail security portion of Senator Hollings’ National Rail Defense Act, I think it is called, S. 104, requires the Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security, soon to be you, to undertake a 

risk assessment of rail security threats and to come up with steps 

that railroads can take to protect their tracks, stations and rail faVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:15 Jun 19, 2003 Jkt 085336 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\85336.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
44

cilities. The bill also authorizes, I think, about $500 million for the 

new Department to address rail security threats or to award grants 

to passengers and to freight railroads to implement the Secretary’s 

recommendations. 

I am just wondering, what do you think of that approach, if you 

have had any chance to think of it at all? 

Mr. RIDGE. First of all, Senator, in your question, you raise a 

couple of very important issues that we need to deal with nationally. One is you highlighted in your experience in this part of the 

country that there are some tunnels and bridges that are more susceptible of being used for catastrophic attack, and so we do have 

to set priorities around not only vulnerability, but consequences, as 

well, and that is whether it is a tunnel, a rail system, whatever. 

I mean, we do have to manage the risk and make decisions about 

the risk based on probability, vulnerability, and consequence. 

Having said that, I am not familiar with this legislation, but I 

do think that for a general rule of thumb, I think we ought to look 

to the private sector to absorb the expense of protecting their own 

infrastructure. They have a responsibility to their employees. They 

have a responsibility to their shareholders. They have a responsibility to the communities within which they operate. 

That is the general rule. That is not to say that there aren’t exceptions. We did make an exception, a huge exception in aviation. 

I am not sure we can ever afford that kind of exception anywhere 

else in the private sector, but I think they just have to be reviewed 

on an ad hoc basis to see where the highest vulnerabilities are. The 

first general rule is that if it is owned by a private company, it 

should be—the expense should be defrayed by a private company. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Governor Ridge, while the exodus of Members may raise your hopes that the hearing is nearing an end, I am 

about to dash. Many of my colleagues do have some questions for 

you, but unfortunately, we have another roll call vote. 

Mr. RIDGE. I understand. 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will stand in a brief recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order and the 

hearing will resume. Senator Coleman. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Governor Ridge, in my opening comments, I talked about the relationship between the Federal Government and folks at the State 

and local level and we had a wonderful conversation about that. 

I know in the post-September 11 world and the development of 

the Department, you have been tapping into some of the resources 

of folks like the Conference of Mayors and the League of Cities. My 

question is, once the agency is completed, do you have any kind of 

structural ongoing means to make sure that local voice continues 

to be heard as policy is developed? What are your plans in that regard? 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, I think there will be several ways that we 

will, and I must say, should, continue to reach out to organizations 

that represent the governors, the counties, and the cities. The legislation provides for a State and local government coordinator. We 

think that is a critical addition to—the Congress actually added on, 

45

I think, to our original bill, that really creates an office within the 

Department to help continue to build on the relationships that we 

have built on through the Office of Homeland Security. So I think 

that is a very good starting point. 

It is also the place that, hopefully, with the support of the Congress, in response to a lot of concerns that Members have about 

where State and local governments go in order to access different 

funding programs available through the Department of Homeland 

Security, to the extent that the law allows, we would like to consolidate them there, and to the extent that the law doesn’t allow 

it, we might come back to you and say, look, we would like to make 

it a one-stop shop. You have got fire grants, mitigation grants, and 

preparedness grants. You have got a lot of grant programs out 

there. We would like to make it a lot easier for local government, 

State government to access those dollars. So it is our intention to 

do that. 

We also continue to engage these organizations in the President’s 

Homeland Security Advisory Council, their representatives, and it 

is a rotating membership. If you are the president of the League 

of Cities, the Conference of Mayors, the NGA, what have you, they 

continue to be a very important part of that organization. Right 

now, the Chairman is Governor Mike Leavitt and the Vice Chairman is Mayor Williams of Washington, DC, and then there are 

other State and local officials involved in that subcommittee. 

So again, national strategy, not a Federal one. Our partnerships 

with the States and the locals are critically important. Sustaining 

that outreach and working together on policy initiatives and the 

like will be critical to the success of our national effort. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Governor. 

Madam Chair, just one follow-up question. Governor Ridge, one 

of the other areas of concern is this issue of communications, which 

again, going back to my time as mayor, particularly in post-September 11, we had a lot of conversation about. Oftentimes, there 

would be an alert, there would be a notice of something happening 

at the Federal level and my folks at the local level, my cops and 

my police chief, folks in the mayor’s office, the press would come 

to us and say, what is happening, and we couldn’t tell them. 

Understanding that there may be security concerns and not everyone at all levels has the same level of clearance, how can we do 

a better job of making sure that those folks who are the voice of 

the people at the local level and who have the responsibility of 

dealing with problems at that local level, particularly in law enforcement, can be better tied into those things of which you are 

aware at the Federal level? 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, I think there are a couple ways we can go 

about answering that question. The first is making sure, and this 

is going to take some time, that people in a community where there 

is a Joint Terrorism Task Force understand that it is incumbent 

upon the FBI on a fairly regular basis, when they get some information relative to a community, they shoot it down to the FBI-directed Terrorism Task Force. I understand the organization includes local law enforcement and needs to include local law enforcement. 

46

Oftentimes, that information, it is really just for security—primarily law enforcement people and security people, ends up in the 

public domain and people are saying, ‘‘What should we do about 

this?’’ The answer is, it has been shared with the law enforcement 

community so they can do something about it. Let them do their 

jobs and that is not a concern of yours right now, hopefully ever. 

There is another level of advisory and information sharing that 

gives rise to the National Threat Advisory System, where the new 

Secretary will have the responsibility to raise a level of alert. And 

we need to have local law enforcement in the country generally better understand the purpose of the national alert and help them design procedures to respond to that alert. 

And to that end, the Office of Homeland Security and the FBI 

are in the process of developing a conference. We are going to bring 

in local law enforcement so we can talk about how we do a better 

job communicating advisories that the JTTFs operate on, what you 

need to do in the event of raising a national warning, what you 

should do in response to that, and then how we, long-term, can 

begin to do a better job of collaborating and sharing information, 

because in order for us to be successful, it is not just going to be 

the Federal Government sending down intelligence information, 

but we have 650,000 law enforcement personnel on the streets in 

time. We want them to send information back to us. So we still 

have our work cut out for us. 

Senator COLEMAN. Great. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Specter. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Governor Ridge, I begin on the critical question of the authority 

of the Secretary to coordinate all of the analytical materials, and 

I know that this is going to be a Presidential decision. I have had 

the opportunity to talk to President Bush about it on a number of 

occasions, including yesterday when he was traveling to Scranton, 

Pennsylvania. I filed an amendment to the Homeland Security bill, 

and when the House of Representatives left town, it was either a 

matter of passing the bill as was or delaying it over to this year, 

which would have been very undesirable. You and I talked about 

it that day, and as I said earlier, I talked to Vice President Cheney, 

then to President Bush. 

I know this is going to be a decision which is made at the Presidential level, but let me explore with you for a minute or two the 

various agencies and the good will which I know you enjoy at this 

time, but isn’t there an institutional problem down the road when 

you don’t have a really strong Secretary and you don’t have the 

kind of congeniality which exists now with the Presidential appointees and the kind of work which is done together and the tradition of turf fighting. I think your statement about the only turf 

that is important is the turf of America. 

Why not give that strong hand to the Secretary, the one person 

who is going to have analysis under one umbrella? Let the CIA do 

their work in the field. You are not going to touch that. Let the FBI 

do their work in the field, the Defense Intelligence Agency. But 

when push comes to shove, if you need it, why institutionally 

shouldn’t the Secretary have it? 

47

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, right now, it is my belief, and I am grateful 

that you highlight the day-to-day collaboration on a personal basis 

between myself, George Tenet, Bob Mueller, and our respective organizations. I can’t speak prior to October 8, but I can tell you, 

since I have had the opportunity to serve the President in this capacity, it is all encompassing. We share information on a daily 

basis and interact in our respective organizations, interact on a 

daily basis to the extent now twice daily, we all, our representatives convene to review the threat information today, monitor the 

threats from previous days. So we have on a daily basis two video 

conferences, CIA, FBI, other intelligence agencies, and the Office of 

Homeland Security. Likewise, we have the daily meetings with the 

President and the interaction between the organizations. 

Senator I feel that the language in the statute, and I know you 

have been very concerned about the access of this agency to all the 

information it needs to get its job done, is not limited in any way. 

It is so strong and creates such an affirmative obligation on the 

part of the intelligence community that we will get all we need for 

critical infrastructure protection purposes. 

There is a secondary benefit of having access to that information. 

I think, clearly, our analysts, who will be assigned—some of them 

will be assigned to work at the Counter-Terrorism Center, some of 

them will be working with the FBI—one of the unintended, very 

positive consequences of that working relationship is they will participate in the analytical work of these other intelligence agencies 

so that on an ongoing daily basis, we will have a considerable role, 

but not the primary role, in dealing with threat information. 

Senator SPECTER. Governor Ridge, thank you for the answer. You 

can’t comment about what happened prior to October 8 and you 

can’t comment about what is going to happen after Governor Ridge 

is no longer Secretary, but we will talk about it some more because 

I am going to introduce the amendment. It will come before this 

Committee. We can go into it in depth and we can hear from CIA 

Director Tenet and FBI Director Mueller. 

Let me move to another question which I have discussed with 

you before, and that is the labor-management relations. I appreciate your comment to me in our private section that you would be 

willing to sit down with Mr. Harnage and try to work through the 

concerns which labor has. 

As I have gone through and read the statute, the national security waiver is really to be exercised by the President. Now, I know 

that there is an exception in the Transportation Act for Admiral 

Loy to exercise the waiver which he has. But I think it is important 

that we talk about waiving existing laws under labor-management 

relations in existence for a long time that really go to the Presidential level, and I think it is vital that that national security 

waiver be maintained, but I think it really is a Presidential decision. 

Picking up what Admiral Loy did, where there was an effort to 

have collective bargaining with respect to the security screeners, at 

a time when the mood of the country is really a peacetime mood, 

there is no high alert at this moment, what is the difficulty—what 

would have been the difficulty in allowing those negotiations on 

48

collective bargaining to proceed without the exercise of the waiver 

which Admiral Loy brought into effect? 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, I believe that the Admiral, using the authority vested in him by the Congress of the United States to determine terms and conditions of employment, made an appropriate decision that is also consistent with, I think, the status accorded 

these employees in the Transportation Security Act. 

This huge workforce was put together for purposes of national security. Being able to move these people around under—based on 

threat information and the like, I think, is very consistent with the 

President’s commitment to the civil service employees who are 

presently in the Department who have collective bargaining rights. 

They take those collective bargaining rights with them. But these 

new employees that are there by virtue of the Congressional Act 

status, they exist for national security reasons. They are critical to 

aviation security. 

Very appropriately, with Admiral Loy’s—and that is the administration position, very appropriately said, critical to national security. You can work the terms and conditions out, but there will be 

no collective bargaining, which gives him the maximum flexibility 

possible to deploy these resources, these men and women, whenever and wherever he needs them. 

Senator SPECTER. My red light went on during the course of your 

answer, so I am not going to ask another question, but I would ask 

you to submit for the record some responses, and I would ask you 

to supplement the answer you just gave——

Mr. RIDGE. I would be pleased to. 

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. By specifying to the extent you 

can, what national security interest would have been impinged 

upon had collective bargaining gone forward. I can see under some 

circumstances, stress circumstances, that the national security 

waiver has to be used. But it has been applied once, and I would 

just like to get the reasoning as to why it was done here and why 

it couldn’t have been done in accordance with generally prevailing 

collective bargaining approaches. 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, I would be pleased to respond. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Governor. Thank you, 

Madam Chairperson. 

Chairman COLLINS. We have two more Senators who haven’t 

questioned this first round. We will then do a brief second round 

before concluding the hearing if others have additional questions 

either to submit for the record or to ask here. 

Senator Pryor. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I have three questions, and I will try to keep them very brief, for 

Governor Ridge. First, Governor Ridge, based on your written comments and my personal experience there is no question that the 

States are more prepared today than they were on September 11, 

2001. But I have to assume that some States are more prepared 

today than others are. I don’t want to get into the details of States 

and specifics——

Mr. RIDGE. You are right. 

Senator PRYOR [continuing]. But I am curious about, in your 

view, what makes some States more prepared than others? What 

49

are the States that are really out there that you feel comfortable 

with and confident in? What are they doing that some of the other 

States are not? 

Mr. RIDGE. Without identifying any particular States, I think 

that as the leadership in the respective States in the preceding 

years or decades set priorities within their budget, some who decided to unify their communications systems a long time ago for 

public safety purposes are in a better position to develop an interoperable system than those who didn’t unify their communications 

system. 

Some of the States set up very robust emergency management 

agencies with infrastructure that they can communicate with localities. Some States were more aggressive in terms of training their 

first responders. 

So there is a variation and what we seek to do and what we need 

to do in the country is bring up—everyone up to a certain capacity 

and then build on that, and that is one of the reasons that we have 

asked the States to develop State-wide first responder plans, Statewide bioterrorism plans, so we can identify weaknesses that vary 

from State to State and start building minimum capacity around 

the country. 

Senator PRYOR. Will your Department provide not just a blueprint and a pathway for that, but also possibly some funding? 

Mr. RIDGE. Yes. 

Senator PRYOR. Will there be funds available for that? 

Mr. RIDGE. Yes. The budget that the President submitted last 

February had a 1,000 percent increase in first responder money, 

and hopefully, I haven’t seen the omnibus legislation so I don’t 

know whether that $3.5 billion, where it is going to be in this legislation or if it will be that amount. 

But the reason the President recommended to the Congress a 

1,000 percent increase is he recognized the varying capacities and 

the need for us to build a national response mechanism, and to the 

extent that what we do enables us to prevent attacks or reduce our 

vulnerabilities, we need to partner with the States and locals for 

that. 

So, hopefully, with these first dollars going out consistent with 

State-wide plans, the 2004 budget, there will be additional dollars 

and we can start building that capacity. 

Senator PRYOR. My second question or line of questions relates 

to management and quality control within your Department. There 

are going to be about 170,000 employees in the Department. We 

are talking about consolidating or moving or transferring about 22 

different departments and agencies under your umbrella. How do 

we measure whether the new configuration is more efficient and 

more effective than the previous configuration? How do you measure that? 

Mr. RIDGE. Well, I think you are asking us to do what needs to 

be done and what is often done in the private sector and what we 

don’t do often enough in the public sector, and that is set performance standards and metrics by which we can measure success. I 

think as we take a look at building additional capacity at our borders, finally, hopefully locking together the information generating 

and sharing capacity that we have, there will be ways that we can 

50

conclude that because of either the structural changes, the personnel changes, that we are more successful at interdicting more 

people or more drugs at the border, that we can quantify some of 

these results. But as we go about setting up this organization, setting standards and measurements so we can gauge our own 

progress, this is something that we are working on right now. 

And you raise a very good point, just not to belabor the answer. 

We need to help manage better. I have this notion that 170,000 

people go to work every single day, whether at the border, whether 

at the lab, whether they are doing the very best they can. Most 

people want to do the best they can every day. 

Senator PRYOR. They are trying to make——

Mr. RIDGE. Part of our job is to empower them, maybe through 

better management of them at the local site, by engaging them 

when we talk about operational changes at their place of work. So 

we have got a lot of work to do, and frankly, Congress gave us a 

stable platform for a year when you said that everybody that is in 

the Department now gets their wages, their benefits, everything for 

a year as we try to sort these things out with their leadership. 

Senator PRYOR. It seems to me that you have a rare opportunity 

to engraft that quality control into the foundations of the Department. 

Mr. RIDGE. Absolutely. 

Senator PRYOR. And you can start with that, which very few 

other departments and agencies have the opportunity to do. So I 

hope you take full advantage of that and I really hope that this 

agency becomes a model of efficiency and effectiveness because I 

think it has the potential of doing that. 

Mr. RIDGE. So do I. 

Senator PRYOR. The last question I had relates to that, and really a three-part question. If you know and if you can say, what vaccines are being considered to have at our disposal and to be prepared and be ready for use? Where might they be stored, and then 

third, how will the vaccines be distributed? That may be too long 

of a question for us to answer in this forum, but I would appreciate 

a general overview on that. 

Mr. RIDGE. It is a very appropriate question because we do have 

the responsibility to build and maintain and occasionally supplement the regionally located push-packs that Health and Human 

Services has maintained with vaccines and diagnostics and antidotes. I would be happy to provide for you an inventory of what is 

presently in those field offices in those packages. 

One of the responsibilities of the new Department is to assess 

any threat information out there relative to a potential bio or 

chemical attack, see if there is a vaccine or an antidote for either/

or on the market or under research, and if we see a need to press 

forward to procure it and then make that inventory a little bit larger based on our analysis of the threat. 

Senator PRYOR. Go ahead. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Fitzgerald. 

Senator FITZGERALD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

51

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR FITZGERALD 

Governor Ridge, thank you very much for being here. I think it 

is appropriate that we thank you for being willing to serve in this 

position. You have had a fabulous career in government as Governor of Pennsylvania and also in Congress for many years. You 

practiced law in the private sector and you have a tremendous 

record of service in our armed forces, having received a Bronze 

Star. I would just like to thank you for offering yourself to your 

country. It is a considerable personal sacrifice to do what you are 

doing, and I think we are lucky to have someone of your caliber. 

It is a great credit to the President who has recommended you for 

confirmation. So I just want to thank you. 

Just a couple of quick questions. I think you answered Senator 

Specter’s questions pretty well about the intelligence and analysis 

function. I just want to encourage you, if you do feel that we need 

to amend the statute to give more authority later on or you are 

having trouble with turf battles, to make that known and come to 

us to see what we can do. We have all been very worried about a 

lack of coordination amongst the different agencies that have responsibility for intelligence. We hope you will have the tools available that you need to bring things together. But do come back to 

us if you think we need to make changes in the statute. 

I did want to ask one question about air security. The TSA, 

which will be the Transportation Security Administration, a new 

agency that we have created and which will be transferred to your 

jurisdiction, has done an admirable job in terms of meeting the 

short, quick deadlines Congress imposed upon it to start screening 

all passenger bags. Some thought we would never meet the deadline of December 31. There were a lot of nay-sayers. Secretary Mineta and Admiral Loy got it done, they didn’t complain, and I think 

that was very impressive. They are doing it not only at large airports like O’Hare in my State, but also small airports that I have 

been through recently and I am very impressed. 

I am, however, worried that we are not adequately checking the 

cargo that goes aboard the planes. They aren’t subject to the same 

type of screening, although there is some inspection. I just wondered whether you had any thoughts on the direction we maybe 

should head in with respect to cargo that travels aboard our passenger planes? 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, I want to assure you that Admiral Loy and 

the TSA is cognizant that they have other responsibilities, to include the mandated responsibility to ramp up the Department and 

focus on passengers and baggage, but they understand full well 

that the cargo that goes beneath the commercial aviation is a potential source of an attack, as well. They are working on that and 

will continue to work with the aviation industry to address that. 

There are other concerns with regard to general aviation and the 

intermodal nature of our transportation system, so I want to assure 

that that is just one of the many potential vulnerabilities within 

our transportation system that Admiral Loy is working on. 

And I just want to publicly thank you for your public recognition 

of the extraordinary work that Secretary Mineta did in order to 

ramp this thing up in such a short period of time. I remember his 

first visit to the White House, shortly after the legislation was 

52

passed, and he had a several-page handout showing the President, 

this is what we have got to do, this is the process we are going to 

get it done, and Mr. President, I assure you, I have been tasked 

with this. We are going to get it done. And he and Admiral Loy 

and Michael Jackson, everybody over there deserves enormous 

credit for a job well done and I thank you for publicly recognizing 

that. 

Senator FITZGERALD. Well done, and thank you, Governor Ridge. 

I look forward to voting on the floor of the Senate for your nomination and hope we can get it done today, too, and perhaps we can. 

Madam Chairman, thank you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

We learned something today about you in that your durability 

looks pretty good. You don’t look terribly unfresh or anything like 

that. [Laughter.] 

I understand, Governor, that a question was asked about the 

Coast Guard and that you are committed to making sure that they 

are adequately funded for all of their responsibilities. If that is the 

case, I am pleased to hear it and we will forego a question that I 

have that related to that. 

One of the things that occurs to me, and I am sure to you, as 

well, and that is this kind of mix of committee responsibilities that 

are overlapping and you have the job now of bringing it all together 

in kind of one place. By way of example, the Commerce Committee, 

for example, oversees the Coast Guard, the Judiciary Committee 

oversees immigration, and the list goes on. I wonder whether you 

have any views on whether or not a Congressional oversight committee, as happens with other major departments of an administration, are there to be responsible for and responsive to that committee’s work. Could you see that it might require a Congressional 

oversight committee devoted exclusively to the Department of 

Homeland Security? 

Chairman COLLINS. I would interject to advise the governor to be 

very careful in how he answers this question if he wants to be confirmed today. [Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. This is just conjecture, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. RIDGE. Thank you, counselor. [Laughter.] 

Thank you, Senator. Senator, perhaps treading on some thin ice, 

but I would like to respond to your question as a former member 

of the House of Representatives and of Congress. I think any effort 

that could be undertaken to reduce the number of committees and 

subcommittees, that we once calculated to be as high as 88, that 

this Department or the units of this Department have to report to 

would be greatly appreciate and, I think, lend itself, in my judgment, to even better oversight. 

It is not a conclusion it is probably fair for me to draw, but you 

understand, as I think anyone that has been in Congress understands, that the men and women who come before you to testify, 

my colleagues in the cabinet, the under secretaries, they just don’t 

walk in and respond to questions. They do a lot of preparatory 

work. The staff does a lot of preparatory work. 

And I think, at least at the outset, the next several years, as we 

are trying to build this organization together, any effort to focus 

53

the oversight would be certainly appreciated on our part, and 

Madam Chairman, I will leave it up to the leaders of this body and 

the others to determine where that focus should be. I hope I got 

out of that answer without too much trouble. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. One of the things that one dare not do in 

this place is suggest that jurisdictions be moved away from particular committees that have worked with these departments over 

a lot of years, a lot of experience gained. 

The only thing that I see, and I come out of the business world 

before I was here and ran a fairly good-sized company, is that 

when it gets to be the size that your Department, we want it to 

be, and whether Commerce decides on what the authorization for 

Coast Guard ought to be, and the Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security is kind of left out, maybe comes up as a witness, but then you only have part of the problem to work with, and 

it happens throughout the structure, whether it is on the appropriations side or otherwise. 

There is no doubt that every one of us here and in the U.S. Senate wants your Department to succeed. We are encouraged by the 

fact that you bring the kind of leadership to it that you have and 

we are comforted by that. But I look at how the thing works, and 

the question is not intended to be provocative at all because I want 

the Governmental Affairs Committee to be able to take on even 

more responsibilities, Madam Chairman—— [Laughter.] 

But anyway, it is just kind of a ‘‘how do you feel about it’’ thing. 

One of the things that President Bush talked about in his campaign, I have been very involved in trying to curb gun violence in 

the country and have authored a couple of bills, one of which had 

to deal with spousal abuse, and we took thousands, I think over 

70,000 guns now, gun permits, away from being issued to those 

who were spousal abusers. I had a bill on gun show loopholes, 

where anyone can walk up, no identification, nothing, no pictures, 

no address, nothing, just put your money up and take your gun. 

Some States control that, but others don’t. 

President Bush said on the campaign trail that he was in favor 

of closing that gun show loophole, where an unlicensed dealer could 

do business there and not break any laws, just sell them to the 10 

most wanted if they came up to buy guns, etc., and he said that 

he thought an instant background check would work. There are 

some flaws in that. 

Do you see, Governor, that this loophole challenges our ability to 

maintain security as vigorously as we would like it to be in this one 

area? After all, weapons distribution is a serious part of what our 

security is all about. 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, I think I recall the President’s discussion of 

that issue during the course of the campaign, and not normally one 

to dodge jurisdictional questions, I think, one, it is probably better 

answered specifically by the Department of Justice. 

But two, I don’t—when anyone uses a firearm, whether it is the 

kind of terrorism that we are trying to combat with al Qaeda and 

these non-state terrorists, or as a former district attorney involved 

in the conviction of individuals who used firearms against innocent 

citizens, regardless of how we define terrorism, that individual and 

that family felt that they were victims of a terrorist act. BranVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:15 Jun 19, 2003 Jkt 085336 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\85336.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
54

dishing a firearm in front of anybody under any set of circumstances is a terrorist act and needs to be dealt with. 

I don’t view it, as we take a look at the means and methods by 

which the terrorist organizations that we are trying to combat go 

about inflicting harm or damage on our society, I don’t view that 

as being a high priority for them. But clearly, as a society, reducing 

the number of violent offenses with firearms is a legitimate objective just generally, with or without any implications for combatting 

terrorism. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Not having some identification about those 

who buy weapons, I mean, as we have seen of late, we are finding 

people who seem to be part of the terrorist structure, and getting 

guns, of course, is a likely step——

Mr. RIDGE. We discovered in Pennsylvania with our background 

check that we worked with gun control advocates and the NRA, we 

devised a system that provided for that kind of information being 

available, and believe it or not, there are still people with convictions and felonies who will actually go and try to purchase a firearm. We apprehend dozens of them. 

So there is something for having that information available 

through your local law enforcement, but I don’t quite see the terrorist connection that you might, and I say that respectfully, Senator. It is a problem that we need to deal with, violent crime, but 

I don’t view it, based on the information we have presently, as 

being a—it is always an option to the kind of terrorist activity that 

homeland security is trying to deal with, but not a favored one at 

this point. 

Chairman COLLINS. The Senator’s time has expired about 3 minutes ago and we are going to do another round. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I see. Well, if I might, there are a couple 

of other questions like civil liberties in New Jersey. We have a substantial Arab American population and I want to know that they 

are protected from random kind of searches and things of that nature, and I will submit those questions in writing. 

Mr. RIDGE. I am pleased to respond to them, Senator. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I thank you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. I appreciate the cooperation of 

the Senator from New Jersey. 

We are going to move to a second round of questions, but they 

will be only 4 minutes per Senator. We are going to try to adjourn 

around 1 p.m., so we will move to that right now. 

Governor Ridge, I want to talk to you a little more about the relationship between the new Department and our first responders. 

A friend of mine who is a State trooper told me that when he first 

heard of the attacks of September 11, he was riding in his cruiser 

and he radioed into headquarters and was told that there was no 

information and they didn’t know where to get further information, 

that the best source of information was CNN. 

Similarly, in the latest Hart-Rudman report, there are concerns 

expressed that local and State police officers continue to operate in 

what the report describes as a virtual intelligence vacuum without 

access to the terrorist watch list. I hear concerns and complaints 

expressed by the police chief in the largest city in Maine about how 

communications are shared. 

55

Could you tell us your plans for improving communications between the officials in Washington, headquarters, if you will, and 

those who are on the front lines, those who are first to respond in 

the event of an attack? 

Mr. RIDGE. Madam Chairman, I think the means of communication and the source of the communication as we deal with first responders and law enforcement are actually several in nature. I 

know that FBI Director Mueller on a fairly regular basis through 

electronic communication updates and informs local law enforcement members who participate in the nearly 60 Joint Terrorism 

Task Forces around this country. 

That is information that is law enforcement sensitive for their 

use only, not necessarily for public distribution, although occasionally it does get out in the public and we still haven’t learned, I believe, to understand that there will be times when we do send information down to local law enforcement potentially for them to 

know, occasionally to act upon, that doesn’t mean they have to do 

anything different than they are now. Let the law enforcement 

community do its work. 

We will have a responsibility embodied in the statute as well as 

the President’s national strategy to communicate threat information as it relates to critical infrastructure to the State and local law 

enforcement community, as well. We will be working together with 

the FBI, as we do now, on trying to streamline the process by 

which they get information, expand the kinds of information that 

they can get and get access to. Again, the statute, it directs the office and directs me to establish the protocols by which additional 

information can be timely communicated in usable form by local 

law enforcement. It has to be part of our information infrastructure 

system that we will develop in the Department. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

When you were Governor of Pennsylvania, did you undertake 

any major reorganizations of State Government? 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, I did, actually. There were a couple of them 

dealing with cabinets. There was one agency that we thought 

should expire and take its task and mission and put it in another. 

We did that, and then we did reorganize our environmental agency. 

Actually, the mission was too broad and we divided that and gave 

it two separate missions. So both in terms of merging and separating to do a better job. We moved a couple of organizations in 

both directions. One we merged, one we separated. 

And I think at the end of the day, we were able to do it in consultation with our legislature, working with the employees that 

were affected, and hopefully somebody will conclude as they look 

back, it was a good thing that we did it and we were able to provide better service to whatever constituency—to the constituency of 

Pennsylvania because we did it. 

Senator CARPER. When I think about the value of what you undertook there and how that might apply to the role you are undertaking now, this is several magnitudes beyond that——

Mr. RIDGE. Times 10, I think, maybe 20. 

Senator CARPER. I suspect that the size of the workforce that you 

had in Pennsylvania was——

56

Mr. RIDGE. We had about 80,000, Senator. We had 80,000 employees in Pennsylvania. This is twice as large. The budget is about 

twice as large, so that is a factor, too. But the challenges are absolutely more complex. 

Senator CARPER. Just to take this analogy a little bit further, 

let’s assume there are only 49 States and that we decide to create 

a 50th and Pennsylvania was created by taking like a big part of 

Northern Delaware—— [Laughter.] 

Mr. RIDGE. Another revisionist historical approach. 

Senator CARPER. And other pieces from other States and somehow cobbling it together to form a commonwealth and you ended 

up being the first governor. 

What I see going on here, this is a merger of sorts, where you 

are taking all these disparate units that have been in the past part 

of other government agencies, and now you have got to merge them 

together with all these different cultures to make them work effectively. 

If I were doing that, I think I would look for help. I would look 

for a lot of help. But I would especially look for help from people 

who have had a lot of experience in merging different cultures, 

whether it would be private sector or public sector, people who 

have done that, been there and done that, and who could help me 

and, in this case, help you. 

I presume that when you are looking for, like, a deputy secretary 

and you are looking for other people, whether it is on the payroll 

or folks that you would bring in as consultants or hired hands for 

a while, are you looking to do that to help merge all these cultures 

and to enable us to avoid the kind of delay and difficulty we had 

in creating the Department of Defense 50-some years ago? 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, we are. As you know, the President has 

nominated Gordon England, who is presently the Secretary of the 

Navy, to be the Deputy, and he has been involved in the private 

sector most of his life with very complex organizations and is 

knowledgeable from his private sector world about mergers and acquisitions and blending cultures and the like. 

You have also given us an opportunity and some flexibility in the 

language of this statute to engage the services of people who had 

that kind of experience as we try to ramp up and take these 

170,000 people and empower them in different ways, train them in 

different ways so they can maybe be even more effective in doing 

the job we ask them to do now. So we will rely on both internal 

and external sources for that. 

Senator CARPER. I urge you to do that. On a different subject, 

others have raised the issue of intelligence and trying to figure out 

how we work with the CIA and the FBI and the unit within this 

new Department. Let me just ask, do you support the creation of 

a statutory Director of National Intelligence, and how do you feel 

about the creation of a new domestic intelligence agency? 

Mr. RIDGE. Well, I believe the President’s decision to task Director Mueller and the FBI with the responsibility of becoming our domestic counter-terrorism agency, give it primacy in that role, is a 

very appropriate role given to a very responsible and effective leader. Director Mueller in a very short period of time has substantially 

enhanced his counter-terrorism capability internally. He has beefed 

57

up the analytical capacity of the FBI. He and Director Tenet of the 

CIA are putting together a program so they can begin to train and 

increase significantly the number of analysts available for the CIA 

to deal with counter-terrorism. 

He also, through the support of Congress, and I think you have 

appropriated several hundred million dollars, is right in the middle 

of a very exciting—the creation of an infrastructure within the FBI 

that will make sure that some of the obstructions or impediments 

to the information flow that might have existed before he got there, 

he takes care of them through technology. And we have been working with Director Mueller to make sure that we have access to 

some of that information as we connect our units to his. 

So I think, in balance, there is no need for a new domestic intelligence agency or counter-terrorism agency. That is the role the 

President assigned to the FBI and I think Bob Mueller has gone 

a long way into executing those responsibilities. He is moving 

quickly and he is moving effectively. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, and to Governor Ridge, my friend, 

good luck. Thank you for your willingness to serve. 

Mr. RIDGE. Thanks, Senator. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Carper. Senator Coleman. 

Senator COLEMAN. Madam Chairman, Governor Ridge, in my 

first series of questions, I talked a little bit about the communication issue between those at the Federal level and the State and 

local level. Just to briefly talk a little bit about the dollars, and you 

have addressed some of that already, but just a couple of observations. 

If we are to have economic security—and you talk to moms and 

dads and know that this is the kind of issue they can’t help but 

think about when taking care of their families, you have got to 

have personal security assured by strong national security. I think 

one can only look at the terrible circumstances that surrounded the 

Washington area, when the snipers were loose. Aside from the terrible human toll, there was also an the emotional toll and an economic toll. Commerce ground to a halt. So we have got to have national security if we are to have a strong economy. 

The challenge we face now in my State is we have a $4.5 billion 

deficit. As a former mayor, I am very sensitive to unfunded mandates—things that we tell folks at the State and local level to do 

but without giving them the money to do it—so it comes out of the 

pockets of folks at the local level, which are already stretched very 

thin. But the reality is, at the national level, we are also being 

stretched thin facing our own deficit issues. 

Talk to me a little bit about what you think can be done to help 

States, help those at the local level with the additional responsibilities that come with enhanced security, enhanced safety, enhanced 

preparedness under the current economic circumstances. 

Mr. RIDGE. Senator, I believe there are core responsibilities that 

both the Federal Government and State Governments and local 

governments have constitutionally and that it is a mistake during 

these difficult times necessarily for any other level of government 

to look to the Federal Government, because they are in a deficit, 

58

as if the Federal Government did not have a deficit and didn’t have 

to deal with it in a meaningful and aggressive way. 

Having said that, and understanding as a former governor that 

I had responsibility for public safety and as one of the key responsibilities, those kind of programs should continue to be the unique 

responsibility of the States and locals. If you have a difficult—I 

have had many conversations with my Governor friends that these 

are difficult times, you are going to have to set some priorities, because we are going to work our way through this difficult economic 

period. But in the meantime, everybody has to set priorities. 

The President has said very clearly, in spite of our difficulty at 

the national level, that we do have a priority to significantly increase the Federal dollars available to assist States and locals deal 

with the threat of international terrorism. Hopefully, the omnibus 

bill will put the dollars into circulation that the President recommended almost a year ago, where we went from $19 billion to 

over $38 billion for homeland security, where bioterrorism dollars 

went from $1.5 billion to nearly $6 billion, where first responder 

money was increased 1,000 percent to $3.5 billion, where border security, I think the enhancements were substantial to an amount to 

include—the final sum was about $7 billion, somewhere in there. 

Bottom line, everybody sets priorities. We, the Federal Government, have a responsibility to—the President has accepted this—

to work with our first responders in certain very important but limited ways, and I think he has been—we have been very appropriate. I had to certify that budget that you are voting on now. Is 

it necessary? Yes. Is the level appropriate? Yes. It is my hope that 

we can get this omnibus bill through and get those dollars out the 

door, because your mayor friends and my governor friends can’t 

wait to take that and start building the capacity that we have 

asked them to build. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Governor. Thank you, Madam 

Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Senator Coleman. 

Governor Ridge, there is just one more matter that I want to address with you. As you know, I am hopeful that the Committee will 

waive the rules and act favorably on your nomination today. In 

order to do so, however, I need to secure a commitment from you 

to respond in a timely fashion to questions submitted for the 

record. I have a whole stack myself that I didn’t get to today. Are 

you willing to give us that commitment? 

Mr. RIDGE. Madam Chairman, I assumed that with the schedule 

today of people moving back and forth, there would be quite a few 

questions, and we will get to them as soon as they are sent to us 

and we will respond in a timely way. 

Chairman COLLINS. I appreciate that commitment. Without objection, the record will be kept open until 5 p.m. today for the submission of any written questions and statements. Senator 

Santorum asked for me to let you know, Governor Ridge, that he 

apologized for not being able to rejoin us. He was here at the beginning——

Mr. RIDGE. I noticed that. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman COLLINS My hope is to hold a markup on this nominee 

after the next floor vote. It will be held in the President’s Room for 

59

the convenience of my colleagues. Senator Lieberman has graciously agreed that we would waive the Committee’s rules in order 

to act today on the nomination and that is my hope and intent. 

With that, I want to thank you, Governor Ridge, for appearing 

before the Committee today and for fully answering our questions. 

I believe our Nation is extremely fortunate that an individual of 

your caliber has agreed to accept this truly awesome responsibility. 

So I thank you for being here and I look forward to working with 

you and I hope to have good news later today. 

Mr. RIDGE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. The meeting is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(61)

A P P E N D I X 


85336.001
62


85336.002
63


85336.003
64


85336.004
65


85336.005
66


85336.006
67


85336.007
68


85336.008
69


85336.009
70


85336.010
71


85336.011
72


85336.012
73


85336.013
74


85336.014
75


85336.015
76


85336.016
77


85336.017
78


85336.018
79


85336.019
80


85336.020
81


85336.021
82


85336.022
83


85336.023
84


85336.024
85


85336.025
86


85336.026
87


85336.027
88


85336.028
89


85336.029
90


85336.030
91


85336.031
92


85336.032
93


85336.033
94


85336.034
95


85336.035
96


85336.036
97


85336.037
98


85336.038
99


85336.039
100


85336.040
101


85336.041
102


85336.042
103


85336.043
104


85336.044
105


85336.045
106


85336.046
107


85336.047
108


85336.048
109


85336.049
110


85336.050
111


85336.051
112


85336.052
113


85336.053
114


85336.054
115


85336.055
116


85336.056
117


85336.057
118


85336.058
119


85336.059
120


85336.060
121


85336.061
122


85336.062
123


85336.063
124


85336.064
125


85336.065
126


85336.066
127


85336.067
128


85336.068
129


85336.069
130


85336.070
131


85336.071
132


85336.072
133


85336.073
134


85336.074
135


85336.075
136


85336.076
137


85336.077
138


85336.078
139


85336.079
140


85336.080
141


85336.081
142


85336.082
143


85336.083
144


85336.084
145


85336.085
146


85336.086
147


85336.087
148


85336.088
149


85336.089
150


85336.090
151


85336.091
152


85336.092
153


85336.093
154


85336.094
155


85336.095
156


85336.096
157


85336.097
158


85336.098
159


85336.099
160


85336.100
161


85336.101
162


85336.102
163


85336.103
164


85336.104
165


85336.105
166


85336.106
167


85336.107
168


85336.108
169


85336.109
170


85336.110
171


85336.111
172


85336.112
173


85336.113
174


85336.114
175


85336.115
176


85336.116
177


85336.117
178


85336.118
179


85336.119
180


85336.120
181


85336.121
182


85336.122
183


85336.123
184


85336.124
185


85336.125
186


85336.126
187


85336.127
188


85336.128
189


85336.129
190


85336.130
191


85336.131
192


85336.132
193


85336.133
194


85336.134
195


85336.135
196


85336.136
197


85336.137
198


85336.138
199


85336.139
200


85336.140
201


85336.141
202


85336.142
203


85336.143
204


85336.144
205


85336.145
206


85336.146
207


85336.147
208


85336.148
209


85336.149
210


85336.150
211


85336.151
212


85336.152
213


85336.153
214


85336.154
215


85336.155
216


85336.156
217


85336.157
218


85336.158
219


85336.159
220


85336.160
221


85336.161
222


85336.162
223


85336.163
224


85336.164
225


85336.165
226


85336.166
227


85336.167
228


85336.168
229


85336.169
230


85336.170
231


85336.171
232


85336.172
233


85336.173
234


85336.174
235


85336.175
236


85336.176
237


85336.177
238


85336.178
239


85336.179
240


85336.180
241

Æ


85336.181