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

81–325 PDF 2002

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: AN

OVERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSAL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 20, 2002

Serial No. 107–87

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

DAVE WELDON, Florida

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES C. WILSON, Chief Counsel

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 20, 2002 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Ridge, Tom, Director, Office of Homeland Security ....................................... 85

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 4

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 42

Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Illinois, prepared statement of ................................................................ 74

Duncan, Hon. John J., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Tennessee, prepared statement of ........................................................... 80

Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York:

Article entitled, ‘‘Buck-Passing Delayed EPA In 9/11 Cleanup’’ ........... 124

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 62

Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Hawaii, prepared statement of .................................................................... 50

Morella, Hon. Constance A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 56

Ose, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of ........................................................................... 46

Putnam, Hon. Adam H., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Florida, prepared statement of ................................................................ 72

Ridge, Tom, Director, Office of Homeland Security, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 91

Schrock, Edward L., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 18

Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Connecticut, prepared statement of ........................................................ 9

Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Massachusetts, prepared statement of ................................................... 23

Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 134

Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 66

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 13

Weldon, Hon. Dave, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Florida, prepared statement of .................................................................... 36

(1)

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY:

AN OVERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSAL

THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:10 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Burton, Barr, Gilman, Morella, Shays,

Horn, Thomas M. Davis of Virginia, Souder, LaTourette, Miller,

Ose, Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Platts, Weldon, Putnam, Schrock,

Duncan, Sullivan, Waxman, Lantos, Mink, Sanders, Maloney, Norton, Cummings, Kucinich, Davis of Illinois, Tierney, Turner, Allen,

Schakowsky, Clay, Watson, and Lynch.

Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Daniel R. Moll, deputy

staff director; James C. Wilson, chief counsel; David A. Kass, deputy chief counsel; Marc Chretien, senior counsel; Chad Bungard,

Pablo Carrillo, Hilary Funk, Randall Kaplan, and Jennifer Hall,

counsels; Caroline Katzin, Kevin Long, and Gil Maklin, professional staff members; Blain Rethmeier, communications director;

Allyson Blandford, staff assistant; Robert A. Briggs, chief clerk;

Robin Butler, office manager, Elizabeth Crane, deputy communications director; Joshua E. Gillespie, deputy chief clerk; Nicholis Mutton, assistant to chief counsel; Leneal Scott, computer systems

manager, Corinne Zaccagnini, systems administrator; Phil Schiliro,

minority staff director; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel; Kate

Anderson, Michelle Ash, Tony Haywood, and David Rapallo, minority counsels; Karen Lightfoot, minority senior policy advisor; Mark

Stephenson and Tania Shand, minority professional staff members;

Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; and Earley Green, minority assistant clerk.

Mr. BURTON. The committee will come to order. Today we are

meeting to begin considering the President’s proposal to create a

Homeland Security Department. And Governor Tom Ridge, my

good friend, is here to testify, commonly known as Landslide.

I am very glad that he is here to explain the President’s plan and

to answer our questions. For the last couple of months, a lot of

questions have been asked about the events leading up to September 11th. Did the FBI and the CIA fail to coordinate, and many of

us have questions about that. Did the FBI respond as aggressively

2

as they should have when leads were developed? Did the INS make

mistakes?

These are very important questions. We ought to get answers. It

is important to learn from the mistakes that were made in the past

so we can do better in the future. And that is the value of oversight, congressional oversight is absolutely necessary. But it is also

important for us to look forward. We need to take the steps that

are necessary to prevent another terrorist attack. The President

has said very clearly that we need to have one cabinet level department whose primary mission is to protect the United States from

terrorist attack; a Defense Department for the United States, if you

will.

Congress is going to act on the President’s proposal and I believe

will do it in a bipartisan way, that is very important. I support the

President’s plan. I support the creation of a homeland security department. I signed on as an original co-sponsor of the bill. I want

to work with the President, Mr. Ridge and all of my colleagues on

the Government Reform Committee to get this bill passed, and we

will get the job done.

I think that this committee is in a good position to take on this

challenge. First, it is our jurisdiction. This committee is responsible

for executive branch reorganizations. Second, and more importantly, we have the experience. We have a subcommittee, very ably

chaired by Mr. Shays, and Mr. Shays, we want to thank you for

all of the hearings you have had in the past that deal with national

security.

And he has held more than two dozen hearings on actually this

issue. Are we organized to defend against terrorist attacks? Are we

organized to recover from them? This subcommittee has been looking at these issues for more than 2 years. We have seven subcommittees that oversee every facet of the government. Almost

every one of these subcommittees have held hearings this year

looking into different aspects of the homeland security puzzle.

Last fall, at the full committee, we heard Benjamin Netanyahu,

the former prime minister of Israel talk about how they dealt with

terrorism in that country, and what we need to do here in the

United States. We heard from in General Zinni who was asked by

the President to be his special envoy to the Middle East. So we

have the experience.

One thing is clear. If we are going to do this, it has to be bipartisan. We have to work together, Republicans and Democrats. We

have got to work with the other committees of the House and we

have got to work with the leadership. After September 11th, this

Congress rallied behind the President. We worked together to do

what was necessary in that crisis. We can be all proud of that. If

we all work together over the next month, we can get the same

kind of results.

And we have got a lot of work to do. And we don’t have a lot of

time to do it. We just received the bill 2 days ago. I think all of

the Members here have questions about different aspects of the

bill. Why were some agencies included? Why were other agencies

left out? That is why I am very pleased that Governor Ridge is here

this afternoon so he can start answering these questions and we

can start getting answers.

3

In his message to Congress, the President said, ‘‘the threat of terrorism is a permanent condition.’’ It is not going to go away, and

he is right. This problem is not going to go away. Terrorists from

around the world are going to keep trying to strike us where we

are weak. When the stakes are this high, we can’t have the responsibility for homeland security spread out over 100 different agencies. That is a big problem. We need to have one Federal agency,

one cabinet level officer whose primary mission is homeland defense.

That is why the President made this proposal. That is why we

need to work together with him to get it passed. And I am going

to ask all of my members here on the committee to limit their

opening statements to 3 minutes or less. If Members would be willing to submit their statements for the record, that would even be

better. We have a lot of questions for Governor Ridge and I want

us to have as much time as possible to ask those questions. I tried

to lead by example by keeping my usually long statement short.

So I hope everyone will do the same.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]

4

5

6

Mr. BURTON. With that, Mr. Waxman is not yet here, but his

good friend and my good friend, Mr. Lantos, is here. We will start

with him. Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I am

glad to welcome our good friend, Tom Ridge. I want to commend

the President for selecting you for your current position and wish

you the very best in your future position.

No one could do the job better than you, Tom. We are all proud

of you. Following September 11, phase 1, the immediate task of

giving the President all of the powers that he needs to conduct the

war against global terrorism was the responsibility legislatively of

the Internal Relations Committee. The chairman of that committee,

Henry Hyde, and I as ranking member, managed that legislation

in a 91⁄2-hour marathon session. The session wasn’t so long because

the issue was controversial, it was long because every member

chose to speak on the subject.

As you remember, we passed it with one dissenting vote. All Republicans and all but one Democrat voted to give the President all

of the powers to conduct the war on global terrorism.

This legislation and your new department is the second phase.

Now, we have had some time to look at the organizational structures that will be required to carry on this vote. If the phrase ‘‘mission creep’’ has any meaning, it is your operation. You currently

have 100 employees, and you will have, I understand, about

170,000, which I think deserves a record in the Guinness Book as

the fastest growing entity in the Federal Government.

And let the record show it happened under Republican administration.

You will note, Tom, that you will have the same bipartisan support wall to wall that the President had with his initial proposal.

We are dealing with the Nation’s security. And we are all on the

same side of this issue.

Our concerns are not with the needs to establish this new department. Democrats have advocated it for a long time. But we are

determined to do it right. Because if we don’t do it right, all of us

will suffer. I think it is important for the media and the administration to understand that those of us who will raise questions

about particulars of the proposal do so in a spirit of patriotism, cooperation and friendship. There is no monopoly on wisdom in this

body or in the government at large. And we Democrats will be

making constructive and positive contributions to make your future

department more effective and more functional.

Let me just say that the State Department had a rather interesting test case, pilot study of how difficult it is, even in the same general arena to integrate different entities. In the recent past, as you

know, we went through integrating the U.S. Information Agency,

the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the State Department, all dealing with foreign policy. It was a horrendously complex undertaking, partly because the cultures of the three agencies

were so different.

You will be inheriting a tremendous array of agencies with profoundly different cultures. And one of the things we will be looking

at is how we can smoothly do this. My own recommendation would

be that long before the legislation passes, there be some interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:40 Oct 03, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81325.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
7

agency cooperation so people understand the other agencies that

they will be dealing with.

Now, one item will be nonnegotiable on the Democratic side. And

that is, the job security of every single Federal employee in all of

these agencies. And I strongly urge you and the President not to

debate this. Because, should you choose to do so, we will simply not

cooperate. So I would be grateful if, in your opening statement, you

would indicate what your position is on job security for all of the

Federal employees in the various departments and agencies which

will become part of your department.

Finally, let me just suggest that you have our profound goodwill.

You have demonstrated with your own personal career a degree of

commitment to public service and patriotism that we all appreciate.

And we on the Democratic side look forward to working with you.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.

And now I would like to introduce Chris Shays, the chairman of

the Subcommittee on National Security, who has done yeoman’s

service in working on this issue. Mr. Shays, you are recognized.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank you

for holding these hearings. I have a terrific committee, both Republicans and Democrats. Mr. Ridge, thank you for being here.

In the course of the 28 hearings on global terrorism, our subcommittee has traveled the twisted bureaucratic byways and deadend currents of our current homeland security structure. We saw

duplication in research programs and a proliferation of narrowly focused counterterrorism efforts. We heard testimony on a crippling

lack of coordination between more than 100 Federal departments,

agencies, offices, task forces, steering committees and working

groups attempting to protect America’s people and property from

catastrophic harm. And we learned this hard fact: The menace of

global terrorism respects no moral, legal or political boundaries.

Terrorism cuts across cold war jurisdictional stovepipes and turf

boundaries as coldly and as dangerously as a commercial aircraft

cuts through a building.

In another age, in the face of another mortal challenge to our serenity and sovereignty, President Abraham Lincoln advised Congress, ‘‘The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy

present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise

with the occasion. As our case is new so we must think anew, and

act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save

our country.’’

At this moment in history, saving our country requires bold action to reshape and refocus instruments of government’s most fundamental responsibility, defense of life and liberty. The President

proposed that bold action building on the work of three national

commissions and the work of thoughtful legislators on both sides

of the aisle and in both Chambers.

The President asked us to establish a department of homeland

security with sufficient reach, strength, agility and efficiency to

thwart any terrorist network. The scope of the administration’s

proposal reflects and honors the hard lessons learned at the World

Trade Center, at the Pentagon, and in a field outside Shanksville,

PA, and the caves of Afghanistan. It challenges us to think anew

8

and act anew. Recent news reports should chasten anyone attempting to indulge the old habits of division and delay.

That we captured a terrorist suspected of plotting to detonate a

radiological device should sound an alarm. We are in a race against

the terrorists who seek to use weapons of mass destruction against

us. Each day, each hour, they get closer.

There is time for serious discussion and debate. There is no time

for dilatory tactics or purely theoretical musings on the unintended

consequence of prompt action. The consequences of inaction are intolerable. The President’s proposal is bipartisan, it is bicameral.

And I agree with the distinguished house minority leader, it can

and should be done by September 11th.

Mindful of the vigilance and sacrifice upon which we build, let

the process to restructure our homeland defense proceed with the

urgency demanded by the challenges before us.

I would just say this one last point. I know this bill isn’t perfect.

I know this bill needs some work. But together Republicans and

Democrats, we can work our will on this legislation and give the

President an excellent bill. And thank you, Tom Ridge and your

staff, for working so hard to get this to us after the President’s announcement so recently.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Shays.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]

9

10

11

Mr. BURTON. We will recognize Members in order of their arrival,

but the one exception will be Mr. Waxman, who is the ranking minority member.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank you

for recognizing me. I apologize I wasn’t here when the meeting

started, but there is another mark-up going on on the prescription

drug benefit in the Commerce Committee. Today’s hearing addresses how to organize our government to fight terrorism. This is an

important subject. Our government can do a better job protecting

against terrorism, and reorganization can help.

I particularly want to welcome Governor Ridge to the hearing. I

commend him and the President for preparing a blueprint of reorganization. This is not a partisan issue but a national one. Leadership from the White House is essential. But as we embark on this

reorganization effort, it is important that we keep our priorities in

perspective. Fundamentally, reorganization is a bureaucratic exercise. The plan before us addresses organizational flow charts. The

creation of five new under secretaries, and 16 new assistant secretaries and the application of Civil Service and procurement laws.

As a professor of management at Columbia University recently

remarked, to think that a structural solution can bring about a

major improvement in performance is a major mistake. The reorganization plan doesn’t address the most pressing security questions

that we confront. We have to stop the spread of biological weapons.

But this reorganization doesn’t contain a plan for international inspections of suspect facilities or for greater resources for tracking

biological agents globally.

We have to improve airline security, and enhance the poor performance of the new transportation security administration. But

this reorganization doesn’t contain any plans for fixing the flaws in

the new transportation security administration. Instead it simply

moves this agency into a new bureaucracy.

And we have to improve the performance and coordination of our

intelligence agencies. But it isn’t clear how adding another intelligence agency in a new bureaucracy helps fix this. For example,

there is nothing in this bill that would ensure that the National Security Agency will do a better job translating warnings of terrorists

threats.

While I am not opposed to reorganization, in fact I am convinced

that there are steps that we can take that will make sense and improve the functioning of our government, but it has to be done in

a way that minimizes the disruption and bureaucracy and maximizes our ability to confront the terrorism threat that we face.

There is an old adage that those who don’t remember the past

are condemned to repeat it. But we may do exactly this in our

headlong rush to create a new department. The history of past reorganizations is not reassuring. The Department of Energy was

created 25 years ago, and it is still dysfunctional. The Department

of Transportation was created 35 years ago, yet as the National

Journal reported this week, it still struggles to make its components cooperate, share information and generally play nice.

The model that we are supposed to be emulating is a creation of

the Department of Defense 50 years ago. But, for over 35 years, the

Defense Department was riven with strife. In 1983, when President

12

Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada, the Army and the Marines had to split the island in half because they couldn’t figure out

how to cooperate. It was not until the Goldwater-Nichols Act of

1986 that the problems created in the 1947 reorganization were finally addressed.

To avoid the mistakes of the past we have to do a careful job.

But the process we are following is not encouraging. The reorganization plan was released before the administration completed its

work on the national strategy to provide homeland security. So it

is impossible for us to assess how this reorganization will contribute to the national strategy. Moreover, the White House proposal

we are considering today was put together by a handful of political

appointees working in secret.

The agencies with expertise were excluded from the process. In

fact, there was so little communication between the White House

and the agencies, that one important agency had to call us yesterday to find out how it fared under the plan. And here in Congress,

we are operating under an expedited schedule that is likely to

make thoughtful deliberation difficult.

If we were following regular procedure, our committee would be

the lead. And we could ensure that the complex issues raised by

the proposed reorganization are carefully explored, but we have

been stripped of that role by the House leadership. These days

there seems to be a lot of bipartisan self-congratulation going on,

which makes us all feel good, and we want to work together on a

bipartisan basis, because we all feel strongly that this Nation is at

risk and our people are under terrorist threat.

But the time for congratulations and elaborate ceremonies will

come when we have captured Osama bin Laden and the other Al

Qaeda leaders, when we have arrested the criminal or criminals

who launched the anthrax attacks, and when Americans from California to New York go to bed at night knowing that our intelligence

agencies are in the best possible position to thwart terrorism. And

it will be when we have figured out how to bring peace to the Middle East and stability in Afghanistan.

We have a long way to reach these goals. It is our job to ensure

that the new bureaucracy we are creating makes a positive and not

a negative contribution to this effort. Mr. Chairman, I want to

pledge to you my cooperation, to Governor Ridge as well, to work

with you to accomplish these goals that we want to see come out

of any reorganization. I thank you for yielding me this time.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. We look forward to working with you as well.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]

13

14

15

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Horn.

Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, we have a

Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management

and Intergovernmental Relations. And we have been holding a series of field hearings to examine how effectively the Federal Government is in assisting and working with State and local governments in preparing for potential terrorist attacks.

Specifically, the subcommittee has focused on biological, chemical, nuclear agents. We have especially been interested in taking

to the firefighters and police officers and medical personnel and

health personnel those duties that place them in the front line

when such an attack occurs. We started in Nashville, then Phoenix,

Albuquerque, Los Angeles, San Francisco. In the next 2 weeks, we

will have Milwaukee, Chicago, Omaha, Wichita, Denver.

These hearings are the result of obviously what occurred on September 11th. We learned that the public health system is woefully

unprepared to handle the massive numbers of injuries that could

result from such an attack. We also learned from the police chiefs

of Baltimore, Philadelphia and right here in the Nation’s Capital

that the Federal Government is not providing the type of intelligence information they need to do their jobs. In part, that problem stems from the chief’s lack of security clearances.

I have introduced H.R. 3483 and given it to the chairman of the

Judiciary Committee. And hopefully, we will get that one way or

the other, where there is intergovernmental cooperation. And you

as a Governor are a good example to have those feelings.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 specifically addressed many

concerns that have been raised during our field hearings such as

the need for interoperable communications. When we were in

Nashville, the civilian helicopters that bring things, and people and

injured people to the fine hospitals they have there, and the military, they are all on different frequency and they can’t talk to each

other. So that is one.

And I think looking at the competition of intelligence is particularly important. CIA, NSA, national reconnaissance, and so forth.

It seems to me you want competition, because you want to make

sure that nothing is under the desk, that it is being done. And the

people in the State and local governments they know have generally, most Governors have a little FEMA modeled after the very

able people in the national FEMA. And we need to give them the

information they need in intelligence.

And, Mr. Chairman, we can go through other things, but let’s

stop right there.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Horn. Appreciate your

sticking to the 3 minutes very nice.

Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I also want

to thank Governor Ridge for his appearance. Governor, good to see

you. Our committee, which has the primary jurisdiction over those

proposals, stands ready to work with the Bush administration in

any way we can to make sure that our government is more prepared to deal with terrorist threats. We will consider the White

House proposal to make the Office of Homeland Security a cabinet

level agency fairly, comprehensively, and expeditiously as possible.

16

But in order to do so, we are going to need reciprocal cooperation

from the administration.

In October, committee leaders wrote a bipartisan letter to President Bush based on our committee’s work on the past on this issue.

We urged the comprehensive threat and risk assessment of the Nation’s vulnerabilities. Only by first conducting such an assessment

we asserted could our government develop sound priorities and

craft a coherent national strategy.

To this day, the administration has conducted no such assessment. When the President created Governor Ridge’s position, the

Executive order he issued directed the Governor to develop a national strategy. This strategy was supposed to guide the Nation in

organizing itself to counter the various threats we face. The strategy was originally due in June, but now we are told it may not arrive until July or beyond.

It makes much greater sense for Governor Ridge to first complete

his national strategy to ensure that this new department of homeland security fits within its goals. If the new department is a central component of a national strategy as the White House now asserts, wouldn’t it make sense to at least propose the new department as part of that strategy.

The White House came out with the reorganization first and said

we will do the strategy later. The underlying flaw with creating a

new organization such as a cabinet level homeland security agency

without having conducted a comprehensive threat and risk assessment is that it prevents resources from being allocated in a way

that reflects priorities.

I want to say that we all want to be assured of the security of

our Nation. We want to be do everything that we can to calm the

fears of Americans, to protect our Nation and its people while ensuring that the Constitutional protections of our 226-year history

are secured.

I hope that the conduct of these proceedings will include a discussion of causality as well as casualties, a discussion of the prevention through peaceful consensus building as much as a reaction

of force to the failures of diplomacy.

In the past 4 months, we have heard about one alert after another, including a full scale alert when the Patriot Bill was brought

to the floor of the House right after that. We have heard about the

problems with the FBI and the CIA and September 11th, and then

when that was being discussed in the Congress, we heard about

the so-called dirty bomber alert. We still have questions that have

not been resolved about anthrax, which affected this Capital in a

way that nothing else has.

Biological weapons attack on this Nation. It is still a crisis of

confidence, no matter what structural changes we make, until we

get answers on what happened with that.

Finally, I want to say, Governor, on this July 4th, there will be

people all over the country putting their hands over their hearts

singing the Star Spangled Banner. It is worth remembering those

words from Francis Scott Key when he wrote, ‘‘oh, say does that

star spangled banner still wave, over the land of the free and the

home of the brave.’’

17

In his work, Francis Scott Key linked freedom and bravery. We

need to remember where we have come from as a Nation. That no

matter the threats, that we will keep our freedoms by being brave.

That is the American way, and that is our national anthem. Thank

you.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. Schrock.

Mr. SCHROCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Governor Ridge, for being here today. I appreciate all of the hard work

you have accomplished since assuming those awesome responsibilities. I also want to publicly thank the President for taking the lead

and moving forward on creating the Department of Homeland Security.

In the Second Congressional District of Virginia that I represent,

the greatest security threat we face is an attack on our seaport.

The characteristics that make Hampton Roads an ideal seaport, an

ideal location and an efficient intermodal transportation system,

also make this area a prime target.

A ship sailing through Hampton Roads steams within a few hundred yards of the Norfolk Naval Base, home of the Atlantic fleet,

the largest Naval base in the world, and Ft. Monroe, home of the

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. The detonation of

ship-based weapon of mass destruction would have disastrous effects on our military and our economy.

Under the current framework, the Coast Guard, the Customs

Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, all have some jurisdiction

over ships coming into the port of Hampton Roads. These agencies

have different, often limited powers to search and inspect ships and

cargo and lack a formal process for sharing information with one

another.

In some cases, Federal laws even prevent the sharing of information between these Federal agencies. Those problems became clear

at a workshop I held recently on port security. Putting those agencies under one umbrella will enable them to communicate more effectively and work together filling the security gaps that exist

today.

Also, the new homeland security plan will help goods get to market more efficiently. Under the current system, a ship and its containers are stopped and searched several times by different agencies. This system unnecessarily impedes the flow of commerce.

I am confident that the President’s proposal will ensure that security remains our top priority during the inspection of ships while

also providing for a more efficient flow of goods to their ultimate

destination through the reduction of duplication. I hope you will

take a few minutes during your remarks today to address how the

President’s homeland security proposals will improve seaport security while ensuring the efficient flow of commerce.

Again thank you for joining us today. You and the President are

doing a great job under very difficult and unique circumstances.

Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Schrock.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Edward L. Schrock follows:]

18

19

20

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Tierney.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome

the White House proposal to centralize responsibility for homeland

defense in a single cabinet level department.

Many of us would have preferred that this action take place

quite some months ago. But I am pleased that the President has

responded to longstanding bipartisan advice that the various Federal agencies responsible for homeland security be brought together

in a new department of homeland security.

I want to give a great deal of credit to my colleague, Chris Shays

from Connecticut, who with his subcommittee, has been having

hearings on this matter, I think some 19 or 20 of them before September 11th, dealing with every aspect of this and basically

screaming into the wind.

And I congratulate him on being out there. I think he has done,

with his committee, a lot of the work that precedes and makes the

groundwork for what we are now looking forward to doing. As we

consider the President’s proposal today, we do it in a spirit of cooperation. We offer to and expect it from the administration, so

that the end product is not a bureaucratic reshuffling, rather have

a fundamental change in the way that we address terrorist threats

to our country.

We in the Government Reform Committee whose job it is to identify the best practices and lessons learned in government operations have a special obligation to marshall our country’s best

ideas, resources and skills to coordinate our fight against terrorism.

We need to do this for the families who lost loved ones on September 11th, and in the October anthrax attacks, for the American

people whole expect us to protect them, and for our children so that

future generations may grow up in a free and open society.

A month ago, Director Ridge was here to brief us. I spoke with

you then, Director Ridge, and I will say it to you again today. This

administration must prepare that comprehensive threat assessment that was ordered by the President last October. The private

sector has done it. Both Brookings and Rand have performed the

post September 11th assessment. And the White House must as

well.

Otherwise, the American people have no practical context for the

administration’s reorganizational charts and dollar figures presented here today. I urge the administration to complete the comprehensive threat assessment, and if necessary, revise these charts

and budget figures accordingly.

Last week we were told that there would be no fiscal year 2003

budget justification. That just simply is not credible. No small business owner ever changed names or address of personnel without

some transitional cost. In fact, just last month, the House acted at

the administration’s request to bifurcate the INS.

And in doing so, it passed a law calling for a transition with

costs and a process extending to 2005. We must create this new department in an open and fiscally responsible manner, through an

amended White House budget proposal.

While we applaud the effort to consolidate resources, we do question certain choices. Three examples are intelligence, the Coast

Guard and first responders.

21

As to intelligence, many of my constituents are rightfully asking,

why weren’t the FBI and CIA included in the department? How

will they interact? Without the top analysts, how will the new

agency receive intelligence from the FBI and CIA? If the FBI and

CIA were loathe to communicate before September 11th, and are

now casting blame at one another as we investigate September

11th, what makes anyone think that they will communicate with

a new untested agency and with State and local first responders?

FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley shared with the American people her bureaucratic horror story of having critical information that

she passed vertically to superiors who stonewalled her efforts for

FBI action, and chastised her for sharing it horizontally with the

CIA.

If she were to uncover similar information today, are we now to

expect that Ms. Rowley would send that information to her superiors and to the CIA and to this new agency all at once? If not, in

what order and under what circumstances? Who will be screening

personal information about a suspect as the intelligence is being

processed inter or intra agency?

To whom is it sent? Up a stovepipe to the top and then over to

a manager and then down another stovepipe to the line DHS agent

or simultaneously out to a number of people? Who would control

that? And if the FBI and CIA and DHS officials differed on the

value of the information, who gets the veto power? When in all of

these conversations would Ms. Rowley’s suspicions make it to local

law enforcement?

The Coast Guard issue arises from the fishing families in my district who are quite concerned that moving the entire Coast Guard

to the new agency will undermine two core elements of their mission, fisheries management and search and rescue. Why move the

entire agency? If the administration proposes to change the mission

of the agencies that are moving to the new department, what is the

training budget and procedure for the employees? What is the priority? Fisheries management? Search and rescue? Or

counterterrorism, and in what order?

Where are the resources and what is the time line during which

managers will communicate this to the line workers? These questions need the administration’s answers.

Third, no matter how the department is constituted, we must

maintain the Federal partnership with the local first responders.

All acts of terrorism are local, and each of our communities must

be fully prepared for crisis response, and consequence management. Our local first responders need to know how they will receive

intelligence communications from the proposed information analysis and infrastructure protection division and what resources they

will have to help them act on this information in order to protect

the American people.

Last Monday I sent the President a letter cosigned by 70 Members of Congress from across the country, seeking to fully enfranchise local first responders in the Department of Homeland Security by giving them credit for the $1.5 billion they already spent

defending America after September 11th. The President’s proposal

contemplates a total of $3.5 billion in terrorism preparedness, but

only if local communities put up a 25 percent match for this FedVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:40 Oct 03, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81325.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
22

eral assistance. Many communities can’t afford that match because

of the enormous cost that they have already absorbed in overtime

and added security since September 11th.

So my colleagues and I ask that these communities be able to

count what they have already spent on counterterrorism since September 11th as a soft match toward that 25 percent.

Our letter to President Bush requested that he commit to a fast

track disbursement of funds directly to local communities once the

dollars have been appropriated. Initial briefings have indicated

that Federal funding for local fire, police and other emergency operations would be funneled through State governments under the

new system. That extra layer of politics and bureaucracy concerns

me and many others who want our first line personnel to focus

their energy and talents directly on effective community protection

and emergency response.

Indeed, such a proposal would undercut the Fire Act, the COPS

Program and other effective partnerships, and we should not let

this happen. In all of this talk about reorganization, care must be

taken to ensure that all affected departments now engaged in aspects of security not be distracted by the demands of reorienting

their missions, priorities and personnel.

The temptation for personnel to become focused of turf and position protection highlights the risk of distraction form the moment’s

serious demands, and the plan must deal with those issues.

Finally, as with all cabinet agencies, this new department will be

expected to empower its work force, balance its books, and award

resources to grantees and contractors on a fair and competitive

basis so as to maximize effectiveness and minimize exposure to

waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars.

The American people deserve no less and, Mr. Director, we look

forward to working with you to meet all of those concerns.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Tierney.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John F. Tierney follows:]

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Mr. BURTON. Let me just say that we are going to be try as lenient as possible with everybody, because we know how important

your statements are, but we really need to get to questions of Governor Ridge. And so if you could limit your statements to 3 minutes

we really appreciate it.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be

helpful to hold us to 3, because we have a lot of people, and the

Governor has been sitting here already a long time.

Mr. BURTON. Well, I will do that. But I want everybody to know

that I love you all, but we got to get through this thing. So Mr.

Davis.

Mr. TOM DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you. I will try to be brief.

First of all, Governor Ridge, thank you for your service. Thank you

for being here today. I think that the congressional input and assent in this process is very important. There is a lot of historical

knowledge that exists in this branch of government and we hope

to have a good dialog with you on that. I think that we can add

some elements that hopefully will make this a better package,

when it emerges.

That being said, we have to remember it is ultimately up to the

administration and the executive to administer and direct this new

agency, and our trying to legislate an organizational structure that

the administration isn’t comfortable with or can’t work with is not

going to help, because ultimately, the executive branch is going to

be accountable, it has to operate within a framework that is consistent with their mission, with their philosophy and with their culture.

So we hope to be a part of that process. But I think we need to

understand that at the end of the day, you need to administer this.

We don’t want to give you a framework that you can’t operate of

feel comfortable operating under. One other issue is, I think, clearly the Federal employee issue is an issue that we have to hit head

on. Federal employees who currently enjoy a protected status in

the Civil Service shouldn’t lose that status in a mix where they

could lose their job and jeopardize everything if they are unwilling

to do that.

For new hires, those kind of issues, a different issue arises. But

this is clearly an issue that has been expressed by the other side.

And I think from just a political perspective has to be addressed

if this issue is going to clear the Congress. And I know you have

given this some thought. I don’t think we can hamstring your flexibility to govern, so we have to find that right balance. But again,

thank you for being here. Look forward to working with you.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Allen.

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Governor

Ridge for appearing here and for all of your hard work these last

few months. Homeland security is not a partisan issue. Every

member of this committee, indeed every Member of Congress wants

you to succeed and wants to get this reorganization effort right. We

all share the common goal of improving the effectiveness of homeland security and emergency response operations that are currently

disbursed among many agencies.

34

I support the creation of a department of homeland security. I do

have questions about some of the details, particularly about the relationship between the new proposed department and State and

local governments. I am going to mention now just to make sure

that I get them in. First, State and local governments need sufficient resources to plan for and implement the many additional responsibilities this ongoing national emergency has imposed upon

their already strained budgets.

Maine emergency planners and first responders tell me time and

again of their need for more Federal aid as soon as possible. They

say that Federal aid already appropriated is not getting released

to States and municipalities fast enough. I worry in the natural upheaval that will come with this massive reorganization, the already

lengthy process for distributing money to States and municipalities

will get even more complicated and that the disbursal of these

funds will take even more time.

Second, I am concerned that some of the institutional and cultural barriers that have prevented the sharing of information horizontally among agencies of the Federal Government also prevents

the effective sharing of information vertically between the Federal

Government and State and local governments. The new department will need policies and structures that facilitate such vertical

communication. State and local agencies and officials with homeland security responsibilities must promptly receive the intelligence

data they need to perform their duties. This will require that we

overcome both technical and bureaucratic cultural obstacles which

permeate the current system.

I look forward to working with you, Governor Ridge, and the rest

of my colleagues on the committee to address these and other concerns so that we can create the best, most efficient department possible. We must do everything we can to get it right. This task is

too important for us to fail. Thank you and welcome.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you.

Dr. Weldon.

Mr. WELDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this

committee must examine very carefully the question of whether the

Bureau of Consular Affairs which issues travel visas to foreigners

should be transferred as a whole from the Department of State to

the new Department of Homeland Security.

Common sense tells us that the best way to protect Americans

from foreign terrorists is to prevent terrorists from entering the

United States in the first place. A strong visa issuance program is

essential to achieve that objective. We are all too aware of the fact

that 15 of the 19 September 11th terrorists had obtained ‘‘appropriate’’ visas. Even more incredible is the fact that three of these

men received their visas via the Visa Express Program in Saudi

Arabia from a travel agent. And indeed, that program is still ongoing today.

Mr. Chairman, can the issuing of visas be a diplomatic function?

It must be a security function with the proper scrutiny only a

trained agent can apply. Diplomats are trained to be diplomatic.

This isn’t about speed of service with a smile. This is about close

and careful examination of each and every visa applicant. And yet,

Mr. Chairman, the President’s proposal, I believe, takes a fragVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:40 Oct 03, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81325.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
35

mented approach by transferring the authority to establish policy

regarding the issuance of visas to the new security—or the new

Secretary of Homeland Security, but leaves operational control

with the State Department.

Many experts have identified this fragmented approach as a

weakness in the President’s proposal. After all, isn’t the purpose of

the Homeland Security Department to unify the fragmented homeland defense infrastructure we currently have today? Last night

the President spoke to this very issue. He said, ‘‘there are over 100

different agencies that have something to do with homeland. And

they are scattered everywhere which makes it very hard to align

authority and responsibility.’’ I could not agree with the President

more.

The President went on to give the examples of the Coast Guard

and the Customs Services as agencies whose primary focus should

now be homeland defense, and how it is no longer appropriate to

keep them in Transportation and Treasury, respectfully, because

those departments don’t have homeland security as their primary

mission.

This certainly makes sense to me. Well, equally the Bureau of

Consular Affairs must have homeland defense and the prevention

of issuance of visas to terrorists as its No. 1 priority. The best way

to do that is to move that bureau into the Department of Homeland

Security. The Secretary of Homeland Security cannot effectively

control the visa process unless he or she also has complete operational control over the process and the work force of Consular Affairs, the literal front lines of our battle against terrorists entering

our country.

Mr. Chairman, our security begins abroad. I commend you for

calling this hearing. And I am looking forward to the testimony of

Governor Ridge.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Weldon, for sticking so close to the

3-minute rule.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dave Weldon follows:]

36

37

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Lynch.

Mr. LYNCH. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Chairman, at the outset I would like to commend yourself and Mr.

Waxman and Mr. Shays for your leadership on this issue. Governor

Ridge, I also appreciate your willingness to come here today and

to work with this committee. Today’s hearing gives us the first opportunity to review and hopefully strengthen the President’s proposal for a new department of homeland security.

As proposed, this new department’s basic responsibility will be to

fulfill a profound but very basic promise of our government. We

should be recommended that in the first instance of establishing

this Nation, in the Declaration of Independence itself, this Nation’s

founders set forth certain basic inalienable rights that should be

guaranteed to its citizens.

They also, in the second breath, described what they felt and described as the foundation of our government’s obligation to the people in securing those basic rights, namely, the government’s promise to provide for their security.

Since September 11th, for all of us who are charged with that responsibility, and actually for all Americans, the rules of engagement have changed. We indeed are living in more dangerous times.

As a people that prides itself on personal freedom in a country

where civil liberties are the very currency of our daily lives, it is

very difficult to accept that our enemies have targeted innocent civilians, children as well as senior citizens, as the objects of their

hatred. So our task today and henceforth is to defend the defenseless.

But we must do it in a way that preserves the noble ideals from

which our Nation was born. I think the President’s actions, by and

large, have tried to address this new reality.

However, I believe that the success of this department will be determined by its ability to gather information and to preempt attacks on our citizens. And that will require, of course, the structural and operational cooperation between the FBI, the CIA and

this new agency. And that is a glaring flaw in this legislation as

others have noted.

Notwithstanding the President’s proposal, homeland security will

continue to labor under a disadvantage because of the institutional

resistance within the bureaucracies of the FBI and the CIA.

However, I also believe that in total, this is very, very important

legislation, and an important first step to fulfilling our most basic

responsibility to our citizens. I will leave the questions of cooperation and disclosure of the FBI and CIA to others. However, I must

say that in earlier discussions with Secretary Rumsfeld, he did notice that, and he did remark that the most glaring vulnerability to

the citizens in general existed in the delivery of the mail.

And we have seen in the anthrax attacks that followed September 11th that there is no other agency in this country whose employees go to every single home in this country. And I am rather

surprised to go through this entire bill and not see any mention of

any coordination or defense mechanism that incorporates working

with the U.S. Postal Service.

And I look forward to working with you, Governor Ridge, on that

matter. I would also like to say that as the Congressman responVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:40 Oct 03, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81325.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
38

sible for representing the Port of Boston, that as well, that I am

unclear that at this point in the legislation to uncover how exactly

that defense operation will go forward.

But, this is the very first step, and I understand there is a lot

of work to be done. I want to just pledge to you, Governor, and to

the members of this committee, that I am willing to dig in, roll up

my sleeves and work with you. I think we all understand how important this is, because we all unquestionably understand the consequences to the American people if we fail. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Lynch.

Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank

you, Governor Ridge. I know you are busy, and I appreciate all of

the hard work you are doing. After the events of September 11th,

it became clear that the threat of terrorism is a real and permanent problem, and we must find new ways to protect the citizens

of this country from those who seek to attack and murder Americans.

Today, there is no Federal agency that has homeland security as

its primary mission. With over 100 different entities in our government that control some aspect of homeland security, the need to

form a unified department is of the utmost importance. We need

to make sure that the new department is the most efficient organizational structure possible, and that it has all of the resources it

needs in order to keep the people of this country safe.

Several questions need to be asked and answered before we can

make the most effective decisions regarding the new agency. For

instance, what is going to be the role of the FBI and the CIA within the context of the new framework? How will these departments

communicate in order to share information? When can we expect

the new department to begin its work? I look forward to hearing

from you, Governor Ridge, and working with my colleagues to ensure that the new Department of Homeland Security is established

in the most effective and expeditious way possible. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much.

Ms. Schakowsky.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome Governor

Ridge. It is a pleasure to be able to talk with you finally in a public

hearing. I appreciate that very much. There is unanimous agreement among Members of Congress that we must change the way

that we conduct business, our business of national security in this

country. As we begin the process of formally reviewing the President’s proposal to create a department of homeland security, homeland defense, we have a duty to ask tough questions and demand

satisfactory responses.

A fundamental question each of us must continue to ask as we

flesh out each detail of this new department is, will it make us

safer? It is not a given that simply creating a new department of

homeland defense will create that crucial intelligence and analysis

which will make its way to those who need it most or whether the

new agency will simply add another layer to the top of an already

dense bureaucracy.

39

So let me raise a couple of the concerns that I have. First, I am

wondering how the administration can be so sure about a plan to

improve security in this country, when a comprehensive threat assessment and a national strategy to address them, which was your

primary mission to complete has not yet been completed.

I don’t believe we can move forward with absolute certainty in

the wisdom of our actions without them. The President has suggested that we transfer several existing agencies into one. Among

those agencies are those which provide critical nonsecurity-related

functions. Some have raised concerns that these critical functions

may not receive the attention that they deserve from a cabinet secretary whose primary charge is to protect the homeland.

Moreover, some have questioned the wisdom of placing multiple

and possibly competing missions within the same department. I am

concerned, for example, of the service function of the Immigration

and Naturalization Service. I represent an immigrant-rich district

in which people who are here legally are embracing the promise of

the American dream, want to contribute, and are already suffering

under an inefficient and insensitive agency.

I hope that this will improve rather than exacerbate the problem.

The President’s plan does not include necessary protections for the

rights of Federal employees to organize, be represented by unions

and bargain collectively. Relaxed procurement standards the President has put forth do not suggest that an adequate level of financial accountability will be instilled in the new department or that

existing statutes governing procurement will be followed.

And the attempt to exempt the new agency from requirements of

the Freedom of Information and Federal Advisory Committee Acts

are cause for concern for Members and the American public. We

are talking about a new agency, a radical reorganization of the government, and a considerable amount of money. The public and the

Congress should maintain their rightful oversight roles over this

new agency. And attempts to limit those rights should immediately

end.

These are just a few of my many questions and concerns, and I

look forward to Governor Ridge to a worthwhile discussion on this

critically important subject. Thank you for your work.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. First, I would like to thank Chairman Burton for

his leadership in making sure that this committee had the proper

jurisdiction and consideration on this, and I want to support this,

and your support of our subcommittee on criminal justice and drug

policy, as we have worked to review the impact of both this proposal and overall homeland security needs on drug interdiction in

Federal law enforcement.

Some of the most prominent agencies involved in this reorganization are also among the most prominent agencies in drug interdiction. On Monday we held an extremely useful hearing in subcommittee to receive testimony from former Coast Guard Commandant Bob Kramek, former DEA Administrator, Donnie Marshall and a number of other former senior officials in the Treasury

Department, the Customs Service and the Border Patrol.

That testimony will shortly be available on the subcommittee’s

Web site and I encourage all members of the full committee, interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:40 Oct 03, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81325.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
40

ested members of the public to review it and see the potential

tradeoffs we have here and how to work through it.

The witnesses told us there will be a number of clear synergies

and benefits for customary law enforcement missions through the

proposed reorganization. They also expressed serious concerns,

however, that it is inevitable that an increased focus on homeland

security will result in a reduction in intensity and resources to

those customary missions.

As Governor Ridge well knows, from having represented Erie,

PA, the Coast Guard has many missions beyond homeland security.

We saw this immediately after September 11th. And the same

principle is equally clear from the slated mission of the proposed

new department which is defined solely in the terms of catastrophic terrorism.

Our hearing made it evident that any legislation to create this

new department must define more broadly than just catastrophic

terrorism and must include specific institutional and other protections to ensure that those missions will be vigorously continued. I

look forward to working with this committee and the leadership of

the Select Committee, as well as Governor Ridge, to ensure the inclusion of these protections in any final bill.

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues and Governor Ridge that more than 4,000 Americans die

each year from drug abuse, at least the equivalent of a major terrorist attack. Our ranking member, Mr. Cummings, has consistently pointed out we are already under chemical attack from international drug cartels, which also fund and are the sources of funding for catastrophic terrorism that this new department has created to counter. And we must make sure that this department fully

addresses this potential conflict as we look forward to this.

I also want to support my colleagues’ comments on the Department of Consular Affairs. This is predominately an agency to address border security for catastrophic terrorism. And if we don’t

have the visa clearance process under this department, it is unclear how we can make our borders safe.

So I look forward to working on this. I was an original cosponsor

with this. I believe we can fix these things, but we need to work

together and that is why we have a committee process to go

through these hard decisions. I yield back.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Souder.

Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to welcome the distinguished witness testifying before the committee, Governor Ridge. I

would like to commend you on your courage for accepting this challenge and commend your team for the work that they have put into

helping to develop this proposal.

I am concerned about the lack of information that has not been

forthcoming from the administration to restructure the communication and coordination effort between the FBI and the CIA.

Without a doubt, I am certain that there was a collapse in the

coordination effort between these two agencies before September

11, 2001. It now appears that the administration’s proposal leaves

the FBI virtually omitted from further discussion.

41

From further discussion, the lone possible exception might be the

proposed transferrence of the Bureau’s Office of National Domestic

Preparedness and the Center for National Infrastructure Protection. Does this mean that the administration considers domestic intelligence reform addressed? If so, I suggest a return to the drawing board to revise the initial draft. It seems to me that it is only

a starting point for further discussion. Much more thought and

planning should go into addressing this part of the challenge. I believe that the intelligence component ultimately will be the cornerstone of the new department. I recently read that the proposal requests an office be created within the new department to synthesize information from these two agencies. However, I question

who will determine what information will be shared if the agencies

collect their own raw data.

Is there a check and balance system to address this issue. Let’s

not simply create another bureaucratic quagmire from which little

anything, if anything will come. Let’s make the proposed Department of Homeland Security something that the American people

can be confident in and proud of. My hope is that there will never

be an intelligence failure of the magnitude that we experienced last

year. Finally, Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to the

American people to fulfill its oversight responsibility. I ask that we

not prematurely assume that our work will be done when this department is created. On the contrary, it has only just begun. Mr.

Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to place my statement into the

record.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection. So ordered.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]

42

43

44

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Governor Ridge, Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you

for bringing the proposal to this stage for the 6 months of effort

that’s gone into it, and also for making it very bipartisan. I’m just

delighted that on both sides of the aisle, both Houses, the Senate

and the House, that it’s moving forward. So I congratulate you on

your effort and look forward to your statement and the opportunity

to ask questions.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you Mr. Miller.

Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,

Governor Ridge. I, along with many others in Congress have advocated for a separate department devoted to homeland security for

many months. I am pleased that we can now all work on a bipartisan basis committed to protecting Americans, our Nation and the

freedoms we all enjoy. Dozens of Federal agencies and programs

spread throughout the government will be shifted to this new Department of Homeland Security. However, the war on terrorism

must be waged in a way that does not compromise other vital missions that existing agencies carry out.

Yesterday the House passed a resolution to create a temporary

select committee that will consolidate and prepare a bill for the

floor. The Criminal Justice, National Security, and Civil Service

Subcommittees have held hearings exploring the Lieberman/Thornberry legislative proposal and the impact that the homeland reorganization will have on law enforcement and drug interdiction.

Additionally, we have discussed the increased needs to protect

our northern and southern borders, our coastal borders, and the

Nation’s ports and train systems. Although the creation of the Department of Homeland Security is needed, I believe a few issues

need to be addressed as we review this legislative proposal.

What will be the budget justification for the new agency? Why

is the entire intelligence community like the FBI, CIA NSA, DIA

excluded from the new agency? Will Federal employees be transferred to this new agency? Will they lose the protections and benefits they currently enjoy? Why has administrations’ proposal exempted the new department from the requirements of the Federal

Advisory Committee Act and the Freedom of Information Act?

What impact will the creation of a new agency have on the critical

nonterrorism missions and functions of the merged agency?

The passage of this legislation is attainable, but we will encounter many obstacles along the way. But as we move forward on this

massive undertaking to synergize the manpower and brain power

of these agencies for the purposes of homeland security, I am concerned about the possible abrogation of civil rights. In particular,

I am concerned about how this new department may undermine

the progress made in this country on ending racial profiling. For

example, through intensive airline passenger screening and

through dragnet INS practices.

Last, I am concerned about the provisions in the bill that would

exempt the new agencies from complying with the Freedom of Information Act and Federal Advisory Committee Act as this exemption for an agency of this size threatens to begin an era of government secrecy, which I know the American people want to avoid.

45

Creation of a new department will not make us immune from terrorism. But it will point us in the right direction. The American

people want to see action from their elected officials to address real

security threats. Congress, the administration and local law enforcement and elected officials must all work together to make the

United States secure.

With that, Mr. Chairman I yield back.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. Ose.

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t repeat the greetings

to Governor Ridge. He’s been greeted 33 times. I won’t repeat the

questions about the President submitting this package. That’s been

repeated 31 times. I do want to express to Mr. Miller my appreciation for his brevity. I’ll submit my statement for the record. I yield

back.

Mr. BURTON. Hallelujah.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Doug Ose follows:]

46

47

48

49

Mr. BURTON. Mrs. Mink.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I too want to join in welcoming Governor Ridge to this very, very important meeting. I

don’t think there’s anyone in the Congress that does not support

the idea of the creation of a department of homeland security and

the necessity to coordinate better the activities of the Federal Government that relate to homeland security. But there will be many

questions as to the scope and depth of the transfers of various

agencies and functions of agencies to this new department. And I

hope that in your view, and in the administration’s view, that this

is not considered a criticism or a lack of support of the idea, because I think that it is the Congress’s responsibility to look at all

of the suggestions from our vantage point to see that there is sufficient justification for the transfers being made and that they are

not being done wholesale for convenience purposes.

And I think that is what concerns me the most. The agency that

comes to my mind is FEMA. I realize that it is an emergency agency, but from our vantage point out in the constituency, it is an

agency that has mastered the technique of responding to natural

disasters. And it did a phenomenal job several times in my State.

And while that is an important function, it services the constituency. I can’t see the necessity of transferring the entire agency over

to Homeland Security. I think it would somehow compromise the

work that it now does for the natural disaster management, which

is so critical to all of us, floods, fires and so forth.

So I hope that the administration will carefully look at that area

and discuss that proposal with us in a much more intense way.

Looking at some of these functions that we question as to why they

are needed to be transferred, what comes to mind is the overall exemptions that you are suggesting be made with reference to laws

like the Freedom of Information. If there are functions like FEMA

that have nothing to do with homeland security, and have to do

with natural disasters, why do we want to exempt that agency

from the Freedom of Information?

This year we’re celebrating the 30 years since Watergate and it

is since Watergate that Freedom of Information Act has been perfected. And it has safeguarded the rights of the public to information that had been hidden in archives and in files and other places.

So I would hate to see the Freedom of Information cast away merely because these departments have been transferred together under

the homeland security concept. I think that the Freedom of Information Act currently already sets forth at least a dozen areas for

exemption, which the head of the agency is free to exercise.

If a citizen asks for some documents and the agency had said

this has to do with national security, there is an exemption so that

the information does not need to be transmitted. I certainly don’t

want to see the Civil Service protections also jeopardized. My time

has come to an end. I ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be inserted in the record, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Patsy T. Mink follows:]

50

51

52

53

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered. We will go to Mr.

Platts next, but before we do that, let me tell Governor Ridge and

everybody that we have three votes on the floor. I apologize for the

break, but we’re going to have to take it. We should be back in

about 25 minutes.

Mr. RIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I might add, having been on the other

side of the desk for 12 years, I appreciate the sequence of votes and

I will be happy to wait until you return.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Governor Ridge. It’s nice to have a previous member here. One of my compatriots.

Mr. Platts, and those of you that want to go vote, go ahead, and

we’ll let Mr. Platts conclude and then we’ll go on over there. Well,

if you want to stay, fine.

Mr. Platts.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be brief and just

want to first thank you and Subcommittee Chairman Shays, for

your great work and leadership on the issues of homeland security

since and also prior to September 11th.

Governor Ridge, it’s a delight to, as a fellow Pennsylvanian, to

have you here. And while we were in Pennsylvania, saddened to

lose you 8 months ago as our Governor, we certainly were heartened to know that the safety and security of all Americans was

going to be and now has been greatly enhanced because of your

leadership as Director of the Office of Homeland Security, and I

commend you on the thorough nature of the administration’s proposal and the new Department of Homeland Security and look forward to working with you and the entire administration as we

move it through the legislative process.

One area that I don’t know if you’ll touch on today, but if your

office could followup with me on, is in the critical infrastructure.

You’re certainly familiar with our nuclear power plants with two

of them adjoining, abutting my district, I’ve asked a question to the

White House Legislative Affairs Office regarding the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office and how the transfer of that office

would relate to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authority over

the security of the power plants, and as we move forward, if we can

get some more specifics on that aspect of the critical infrastructure.

But I do commend you and you and President Bush and the entire administration for a very well thought-out proposal, and as I

say, look forward to working with you as it moves forward. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Platts.

Ms. Norton, you’re next. Do you want to go ahead and do yours?

We have time if you so choose.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Governor Ridge, I

appreciate the enormous challenge that confronts you. You’re asked

to make essentially both structural and functional transformation.

That would be a major challenge even if we weren’t talking about

the defense of the homeland. I believe that function will follow

form. Form of course is the easy part. Of course, in the bill that

is not always apparent. It’s certainly not self-evident. But I believe

that the President’s proposal is rational and so I begin with a presumption in its favor.

54

And for me, the overriding question of these—of this process we

are beginning is, is it functional? Is it going to be functional and

that we can only appreciate as more comes out. Let me say to you,

Governor, how much I appreciate that our own mayor, Mayor Tony

Williams, has been asked by the President to join the President’s

newly created Homeland Security Commission that advises him.

I think what the President has done is to recognize the role of

the District of Columbia as first responder. And we appreciate that

understanding. If something happens to this place or the White

House or, God forbid, the Supreme Court or any place else, the first

to get there, the first charged with getting there will be agencies

of the District of Columbia, and they are being prepared for that

role as I speak.

One of the committees on which I serve actually drew a bill that

will not be the bill that comes forward, but that bill contains a specific provision for the Mayor or his designee to be at the table of

Homeland Security. And I will hope to insert such a provision in

the President’s bill as well.

The Justice Department, for example, has already included a

District of Columbia’s designee on its own terrorism task force.

Again, the point is if you’re going to be a first responder you have

got to have all the tools to do that job.

Governor Ridge, I would like to raise two issues briefly, one in

the bill and one that I understand is under discussion both of

which I regard as needless barriers. One has to do with the merit

system. The merit system has been the best guarantee against racial and other forms of discrimination and favoritism for 100 years

now.

The President’s bill actually strips all labor and Civil Service protections from all the employees of these agencies unless two political appointees say so. That is a kind of throwback that would make

it impossible for many people on both sides of the aisle to support

the bill itself. Now, the mantra, when this issue was raised for the

Transportation Security Administration was trust us, we need the

bill. Go do it. We’ll come back to it. What happened? Those employees were stripped of their protections, so I don’t think this can be

delayed here.

Another reason why I think you will want to get rid of it altogether is that there is a huge brain drain going on in the Civil

Service today. Reorganization itself will send many employees out.

If they think they’re going to be stripped of any of their protections,

all of the most experienced employees will flee the ship. Got to take

that out now because it is going to hasten early retirements. 50

percent of the Federal work force could leave today. I’m almost

through.

Mr. BURTON. Ms. Norton, we want to get one more person in.

Mrs. Morella, would like to make her statement, so could you submit the rest of that or ask that when we get to the question period?

Ms. NORTON. If I could just say one thing. Some senior administration official was quoted as saying under discussion is moving

this agency outside of the District of Columbia. That flies in the

face of decades of Executive orders. I have an idea for you, 180

acres at the Old St. Elizabeth’s Hospital. Let’s discuss that one,

Governor Ridge.

55

Mr. BURTON. OK. OK.

Mrs. Morella.

Mrs. MORELLA. This is a good opportunity for me to give my

statement, Mr. Chairman. The creation of the new Department of

Homeland Security is the most significant transformation of U.S.

Government in over half a century, and I think it is necessary because of the current confusing patchwork of government activities

in this area. The current system is a labyrinth spread among more

than 100 government entities, none of which has homeland security

as its primary mission.

The new department would move almost all agencies that handle

domestic security into a single department, whose primary mission

is to protect our homeland. It’s essential that we have a more unified homeland security structure that enhances protection against

today’s threats while also being flexible enough to help meet the

unknown threats of the future. I don’t know yet who is going to

head the new department, but I do endorse Governor Ridge for the

job.

I’m sure that the last several months have been an enjoyable

primer for him on the issue. I know that he has the necessary

skills to successfully lead the new agency and he has my support.

But one thing I don’t know or understand is why the administration’s plan seeks to grant the new Secretary so much unprecedented managerial flexibility, which would include the power to remove existing Federal personnel rules and regulations, including

the current pay structure, labor management rules and performance appraisal system.

The administration has stated publicly that they don’t know of

any one cabinet official who has all the flexibility the homeland

secretary would possess under this new plan. Given the battle that

was waged over Federalizing airport screeners, given the fact that

there is little chance the Senate would agree to this, and given the

fact that both Democrats and Republicans in the House testified

last week in front of this committee that they do not feel radical

changes to personnel rules are necessary, why fight this fight?

One of the many lessons of September 11th was the demonstrated strength and resolve and patriotism of our Civil Service.

The great majority of Federal employees were at work on September 12th. Law enforcement personnel responded without complaint

to the significant increase in their workday and workweek. And all

Federal personnel accepted the new restrictions on many of their

liberties.

So why insinuate that Federal personnel cannot be trusted to

willingly protect our homeland when they so willingly have?

Sweeping aside 25 years of Civil Service law will not enhance the

performance of the new agency. It will only exacerbate it. So I look

forward, Governor Ridge, to your testimony and any answers you

can provide and I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Constance A. Morella follows:]

56

57

58

Mr. BURTON. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.

I want you to know you have to put our tennis shoes on. We have

2 minutes and 50 seconds to get to the floor for a vote. With that,

we stand in recess until the fall of the gavel.

[Recess.]

Mr. BURTON. Well, the illustrious Governor, my old golfing buddy

is back, so we’ll resume our hearing. Next on the schedule is Mr.

Turner.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, thank you for

your leadership in this very difficult time. I don’t know that we can

really say that enough to you even though you have heard it over

and over again. And I think that all of us on both sides of the aisle

want to work with you as a partner to get this job done and to get

it done very quickly. And I’m confident that will be the result of

the efforts we’re now embarking upon.

I know that you share the concern that we all have, and that is,

in our haste to reorganize, that we may find that our schedule creates a new organizational chart with 169,000 employees of what

now is about 10 different Federal agencies being issued a new business card, and begin to wonder what else we’ve accomplished. But

I do believe that this reorganization will set the framework for accomplishing the mission of protecting the homeland, even though

the organizational chart alone is not really what will accomplish it.

So we embark upon an effort that obviously is going to require

a great deal of effort within the administration to make it successful. I shared with you a thought last week when you spoke to the

entire House in our Chamber that I want to mention again, because I think it’s very important that we take advantage of the opportunity of reorganization to take a good close look at all of these

agencies that you’re bringing together, to see if there are ways that

we can save money in the process.

I know in your statement that you have shared with us, it says

the creation of the Department of Homeland Security will not grow

government. And I know that we all understand the importance of

trying to hold down the cost of this new requirement that we’re all

faced with of protecting the homeland. But the truth is, if we’re

going to be honest with the American people, we’ll have to tell

them that we’ve already incurred a whole lot of additional expenses

after September 11th, and in order to keep a pledge not to grow

government, it’s going to require some finding some ways to save

money within those existing agencies.

And I shared with you last week, I hope you will urge the managers in all of these departments, to come up with some suggestions for both you and this Congress, of things that may not be

quite as important to be doing in government as the task at hand,

and perhaps we could actually realize the goal that you have set

out of not growing government in the process. We all know that

this is going to be a difficult task. But I do think that we ought

to use it as a historic opportunity. After all, we haven’t seen a reorganization of government on this scale in decades.

And any time, I know at the State level, and you, of course have

had the same experience, when we seek to reorganize agencies, we

utilize the sunset process. That is the time when we really require

those agency managers to justify what they are doing. To tell us

59

what performance objectives they have and to set in place the performance measures necessary to determine whether they have accomplished what they said they were going to set out to do.

So I hope we can do that in this process. Again, we thank you

and we’ll be a partner with you to get it done.

Mr. RIDGE. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Turner.

Our vice chairman, who served as the U.S. Attorney, and I think

spent what, 8 years with the CIA, I think is going to be very helpful to us in this endeavor, and we’ll now yield to him.

Mr. BARR. Thank you Mr. Chairman I thank you very much, Mr.

Governor, for being with us today. I was thinking several days ago

I was down at the District that prior to September 11th, if somebody had mentioned the term ‘‘homeland security’’ at one of our

town hall meetings, most people would have thought they were

talking about a savings and loan association. The term, of course,

takes on a much different and the most serious of connotations now

as it should. I think all of us realize that there will be future terrorist attacks attempted against this country. We can’t guarantee

that won’t happen. We expect it’ll happen.

But in large measure, what you all are proposing what the President and yourself and others in the administration are proposing,

and which will be taken up here on the Hill, that is your legislation, which I am proud to serve as the original cosponsor for, will

help in larger measure determine whether or not we can prevent

and will prevent those future terrorist attacks from being successful, and I think that the approach that you’re taking maybe it’s not

perfect yet, maybe it is, I don’t know. But as we work for this process up here, I think what you sent up to us to begin with is a very

thoughtful, very comprehensive piece of legislation that preserves

some of the important elements inherent in the need for objective

and independence in our intelligence business, both foreign and

counterintelligence that is the domestic side.

One realizes, of course, as you do, even though you’re not a bureaucrat, and that’s one of your greatest strengths is you’re not. I

remember on one of the first trips you made to the Hill here after

your appointment as the President’s top advisor and Director for

Homeland Security, one of our colleagues asked what you needed.

And you said look, I’m not coming up here to ask for a bunch of

money or a bunch of positions yet. Let’s see, you know, let me get

into this thing, study it and then come back to you and tell you

if we need new authority, if we need money. That’s a very refreshing approach.

Well, you have come back to us now after several months of very,

very careful study and what you’re proposing, I think, is a very

good solid piece of legislation from which to start. Similar, though,

to prior pieces of government reorganization legislations such as

the 1994 CIA Act that established the CIA as the central repository

for objective and independent foreign intelligence and provided specific authorities for the exercise and the success of those missions,

it wasn’t an immediate overnight success. It still is a constant battle to assure that independence and that objectivity.

So this is really the start of a very long process to be honest, a

never-ending process of trying to make sure that we meet the everVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:40 Oct 03, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81325.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
60

changing threats out there within a framework that respects our

constitution, respects principles of federalism, yet provides the necessary, the essential framework within which to do this.

So I think that we have before us a very, very solid start, Governor, and whether you’re the eventual Secretary of Homeland Security or somebody else is, I hope it’s somebody that has the qualities that you bring to the equation and that is, nonbureaucratic

strength and insight and flexibility and a tremendous patriotism.

So I appreciate what you’re doing here today. I appreciate what

the administration is doing and share—as the chairman says, we

look forward to working with you to take this piece of legislation

and make it the very, very best vehicle to accomplish these goals

for the American people.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Barr.

Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Governor Ridge for your service to the Nation. We just received the administration’s proposal, which looks very promising on paper. But

I would say that the main question remains, and what New Yorkers really want to know is how will this organizational flow chart

make our country safer? And will the reshuffling of paper boxes,

will it make individuals safer?

Last night I was told that the White House was evacuated. There

was a bomb scare at the Federal Reserve, and Governor Ridge, as

you have said before, ‘‘even under the best of circumstances, a new

attack by al Qaeda or another terrorist group is inevitable.’’ And

since you’ve said that attack may be at some point inevitable, I

think we all need to look and spend a lot of time at the response

and recovery efforts and in the aftermath of attacks, especially attack in an urban center.

And New Yorkers, I can say, know better than anyone at this

point that we have to do a better job with coordination and response after an attack. The problems New York has had with

FEMA, with coordinating the response on air quality, the process,

the New York delegation had to go through to get the promised aid

and the ongoing difficulty that we’ve had in getting this aid to the

people who need it, there’s been very much of a gulf between what

has been said and what has been done. And FEMA may do a very

good job in helping recover from a flood, but it has not done all that

it could to help New Yorkers recover. Too often we’ve been denied

aid because of rigid standards or excessive standards for evaluating

who should or should not get aid.

And as a response, we’ve had to fight for our schools that had

to close down, our hospitals, utilities, for not for profits and for victims themselves. While the aid has been authorized, it’s been difficult to get it released and we still have many unpaid bills and

unmet needs. So we’ve been told that this is progress, and we’ve

been told that it’s good news. And I look forward to hearing from

you. I can tell you that New Yorkers, more than anyone in this

country or probably everyone in this country, wants to hear more

61

about your plan and how we’re going to work together to protect

our citizens and to make our country safer. Thank you very much

for your efforts and congratulations. We’re glad you’re here.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney follows:]

62

63

64

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Gilman.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Governor, for your patience for sitting through all of this and for your

leadership, most important. As a former colleague, we value your

being in this important post. And I want to thank Chairman Burton for conducting this important hearing and for your continued

leadership of our Government Reform Committee. As we oversee

the monumental task of reforming our national security infrastructure, as President Bush recently stated, the barbaric events of September 11 represented a pivotal moment in our Nation’s history.

And while our dedicated men and women in uniform as well as

the concerned citizens all acted valiantly on September 11th, in the

months that followed, it was obvious that our existing governmental infrastructure was inadequately designed to prevent or respond to the scale of those attacks.

Accordingly, we’re pleased to welcome you Governor Ridge, to

testify before our committee regarding the proposal by the President to establish a new Department of Homeland Security, the creation of which represents, I understand, the most significant

change in our government since the National Security Act of 1947

which restructured—constructed and formalized our Nation’s military command and structure.

Moreover it will clarify and centralize the kind of security responsibility that’s needed under a cabinet level secretary accountable to the Congress, and we hope you’ll be filling that post in the

near future. As history has demonstrated, authority with accountability is the best means to more effective government. Accordingly,

in the interest of our Nation’s security, support our move forward

and moving forward expeditiously on this measure and I look forward to working with you, and we look forward to your testimony

today, Governor Ridge, and we hope that you’ll soon be conducting

the executive authority in that post. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Gilman.

Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. By now, Governor Ridge, I know your eyes have

glazed over and your ears are filled to the stoppage point. I just

want to make three points and let you get on with your testimony.

The first point is the cost of such an agency, and we would want

to know something about that. The second point is a need to do an

analysis of the different offices that are slated to be in this new department, because many of these agencies have varied responsibilities. Some relate to homeland security. Some have other responsibilities that don’t naturally relate.

And let me give you a for instance, and that is, the Department

of Homeland Security will be preventing agriculture terrorism. But

we need to insure that other duties like protecting America’s agriculture and protecting consumers do not get lost along the way. So

I don’t know what you’re going to do there. You might speak to it.

And the other has been mentioned time and again. And that is,

where the FBI and the CIA fit, their functions fit under this deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:40 Oct 03, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81325.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
65

partment. Good luck. I hope that you continue the kind of patient

attitude I have observed and God bless. I would like to submit the

rest of my statement for the record Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection. Thank you, Ms. Watson.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Diane E. Watson follows:]

66

67

68

69

70

71

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Putnam.

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also appreciate

the toughness of the Governor, the Governor’s patience and his

ability to withstand all these opening statements 3 minutes at a

time.

Between 1980 and 2000, the FBI recorded 335 incidents of or

suspected incidents of terrorism, 247 of which were considered domestic. And so as we get into this reorganization of the government, I think a fair case can be made that we have been vulnerable

to terrorism for over 2 decades. But our lack of an adequate response actually made us more vulnerable to future attacks. This is

not just a reaction to September 11th. This has been brewing for

some time now. And I appreciate the approach that you and the

President bring to think boldly and to attack this not just at the

periphery but at the core.

And I will say that to that end, we marked up in this committee

a postal reform bill this morning that was 120 pages and the biggest reorganization in 50 years is 35 pages. I make that point only

to say that while we’re off to a great start, the details matter. We

need to get it right the first time. We need to be thoughtful about

this. There’s a tremendous amount of congressional resources that

have been working on this issue for years. Chairman Shays is one

of them on the Subcommittee on National Security who, 2 years

ago, was holding hearings on creating an office or a department of

homeland security.

I would encourage you, as we move through this process, to tap

into the knowledge and resources of the congressional leadership

and the folks who have been toiling in this vineyard for sometime.

There are a number of concerns that I have. While I believe that

we’re moving in the right direction, some have been mentioned.

CDC, one of them, that the equivalent of our FEMA in a bioterror event, is not playing as active a role in this as they should. I

have some concerns about distractions in the Department of Homeland Security on non-homeland-security-related issues. But all of

these we can get to in questions. And thank you for your patience

and for your leadership.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Putnam.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Adam H. Putnam follows:]

72

73

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Danny Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,

and first of all, I want to thank you and Ranking Member Waxman

for scheduling this extremely important hearing. I also want to

welcome you, Governor, and express appreciation for the enormous

task that you have assumed. As the ranking member of the Civil

Service, Census and Agency Organization Subcommittee, I’m very

concerned about provisions in the proposal that would grant the

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the director

of Personnel Management blanket authority to set pay and other

conditions of employment without regard to existing rules and protections, whistleblower protection, health care, retirement, antidiscrimination rules, the right to join a union, and merit system

rules that prohibit political patronage could be modified or eliminated at a whim.

Last week, the Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 460, the National

Homeland Security and Combatting Terrorism Act of 2002. The

act, much like the proposal being considered today created a Homeland Security agency. A bipartisan group of members testified,

among them was Congresswoman Tauscher who stated, ‘‘I am certainly not for abrogating or rolling back any of the civil employee

rights for either collective bargaining or anything under the rubric

of flexibility.’’ In addition, Congresswoman Harman stated, ‘‘this Member does

not want to interfere with long-standing principles like collective

bargaining.’’ These and all of the other Members clearly opposed

stripping the new department’s employees of the Civil Service protections they have heretofore enjoyed. I strongly agree with them,

and I look forward to your testimony as we delve into these matters with the hope and the understanding that as we establish this

new agency, that we not use it as an opportunity to erode any of

the rights and/or protections that employees have been able to gain

over the years. I thank you for your being here, for your leadership.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]

74

75

76

77

78

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Davis. My very good friend, Mr.

LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, welcome.

I am on borrowed time with the chairman here today, so I will be

quick. I want to thank you for being here today. I also want to

thank you for the briefing that you gave the Members of Congress

last week. As you know from your service here, that this can be a

very bipartisan place when everybody has the information. And I

think your coming up to Capitol Hill and briefing Members of both

parties prior to the submission is a wonderful thing, and I thank

you for that.

A couple of things. One of my other assignments is over in the

Transportation Committee, and I chair the Subcommittee on Public

Buildings and Emergency Management. I made the comment the

other day that the President’s proposal to take the Federal Protective Service and FEMA and put it in this new Homeland Security

Agency has left me with jurisdiction only over the Kennedy Center.

I am grateful that they left something behind. But, I think that the

President is exactly right to focus on FEMA as the lead agency, because of their abilities, their capabilities, and they have been proven time and time again to coordinate effectively all of the Federal

responses to many, many crises, man-made and also made by

Mother Nature.

One thing that I did want to bring up in my short time is an

issue that we have seen with the Federal Protective Service, which

is one of the agencies proposed to be transferred to this new cabinet level position. And, according to Administrator Perry, when we

started all of this, there were 600 Federal Protective Service officers. Their goal was to get it up to 1,000 to protect our Federal

buildings and the Federal structures. They are now down to 200. The reason is that there is a $10,000—just as an example—there

is a $10,000-a-year starting salary differential between what a

Capitol Hill police officer can make and what a Federal Protective

Service officer makes.

You then have, as I was walking in this building today, one of

the Capitol Police officers grabs me and says they are losing all of

their folks because there is a pay differential to the new TSA and

the Transportation Department. So I would hope, and one of the

things that excites me very much about the proposal, among other

things, is that we treat all of the men and women in law enforcement, if they are in law enforcement, people protecting either our

borders or our persons, that we treat them all the same, with the

same pay, the benefits, the same health care and the same pension.

I think that the President’s proposal and your proposal has a

chance to go a long way toward doing that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. LaTourette.

Let me just say briefly that idea that you have is a good one. We

ought to pursue legislation to make sure there is party.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think certainly

you have been the most active chairman this committee has ever

had. I appreciate your leadership. I think this proposed department

is going to pass by a very large majority. But, I do have some conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:40 Oct 03, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81325.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
79

cerns. William Snyder, in the June 15th National Journal, wrote it

would, ‘‘simply add another layer of bureaucracy.’’ Will adding a

layer of government at the top make a great deal of difference? Not

if the problem is at the bottom. And the most senior Member of

this House was quoted in the Congress Daily yesterday as saying,

‘‘reorganization doesn’t always get you the results that you want.

Sometimes it gets you more confusion, more expense, more people,

and less work.’’ The New Republic Magazine last week said, buried in the final

pages of the report itself is language that grudgingly admits that

the plan creates new currently unfunded bureaucracies, such as the

threat analysis unit. The report also acknowledges that increased

resources and government growth may be necessary.

My staff has looked over the creation of every new department

for the last 30 years. And every one of those departments, their

spending has gone up at many times the rate of inflation since the

mid 1960’s. And so while I do believe this department is going to

be created in very rapid order, I do think that we need to be concerned about this, because all of those departments were created

with words saying that they were going to increase efficiency, and

do away with overlapping and duplication of services and so forth.

Some of the same things we are hearing now.

In addition, I am concerned that there seems to be a public relations rush to create this department by September 11th. And I

think there is going to be enough—there is going to be many efforts

or things being done to commemorate the tragic events of September 11th. I noticed last week in the Washington Post, Jeffrey Smith

wrote a column entitled ‘‘Haste and the Homeland Plan.’’ And he said that all of this is a very tall order. It cannot be done

quickly or casually. Congress must act only after it is certain that

it is solving the right problems and not creating new ones. I think

most people know that I have been a very strong supporter of the

President and Governor Ridge. And I hope to be on this. But I do

hope that we will not rush into this, and that we will do everything

possible to make sure that we don’t create more problems than we

solve, and that we don’t grow government unnecessarily. I know

when we created the Transportation Security Administration, they

told us that they needed—we have 27,000 to 28,000 screeners.

They told us we needed 33,000. Then after we passed the bill, they

told us 40,000. Then last month they came to the Appropriations

Subcommittee and said that they need 72,000 employees in that

short a time. So these are concerns of mine.

But I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, you calling this hearing. And I

look forward to hearing from the Governor about these concerns.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., follows:]

80

81

82

83

84

85

Mr. BURTON. You are not going to believe this, Governor Ridge.

But it is now time for you. So I am going to ask Mr. Platts, who

is one of your former colleagues to introduce you.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is certainly a distinct

honor to introduce formally our Director of the Office of Homeland

Security. For most Americans, he is probably known as director of

that office or his service for 7 years as Governor for the State of

Pennsylvania.

But he also brings a wealth of experience beyond those two positions to this effort to protect Americans. Former prosecutor, a decorated combat veteran. A Member of the House of Representatives

for 12 years, true public servant who has really given his entire

adult life to the good of his fellow citizens. And it is a real pleasure

and honor to have you here with us, Governor.

Again, I thank you for your great work on behalf of all Americans. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Well, I concur. And you are on.

STATEMENT OF TOM RIDGE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. RIDGE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to share with some

of my former colleagues that we are all colleagues in public service.

There are no apologies needed for the length and the content and

the duration of the opening statements.

This is a historic time, an unprecedented threat to this country.

And we need leadership in both the executive and legislative

branches in order to combat this new enemy. And I can well recognize and understand and appreciate why Members want to be on

the record as to, one, their overall support of this kind of initiative,

but also registering, and obviously I took quite a few notes, doing

a little intelligence gathering myself, the legitimate concerns that

people may have about the structure and the combination of departments and agencies that we, that the President has aggregated

in his proposal.

I also want to assure my colleagues in public service that the differences of opinion have nothing to do with patriotism. We are all

patriots. They may have everything to do about principle. In a

democratic society, a transparent world in which we live in, the

kind of interaction that Taliban and Al Qaeda and terrorists groups

can’t relate to, frankly never promote, it is an anathema to everything that they stand for. That is part of the process.

And the mere fact that we are here discussing this in the daylight of public scrutiny with Republicans and Democrats generally

committed to the journey and to the task ahead, but maybe having

differences of opinion as to how do we achieve this mutual goal,

that is just one more signal to those who would terrorize us and

cause the horror and destruction of September 11th that we are serious about the business of defeating them in long term, and together, that is exactly what we are going to do.

So I thank you very much for the chance to spend some time

with you this afternoon. I am here in keeping with the President’s

very specific directive to me to present his proposal to you. Earlier

today, the President created a transition planning office which will

be housed in the Office of Management and Budget, which I will

86

be in charge, to deal with the Congress of the United States as we

vet the President’s initiative, as we talk about the features of this

new department and work with you to achieve this common goal.

And it is in that capacity that I have been directed by the President to appear before you.

I have submitted much lengthier testimony for the record, but I

do have a few thoughts that I would like to share with you. The

proposal was the result of a very exhaustive and deliberative planning process I would say to my colleagues. It actually began with

the Vice President in May 2001, was accelerated with the creation

of the Office of Homeland Security within the White House on October 8, 2001 as well.

I want to assure the committee that my staff and I and others

within the executive branch have literally met with thousands,

thousands of public servants at the Federal, State and local level.

Private citizens, companies. The outreach has been substantive.

Because by the very nature of the President’s directive to design

and implement a national strategy, and I will address that question. National means that the Federal Government is very much a

part of dealing with the threat on terrorism, but we need other

partnerships. They need to be strong partnerships. They need to be

partnerships with the Governors and partnerships with the mayors

and partnerships with law enforcement and partnerships with the

private sector, and partnerships with the academic community.

The war on terrorism can only be conducted if we are all engaged

as troops in that effort. So the outreach was substantial. We looked

at the reports from the blue ribbon commissions, the Hart-Rudman,

Bremer, the Gilmore Commissions. We took a look at the work

some of the Members of Congress have done. We took a look at

what Senator Lieberman had done, and Arlen Specter and Bob

Graham had done, and Representatives Mack Thornberry and Jane

Harmon, and Saxby Chambliss, Ellen Tauscher and Jim Gibbons.

A lot or work.

Someone earlier referred to the fact that there is a lot of expertise and a lot of work had been done on the Hill. We took a look

at that as well, very appropriately so. Because, before we made a

recommendation for the most historic, most significant transformation in the U.S. Government since 1947, we wanted to be assured that we reviewed all of the best thinking and the best way

ahead that others had proposed over the past several years.

The creation of this department would transform the current,

rather confusing patchwork of government activities related to

homeland security into a single department, whose primary agency,

primary focus, primary mission is protect Americans and the way

of life. It is one the President considers to be his most important

job. I believe that is one that Congress considers to be their most

important job as well.

Responsibility for homeland security has been discussed by some

of the Members is currently dispersed among more than 100 different government organizations. And we need one, a single department whose primary focus is homeland security. A single department to secure our borders, a single department to give strategic

focus to the research and development aspects of homeland security. A single department that builds and creates actually a new caVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:40 Oct 03, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81325.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
87

pacity, both to analyze information, but also a new means by which

we take that information and apply it to the vulnerabilities that we

have within this country, and then working with the requisite Federal agencies or State agencies, give advice, give counsel, give direction. This is the threat. This is the vulnerability. Make it

actionability and then recommend the kind of action that people,

communities or companies should take.

The proposal to create a department of homeland security is one

more key step in the President’s national strategy for homeland security. Now, I would say to all of you that the centerpiece of the

national strategy is embodied in this proposal. But you, if you take

a look at the President’s budget submitted earlier this year, the

2003 budget, you will see a significant glimpse of the pieces of the

national strategy emerging there. So the national strategy that will

be presented later will form the intellectual underpinning to the

guide, the decisionmaking of planners and budgeteers and policymakers for years to come.

There are not going to be any real surprises in that national

strategy. We will be talking about missions and responsibilities,

but by and large, it is centered about this reorganization of the

Federal Government, not only to reorganize itself, in and of itself

that is a good reason, although someone once said, good organization doesn’t necessarily guarantee success, but a flawed organization does guarantee failure.

So just the fact that we are reorganizing doesn’t guarantee success, but the way we are presently organized, evidence of the past

several months, have guaranteed failure. But it is not just the organization, it is some of the capacity that we build within that organization that I think will be further amplification in the national

strategy that will be released here in the near future.

I would like to turn to a couple of the details of the President’s

plan if I might. Preventing future terrorist attacks is our No. 1 priority. Because terrorism is a global threat, we must have complete

control over who and what enters the United States. We must prevent foreign terrorists from entering and bringing instruments of

terror, while at the same time, facilitate the legal flow of people

and goods on which our economy depends. It is pretty clear after

September 11th, if you went to the border of Canada and Mexico,

we had enhanced security dramatically.

If you were a Governor or mayor, Congressman or Senator from

those States, that abut our neighbors to the north and the south,

you will find that the enhancement of security, without appropriate

recognition that we also need to make sure that we have a continuous flow of goods and services and people across their borders

wasn’t the long-term solution. We had to do something dramatically. We did. But again this border reorganization and consolidation, the President believes achieves two objectives. We significantly enhance the security of our borders, but we will also facilitate the flow of goods and services across the borders as well.

The new department unifies authority of the Coast Guard, Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service and Border

Patrol, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture and the recently created Transportation

Security Administration.

88

All aspects of border control, including the issuing of visas, would

be perfected, actually would be improved by a central information

sharing clearinghouse and compatible data bases. Preventing terrorists from using our transportation systems to deliver their attacks is very closely related to border security. That is the reason

behind the fusion of the TSA into this new department.

Our international airports and our seaports, our land borders

and transportation are absolutely inseparable. The new department

would unify government’s efforts to secure our borders and the

transportation systems that move people from our borders to anywhere in this country in a matter of hours.

Although our top priority is preventing future attacks, we cannot

assume that we will always succeed. The President believes this is

an enduring vulnerability. It is a permanent condition, and that we

need to obviously prevent the threat, reduce our vulnerability, but

we also have an obligation to work with cities and States and the

private sector to prepare and enhance our ability to respond to an

attack that occurs.

Clearly at the centerpiece of this initiative is the Federal Emergency Management Agency, because the Department of Homeland

Security would build on this agency as one of its key components.

As someone who is very familiar with the work of the agency and

has worked with Senator Stafford in the 1980’s on the Stafford Act,

which basically provides the rules and the regulations around

which FEMA presently operates, I believe it makes good sense to

build on its core competencies, and the relationship that FEMA has

built up over the past 20-plus years with first responders.

We are often not the first people to respond to a national incident, whether it is an earthquake or hurricane. You get your firemen out there, you get your EMT personnel out there. You get law

enforcement out there. Again, the same people that are going to respond initially back home in the home town if a terrorist incident

occurs.

So there is some core competencies. There is relationship that

preexists this new department of homeland security. I think we

ought to build on it. The President believes that we add value to

its historic mission. We beef it up to respond to a terrorist attack,

at the same time, it will be even better equipped and better prepared to respond to a natural disaster as well.

As the President made clear in his State of the Union Address,

the war against terrorism is also a war against the most deadly

weapons known to mankind, chemical, biological, radiological and

nuclear. If our enemies acquire these weapons, I don’t believe there

is any doubt in anyone’s mind in the Congress of the United States

that if they have them, they will use them.

And obviously if they do, potentially the consequences are far

more devastating than those we suffered on September 11th. Currently, efforts to counter the threat of these weapons are too few

and too fragmented. And we must launch a systematic national effort against these weapons that is equal in size to the threat they

pose. The President’s proposal does just that.

The new department would implement a national strategy to prepare for and respond to the full range of terrorist threats involving

weapons of mass destruction. It would provide direction and estabVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:40 Oct 03, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81325.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
89

lish priorities for national research and development for related

tests and evaluations and for the development and procurement of

new technology and equipment.

Then finally, it was alluded to in just about everyone’s remarks,

and that is the need to improve our ability to gather information,

analyze information, and apply it in such a way that it reduces the

possibility of attacks on this country.

Preventing future terrorist attacks requires good information in

advance. The President’s proposal recognizes this. The President’s

proposal would develop a new organization with the authority and

the new capacity to generate and provide that critical information.

The new department would take information and intelligence pertaining to threats to the homeland from the CIA and FBI, but from

the other intelligence gathering agencies and departments of the

Federal Government. It would also comprehensively evaluate the

vulnerabilities of America’s critical infrastructure. And take those

threat assessments and map them against the vulnerabilities, and

if need be, if the circumstances require, then give prescriptive direction to whomever would be the potential target based on the

threat.

Now, I have had this capacity in one place before. Let’s assess

the threat. If it is real and credible and immediate, assess the vulnerability of the target of the threat, if the vulnerabilities exists,

we have to take prescriptive action and the Federal needs to work

with whomever the target may be to ensure that it is done.

The individuals who work for the organizations tapped by the

President for their Department of Homeland Security are clearly

some of the most capable individuals in the Federal Government,

and no one doubts their patriotism. We are proud of what they do.

We are proud of their efforts long before September 11th when people focused on homeland security, those of you who oversee these

departments and agencies know that we have literally had thousands of Federal Civil Service workers working on homeland security issues for a long, long time. They have just come to the fore

because of the events of September 11th.

We need to call upon them and continue their crucial work while

the new department is created. The consolidation of the government’s homeland security efforts can achieve greater efficiencies,

we believe, free up additional resources for the fight against terrorism. These fine men and women should rest assured their efforts

will only be improved by the government reorganization proposed

by the President.

To achieve these efficiencies, the new secretary will be given considerable flexibility in procurement, integration of information

technology systems, and personnel issues. Now, even with the new

Department of Homeland Security, there remains a very strong

need in the White House for an Office of Homeland Security.

Homeland security will remain a multidepartment issue that will

continue to require interagency collaboration. It will be a little bit

easier for the assistant to the President for homeland security, certainly my tasks over the past several months would be easier if we

had compressed a number of agencies that we had to deal with and

put them into one. So it will be value added and actually improve

the ability of the assistant to the President for homeland security

90

to fulfill his or her responsibility, not only this administration, but

future administrations.

Therefore, the President’s proposal intends for the Office of

Homeland Security to maintain a very strong role. It will be critical

to the future success of the new department. Finally, my colleagues

in public service, during the transition period, the Office of Homeland Security will maintain vigilance and continue to coordinate

the other Federal agencies involved in homeland security. The

President appreciates the enthusiastic response from Congress and

is certainly gratified via the expressions of optimism about how

quick this bill might be passed.

The President also understands that our job is to work with the

congressional timetable, whatever the Congress decides the timetable should be. He is ready to work together with you in partnership. Until the Department of Homeland Security becomes fully

operational, the proposed department’s designated components will

continue their mandate to help ensure the security of the United

States.

During his June 6th address to the Nation, the President asked

Congress to join him in establishing a single permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission, securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people.

Extraordinary times, unprecedented times call for extraordinary

measures, sometimes unprecedented measures. We know the

threats are real. And we know the need is urgent. We must together succeed in this endeavor. President Truman did not live to

see the end of the cold war. But the war did end. And historians

agree that his proposal to consolidate Federal resources was critical

to our ultimate success.

Ladies and gentlemen, we too have that opportunity to develop— to provide the leadership and provide the legacy that assures our

success as well. And I certainly look forward to working with this

committee and other committees in both the House and the Senate

to achieve this mutual goal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Well, thank you, Governor Ridge.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ridge follows:]

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

Mr. BURTON. And you may rest assured that we will move as expeditiously as possible to get a product out of the House that will

achieve the goals that you set here today.

Let me start the questioning by mentioning that Dr. Weldon

mentioned that there were travel agents in Saudi Arabia who were

able to grant visas instead of having them go through the normal

process. And he also suggested that maybe it would be better to

have the visas in an agency that would be dealing with national

security rather than where they are today.

I hope that will be one of the things that you take a look at and

that we look at as we go through this process. And I would like to

talk to you about some length later on.

Now, the FBI and CIA has been a real concern of this committee,

and many of the people on this committee and other Members of

Congress for some time. And we have felt like there was a lack of

coordination between the two of them, especially after some of the

briefings we have had.

Will the new department promote better performance at the FBI

and a CIA, and if so, how will that happen?

Mr. RIDGE. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I believe that both Director Tenet and Director Mueller have begun internal reorganization

efforts consistent with not only their own individual assessments of

what additional things need to be done, but obviously in light of

September 11th and experiences related thereto have made some

adjustments. I think Director Mueller has been up here talking to

you about changing the organization of the FBI, creating a center

for intelligence. I think both are trying to gear up and enhance

their analytical capacity.

But you raise a question that is very much on the minds of, I

think, most Members of the House and Senate, it seems to be the

primary focus of their concern with regard to this new agency. The

President strongly believes that the CIA, the primary source of foreign intelligence information, should remain directly accountable to

one person in the executive branch of government, and that is to

the President of the United States. There is a clear line of authority, direct line of authority to the President of the United States.

The President also believes that the FBI should continue to remain an integral part, the chief law enforcement agency of this

country, under the auspices of the Attorney General, but again,

there is a direct line of communication and accountability to the

President of the United States.

The improvements and the changes that they are seeking to effect within those organizations will add value to the work product

that they would send to the new Department of Homeland Security. But I would like to be very clear at the outset that the statute

would direct the CIA and the FBI to send and to share with the

new Department of Homeland Security. This is an affirmative obligation in the statute for the CIA and the FBI to send to the new

agency the reports, the assessments, and the analytical work that

they do based on the raw data and the information that they receive. That is an affirmative obligation.

There will be, under certain circumstances, an opportunity for

the secretary of the new department to go back and even make inquiry and get access to some of that raw data. But, be very clear.

99

An affirmative obligation in the statute to give this new department the reports, the assessments and the analytical work product.

Mr. BURTON. Well, let me just elaborate a little bit on this issue.

In the event that there was an imminent attack on the United

States or some area of the United States, it seems it would be imperative for the FBI, CIA and homeland security to have that information all together at one time so that the President could get the

whole picture just like that.

Mr. RIDGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURTON. It concerns me and it concerns some of my colleagues that if you have the FBI coming here, the CIA coming here,

and Homeland Security coming here, that the information may not

be coordinated in such a way that the President gets that immediately. And I guess my question to you is, are you confident that

this can be done, and will be done in such a way that there will

be immediate access by the President to this information so that

if there was an imminent terrorist attack, he has all of the information at his disposal so that he can move quickly?

Mr. RIDGE. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I cannot speak to the protocol

and procedures followed by previous Presidents. But I know this

President, on a daily basis, brings the leaders, brings the Director

of CIA, the Director of the FBI, the Attorney General, and the assistant to the President for Homeland Security, meets with him on

a daily basis as commander-in-chief. We meet with the President

of the United States whenever he instructs us to meet with him.

But, that fusion, that personal fusion and sharing of intelligence

information often goes on in the presence of the President, who

often goes back and tasks those involved in the conversation, to do

additional things in furtherance of his commitment, his goal, which

he considers to be job one, enhancing the security of America and

protecting citizens.

Mr. BURTON. Well, that is good to know, because we had some

occasions, some of the briefings we had in the past where many of

us felt like that coordination was not there. And so I am glad to

hear that is one of the major things.

Mr. RIDGE. You raise a very important question, Mr. Chairman.

Again, my frame of reference is October 8 forward. But my sense

has been that over the past couple of months the CIA, maybe over

the past several years, but the CIA and the FBI have begun to collocate agents and analysts together. I would presume that is an option or something that the new secretary of Homeland Security

would want to engage in as well. So that, at the CIA and at the

FBI, and at the new Department of Homeland Security, in that integration and the analysis unit, you actually have some CIA, FBI

and some homeland security analysts working together in the three

independent agencies.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the Chair. There is a couple of things that

I think it is important in terms of where you are going with this

strategy that you talk about that is already evident, based on the

record of the past few months.

And I think that a Member of Congress would be remiss not to

try to get a direct answer out of you about what in the world has

100

happened with this anthrax investigation. And why don’t the

American people know the answers, as far as where it came from,

who is responsible, and what has been done to pursue those who

are responsible?

Mr. RIDGE. Well, Congressman, there has been quite a bit of

praise heaped upon the men and women who are involved in homeland security issues. And I think very appropriately so. Among

those men and women who have been justifiably praised by this

committee and other committees are the folks at the CDC, at the

NIH, the men and women that work for the FBI and other law enforcement department or agencies around the Federal Government.

And literally hundreds if not thousands of people continue to work

this issue.

Everyone has moved as aggressively and as appropriately as they

possible can. The continued work that they are doing on the science

of these anthrax spores, trying to determine from the unique qualities of these spores, whether there is information, can be gleaned

from the very cumbersome and complex process that they have to

go through scientifically looking at these spores.

The only thing I can tell you, Congressman, is that every single

day, hundreds of the men and women that everybody in this—on

this committee has been praising, justifiably so, go to work every

day trying to get answers.

Mr. KUCINICH. May I say, Governor, with all due respect——

Mr. RIDGE. That always makes me nervous.

Mr. KUCINICH. It should. Because our way of life on Capitol Hill

was changed. Now, I understand from——

Mr. RIDGE. The way of life in people in the communities in New

York, New Jersey and——

Mr. KUCINICH. But we don’t even get mail without it going

through irradiation. And it is very serious. When people cannot

communicate with Members of Congress expeditiously as they are

used to. Now, I am asking you directly. There have been published

reports that suggest that the anthrax came from Ft. Dietrich out

of a controlled and secured area. That there is only a very few people who could have had access to that.

Now, there has never been any public hearings that have pinned

this down. I am asking you, what about this? Is it connected to

anyone who worked for the government, who was under contract

to the government, and when are you going to give an accounting

to the people of this country and to this Congress on this? If we

are going to turn our homeland security over to one umbrella department, how can we be assured of having any confidence in that

if given the present structure with all of the thousands of people

that you talk about that are working on this, that we don’t have

an answer to a biological attack on this Congress and on this country.

Mr. RIDGE. Well, as you pointed out, Congressman, it is not just

the Congress that has endured both the emotional and the physical

challenge of dealing with anthrax, but there are five families who

have suffered a personal loss, and there have been untold members

of families that were sick and perhaps even some men and women

that worked for the Congress of the United States affected by it.

101

Congressman, the only thing I can tell you is that the FBI and

the law enforcement community has followed and continues to follow every single lead that they possible can.

I can only tell you that they have also had to followup on some

bad information and some misinformation and obviously some

hoaxes out there. That Director Mueller, that the agencies involved

in the scientific research, continue to keep this as a very high priority, and as such time as that the human or the scientific leads

take them to final resolution, they will continue to work as aggressively as they possibly can to find out the source and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Mr. KUCINICH. I understand the limitations of your testimony. I

just want to make one more comment, and that is that you said

in your testimony, that this structure responds to what you believe

is a permanent condition. I think that we really need to reflect on

that. To ask why it is a permanent condition, and why it is that

the people of this country should continue to be in fear. We need

to explore that a little bit more while we are going into these structural issues as well. And I thank the Governor for his presence

here. I truly do.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I think the answer to the question of why

it is a permanent condition is that terrorists have weapons of mass

destruction. We know there is no red line. We know that they are

willing to cross it. And we need to be able to respond in this race

with terrorists to shut them down before they use these weapons,

chemical, biological, radioactive or nuclear.

But, related to his point, Mr. Kucinich’s point, and who has been

a very hard working member of our subcommittee and a very

thoughtful one, I would love you to explain—we basically are taking the reorganization before we fully heard, as Mr. Kucinich pointed out in his statement, what the threat analysis is and what the

strategy is. Will we, before we adopt this legislation, have a fairly

delineated explanation of the threat assessment and the strategy?

Mr. RIDGE. As I mentioned, Congressman, there will be no surprises in the national strategy. You see basically the infrastructure

around which the strategy, or upon which the strategy would be

based in the President’s initiative. The threat assessment is fairly

straightforward, and I think most Americans understand it.

There are literally thousands of terrorists in the Al Qaeda organization that—the cells in dozens and dozens of countries around

the world, who have as their primary target, undermining our way

of life, and who do not distinguish between combatants and civilians, who deploy strategy and tactics in their asymmetrical efforts

to undermine us, the likes of which we have never confronted before and who choose to turn our cities into battlefields. The threat

is there. We know that the—I am sure in your committee hearings

you understand that it is, hopefully you would agree, Congressman,

that it is advisable as we set up the agency for the next secretary

to base the organization and the focus on the notion that once we

bring bin Ladin to justice, and ultimately we will, there will be a

follow-on, and that we are going to continue to have this challenge

for a long, long time.

102

The vulnerability assessment is also an important feature of and

component of the new agencies. We all understand that about 90

percent of the critical infrastructure in this country is owned by the

private sector. And it is securing information with regard to that

vulnerability, some of which we would like to protect from a very

limited exemption of the Freedom of Information Act, so that when

we get credible threat information, and made an assessment with

regard to its timing and direction and target and what have you,

that we can take a look at whether or not it is potential target, was

vulnerable, and then in a capacity that this country has never had,

because of the rather historic way we are going to use this information, then recommend very specific protective measures to be deployed.

So I think the threat assessment, those who have dealt with a—

probably can talk to Congressman Barr a little bit about this, but

I know you have dealt with it in the committees and in private

briefings. There is an assessment that goes on a day-to-day basis,

trying to sort through literally millions of pieces of information on

a weekly basis.

But we know ultimately where the threat is coming from, and we

know the form that it would take, and we know the strategy and

tactics are different. That is, we need in response to a 21st century

threat, a 21st century agency to deal with it.

Mr. SHAYS. The most chilling testimony we had before our subcommittee was a doctor of a noted medical journal who concluded

by saying, his biggest concern, that is a small group of scientists

who will create an altered biological agent that when released, will

literally cause the destruction of humanity as we know it, which

clearly justifies our holding the countries accountable for the actions that take place in a country.

And so the question I ask you is, is that a form of strategy, in

other words, holding the countries accountable for the actions that

take place? Is that a threat assessment, or is that a strategy response?

Mr. RIDGE. Well, I think you get much better clarification from

the Secretary of State on that issue. But it is pretty clear to the

administration that there are—state-sponsored support of terrorists

is a reality that we have to deal with.

And in terms of identifying the support, we know, in fact, that

we would have reason to believe that the threat associated with Al

Qaeda, the chemical, the biological, the radiological and the nuclear

threat, whether or not it is related to directly to a state-sponsored

effort or not, we also know that there is a potential of a radiological, chemical, nuclear or biological threat from state-sponsored terrorists.

So whether the terrorism is sponsored by a state or sponsored by

a terrorist organization that does not receive support from a sovereign, it is immaterial. We have to be prepared for any eventuality, whether it comes directly from a sovereign or indirectly

through a terrorist agent, or from a terrorist organization acting

independently itself.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman.

103

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Governor

Ridge, all of us agree that we need to streamline government and

increase coordination. In your written testimony, you addressed

this point saying that the new department would improve security

without growing government. I want to ask you about this. The objective is not to grow government, but the bill you have proposed

includes 21 deputy, under, and assistant secretaries. This is more

than double the number of deputy and assistant secretaries in

Health and Human Services, which administers a budget that is 3

times bigger than the budget we expect for this agency.

If the objective is not to grow government, why does the new department need so many deputy and assistant secretaries?

Mr. RIDGE. One of the challenges we have, Congressman, is to

make sure that we organize this in the most effective way possible.

And I think in developing a mission-driven, performance-driven organization, and we believe that with your support, we can get one

of those set up down the road, that we can fill these positions conceivably from among the 170,000 people that would become a part

of this organization.

But we are going to need some internal leadership. We may need

to make some changes, and at least those positions give the new

secretary some flexibility as to where to deploy them. It has been

admitted, and I think acknowledged by many of the Members of

Congress, that some of those agencies are in need of reform and of

change, and maybe perhaps additional leadership. And that would

at least—those few members in comparison to the 170,000 would

at least give the new secretary the opportunity to implement some

significant changes if he or she see fits.

Mr. WAXMAN. Here is my concern. I think the reason that so

much bureaucracy must be created is that the new department

doesn’t consider, have a clear enough focus. You say the mission is

to protect homeland security. But the proposal would transfer into

this new department many agencies that eradicate boll weevils

from cotton crops, that issue flood insurance to home owners that

live along the Mississippi River and clean up oil spills from our waterway.

I want a new homeland security agency, but I want it focused on

our homeland security needs. Let me ask you about that. On October 8th when President Bush created your position, he issued an

Executive order. And Section 1 of that order established your office.

And then Section 2 said, that your core mission was to develop and

implement the coordination of a comprehensive national strategy to

secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks.

Now, according to President Bush, developing this national strategy is your No. 1 job. But, Congress hasn’t received it yet. Why

not?

Mr. RIDGE. Well, you also, since you are familiar with the Executive order, you know that there was no timeframe specifically directed by the President. And I volunteered publicly some time ago

that I would like to get that strategy before the President by mid

year, sometime in July.

Mr. WAXMAN. Isn’t this backward, though? We are going to get

the strategy after we reorganize? It seems to me that if you don’t

have a strategy, we don’t have the priorities set forth in a clear

104

way and we can’t gauge whether the reorganization proposals best

serve the Nation’s security.

As you know, several esteemed commissions have looked at the

whole idea of homeland security, and they have said that we

should start with the strategy, and then let that drive reorganization decisions, not the other way around. In the June 15th edition

of the National Journal, John R. Brinkerhoff, who is the Civil Defense Director at FEMA under President Reagan, said, ‘‘the Bush

Administration is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

What worries me is that we put the cart before the horse. We are

organizing, then we are going to figure out what to do.’’ I wouldn’t go as far as Dr. Brickerhoff went. Because I think reorganization is needed. But I think it is vital for Congress to review your national strategy at the same time as we consider how

to reorganize the government. Setting forth a strategy that lays out

clear and specific goals, objectives, definitions and performance

measures, is an important part of how we are going to plan reorganization.

Mr. RIDGE. Congressman, the question would imply, although I

realize it is not your implication, that we have just started to work

on the strategy subsequent to the President’s announcement of the

Department—of his proposal for homeland security.

Mr. WAXMAN. I didn’t mean that. But Congress is being asked to

reorganize without receiving your strategy report.

Mr. RIDGE. But, in fact, the strategy and pieces of the strategy

have been emerging, have been shared with Congress, not in a

complete document, which we are in the process of completing, but

ever since the President sent up his 2003 budget initiative, and the

centerpiece of that strategy, as I reiterate is the Department of

Homeland Security, that has very clear missions.

The first mission is to create a new capacity, not to deal with information, to integrate all of the information from the intelligence

community, map it against the vulnerabilities out there, and give

specific definition to the particular target. We have never had it before. That comes under the category of prevention, which is at the

heart of the strategy.

Intelligence fusion and sharing is very much a part of the strategy, and it is also reflected in part of the budget proposal that the

President made when he submitted it in 2003, so you can track

that. Clearly pushing our borders out. If you are interested in a

homeland strategy and homeland security, you know that you want

to interdict either the terrorists or weapons of terror before they

enter the United States.

Again, border consolidation. This was a piece of the President’s

2003 budget. You see that seam, moves into the President’s initiative here, and you will see the underpinnings in the national strategy as we develop it here in the next couple of weeks. Clearly, from

prevention to reducing vulnerabilities, Congressman, we also say

that we need to have stronger relationships with the public and

private sector. That was part of the Executive order, part of the

strategy.

And that is why you see the requests in the supplemental as well

as in the President’s 2003 budget to create a much stronger, most

robust direct relationship with the States and the locals and the

105

first responders. And so I think I can take you through the President’s budget proposal in 2003, and show you how it ties into this,

the reorganization which is very much part of the strategy.

So it is in pieces of the strategy, the underpinnings have been

out there. We will give it in a more complete document in a couple

of weeks.

But you see the strategy, it is to prevent in the new agency working with a reformed CIA and the FBI, taking the threat assessment, matching it against vulnerabilities, then doing something actionable is very much a part of it. Securing our borders, pushing

that perimeter out as we want to do, is very much a part of it, and

go through the rest of the litany. But you can see, sir, that in the

President’s budget, and in the reorganization, I think you have a

pretty good idea of what the strategy is.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Horn.

Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to pursue a

little bit the function aspects. I think you have got an excellent

theme through there where have you got deputy, under secretaries.

Because, when you look at this tremendous amount of data that

are going from the agencies, and a lot of them are going to say, gee,

I want to bring teacher a real thing, so they sort of huff it on their

desk and wait and wait and wait.

And I wonder the thinking you have given to an emergency desk

run by the deputy secretary overall. Because, the secretary, whether it is you or anybody else, we all know they have to go around

the Nation and meet various groups, such as the health departments and all of the enforcement of law and so forth. And all of

that gets clogged up and clogged up as we get through the data.

And the CIA’s role originally was pull all of the intelligence in the

whole executive branch and report to the President of the United

States.

That hasn’t worked that way. And we have here a number of

things that go directly to the Defense Department. And that is the

reconnaissance group, that office, the NSA, a number of them.

And it might be worthwhile to at least cleanse that out so the

secretary, although he has got plenty to do, and the question with

all of these Embassies, we have got FBI, CIA, Commerce, everybody has got an attache there. And a lot of that will trickle

through. And the question is, how do you get what is really needed

where you and your people know to make a decision and a recommendation to the President?

Mr. RIDGE. Congressman, with your support, with congressional

support of this legislation, by statute, the CIA and the FBI will be

compelled by statute to provide their reports and their assessments

and their analytical work products to the Department of Homeland

Security, which will have the opportunity to review it, make their

own independent judgments. They may agree or disagree with the

analysis, and they may, in fact, seek additional information and go

back to the President and request that they even have access to the

raw data upon which either one of the other agencies drew their

conclusions.

So what we are developing here is not only a new capacity to

match the threats with vulnerabilities and then direct protective

measures, but we are also developing another analytical point

106

where other trained professionals can review the same information

and determine—and see whether or not they reach the same conclusions, which I think enhances our ability as a country to protect

ourselves.

Mr. HORN. And I am glad you, the IG, in your necessarily special

group. That really runs the city, in terms of the department. And

I think I have found over the years here that could be a good hand

for the secretary.

Mr. RIDGE. I wanted to make one other point if I might, Congressman. The collection process, the President feels very strongly,

and I can’t reiterate this enough, that the two agencies that would

be providing information to the new Department of Homeland Security have made internal reforms which he supports, now collaborating and cooperating, I think, in an unprecedented fashion.

Clearly, one of the challenges is to make sure over the long term

it is not only between the principals that do it on a day-to-day

basis, and the agencies that are doing it now, but to make sure

that it is done in the future. I know there continue to be concerns

about the CIA and the FBI.

And if there are to be reforms of those organizations, depending

on the conclusions that are reached after the hearings are concluded, that would certainly be within the province of the Congress

of the United States to make those recommendations and legislate

those proposals.

But whatever they did to improve the capacity of those agencies

would improve the work product that would be available to the Department of Homeland Security. But the President feels very

strongly FBI needs to be maintained as an integral part of the Office of the Attorney General, the chief law enforcement official in

this country, and very strongly that D.C. should report to one

member of the executive branch, and that is the commander-inchief, the President of the United States.

Mr. HORN. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. TIERNEY. Governor, I want to revisit an issue with you, just

because I think we may be talking past each other here on the

panel. When we talk about your having a threat and risk assessment, I think generally everybody understands that homeland security is a need, and that we have threats out there.

But the idea of having a threat risk assessment is to identify

with specificity what are the threats, identify them, which one is

more severe, where are we going to allocate our resources. As we

break into these different departments, who is going to get more

money than another? Who is going to get more people than another? You know, is a chemical threat more than a biological

threat? Is something coming in by ship greater than coming in by

plane. That kind of threat assessment is the one that the HartRudman report indicated was a necessary first step, that the Gilmore report very strongly indicated was a first step, Rand and

Brookings have each done an assessment on that and identified the

threats and prioritized them, shape them up once against the other

and put them in there. That helps us make the policy.

107

I don’t think that you probably could have gotten as far as you

have gone and made this proposal, the President making his proposal without having had that done somewhere. We’d certainly be

expected to act on this, as policymakers and people that provide for

the resources without having that. So would you revisit that a moment for me. Tell me where are you on that kind of a threat and

risk assessment, and are we going to have that before we are in

a position of making decisions as to who is going in what department and what their resources are going to be in terms of allocation?

Mr. RIDGE. Congressman, again, I want to distinguish between

the overall threat assessment, which I believe we all appreciate

and understand.

Mr. TIERNEY. Excuse me for a second. That is very broad. We

can’t have everybody taking the worst case scenario and doing our

planning on that. Because we don’t have those kind of resources,

even if we wanted to have them.

Mr. RIDGE. I am going to try to get to that in a minute because

you are right. The predicate is that terrorists could use biological,

chemical, radiological or nuclear weapons. That the terrorists could

take a look at vulnerabilities in this country, and turn them into

targets and cause and inflict enormous catastrophic damage, both

personal and economic.

So we know generally what the threat is. Depending on how discrete the information is, and how clear it is with regard to a particular threat, if we set up this new Department of Homeland Security with a kind of flexibility that is—I think the President believes

is necessary to create a capacity to respond to a discrete threat, but

we don’t have that capacity yet to do so, to match a threat with

a vulnerability and to respond immediately. RPTS SMITH DCMN

NORMAN

I mean that goes at the very heart, the ability to identify a particular threat and to respond to it.

Mr. TIERNEY. But I still think you are missing the point here. All

of these other reports have indicated, quite clearly, that we certainly should have the ability now to make an assessment of what

are the more likely of those threats and what are the more likely

ways in which they are to be carried out. And in Rudman-Hart we

thought that was important, Gilmore thought it was important, if

the GAO thinks it is important and if, in fact, Brookings and Rand

can do it, isn’t that what we should be doing first, so that we can

put this other umbrella thing together, we have at least a specificity of how many people are needed or resources are needed in a

particular part of that, and then identify them to go right at the

ones that have the highest priority, the ones that are most likely

to occur?

Mr. RIDGE. Well, Senator, I don’t think that any—excuse me. I

got you promoted.

Mr. TIERNEY. I appreciate the promotion. I know a couple guys

in Massachusetts might not.

Mr. RIDGE. I don’t know if that’s an aspiration of yours or not.

The Department of Homeland Security is designed to deal with

both the general and the specifics. The information analysis piece,

depending on the information you get in, can help us direct reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:40 Oct 03, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81325.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
108

sources to deal with an immediate threat. The consolidation of the

borders, we know that we want to keep terrorists out and terrorist

weapons out. With regard to FEMA, we know that in the broad

range of potential threats they come in a finite number of categories. And there are ways that you go about preparing for a nonspecific biological threat and a chemical threat and a radiological

threat and a nuclear threat, so this is set up to deal with threats

generally.

Then depending on discrete information that we have about specific threats, you then have the capacity to go out and begin research immediately, because one of the units in the President’s proposal gives us the ability to direct resources to research perhaps

antidotes or vaccines for a specific kind of biological weapon that

we believe is imminent, and can be used, will be used in the near

future. So—— Mr. TIERNEY. I appreciate that. But I think by way of—I know

my time is out here. So I just—Coast Guard is one good example

of that. Like how much of the Coast Guard should we put in this

division? It has so many other responsibilities. And it would be

helpful to know whether or not what we plan on using the Coast

Guard for was a matter of the ultimate priority or somewhere further down the list, or a low priority, you know, as we determine;

because they have so much to do with search and rescue, with fisheries management, with drug interdiction and with this. You know,

how much money do we have to put in the Coast Guard? How big

are we going to grow it, and where are we going to put these priorities in amongst themselves and then find out where in this chain

of what you are talking about? I think that really would be helpful

to us to have now, as opposed to after we do this legislation.

Mr. BARR [presiding]. The time of the gentleman has expired.

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman, is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Governor Ridge, at least one half of the foreign terrorist organizations have some links to the distribution of illicit drugs and the

finances that they gain from them. These are terrorists organizations. What will the new Department do to ensure the DEA and

other drug-related intelligence people will be incorporated into your

system?

Mr. RIDGE. Congressman, I didn’t hear the first part of your

question. I apologize.

Mr. GILMAN. Sure. There are about one half the foreign terrorist

organizations have some links to illicit drug distribution and the financing of their organizations from drugs. Can you tell us what the

organization will do to try to bring DEA and some of that intelligence on drug-related transactions into your system?

Mr. RIDGE. Well, No. 1, Congressman, we recognize that this

agency has its own source of information gathering. It does its own

analytical work and is in the law enforcement business itself. And

so gaining their records and their analysis into the Department of

Homeland Security is, by statute, going to make us a partner from

the get-go.

Second, if we consolidate the agencies at the borders, INS, Customs, and the Coast Guard, and others that work with the DEA

109

often on interdiction, it would be I think, frankly, a much stronger

partnership if the DEA can work with one agency where there’s a

unitary command that says this is the relationship all of you must

have, or we must develop a partnership with the DEA.

So I think it really will improve significantly over time, the interaction and the collaboration, now that we have consolidated the

agencies that they have dealt with perhaps on an ad hoc basis into

one department.

Mr. GILMAN. That is encouraging. Governor Ridge, the Indian

Point Nuclear Power Plant is located in my area. It is along the

shores of the Hudson River. It is less than 30 miles outside of Metropolitan New York City. It is in the heart of almost 20 million people.

Following the brutal attacks of September 11th, a number of

questions and concerns have been raised by our people about the

safety, the emergency preparedness, and the security of that plant.

And in our efforts to assure the public of the safety of that facility

and to increase measures defending the plant and to ensure emergency preparedness, to protect the public, we have been confronted

with some resistance and unanswered questions from FEMA and

from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

With FEMA being brought into your new Department, what role

would the new Department of Homeland Security play in emergency preparedness around our nuclear facilities? And would any

of FEMA’s policies be changed as a result of that? The Nuclear

Regulatory Commission is responsible for determining the physical

protection requirements of nuclear power plants, and in response

to September 11th the NRC established a new Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response. Will this responsibility for defending

our nuclear power plants and this new office be transferred to your

new Department of Homeland Security?

Mr. RIDGE. Interestingly enough, Congressman, you identify a

point of vulnerability that has been much on the minds of Members

and Senators who have nuclear facilities in their jurisdictions. And

depending on what aspect of security prevention involved with a

nuclear power plant, you might have the Department of Energy,

you might have FEMA, you might have the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, or in fact you might even have the State involved.

And it is pretty clear that under the new Department of Homeland Security, the continued responsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to oversee the physical requirements, the licensing requirements of the nuclear facility, will continue to exist and

should continue to exist. But I think that the confusion that might

otherwise arise as to who does what at the time of an incident or

prior to an incident, whether it is FEMA, whether it is the NRC

or it is the Department of Energy, will be resolved. You have one

place that will coordinate with the appropriate roles of all the

agencies, but the continued licensing and oversight of the security

will be with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but at this instance, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security.

Because, again, they have the responsibility to deal with not only

threats but critical infrastructure, and obviously the nuclear power

plants are an integral part of the critical infrastructure. And so the

110

relationship will be much more direct; and I think, I would hope,

I believe, much more effective.

Mr. GILMAN. So you will be coordinating that kind of security.

Mr. RIDGE. The new Secretary in the new Cabinet position, will

have both the responsibility to do it and, frankly, be in a better position to do it; because, again, part of the task of the new Department is to assess critical vulnerabilities, look at the critical infrastructure. The energy component of our economy is clearly in that

category, and they will be responsible for matching threats that— we have heard a lot about threats potentially to our nuclear facilities with that vulnerability, and then working with the NRC or the

community or whomever to deal with that threat.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARR. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Maine, Mr. Allen, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank

you, Governor Ridge, for spending so much time with us this afternoon.

In my opening statement, I mentioned the issue of making sure

that information flowed vertically between the new Department of

Homeland Security and State and local officials, that those lines of

communication worked well. And I want to ask you to elaborate on

that.

I want to mention one other thing in that context. The experience over the last few months from people in Maine is that when

funds flow through an established channel, as they do through

FEMA, that works very well. When they flow through a new channel, the Department of Justice, there are more and more issues and

problems, and certainly the people in the Maine Emergency Management Agency prefer that FEMA channel. They think that

FEMA really knows how to work with State and local officials in

a productive way.

And so I just wanted to make that point, and then really ask two

things. How do you envision the lines of communication between

the new Department and State and local officials working? I mean,

I know we are all going to talk about consultation and collaboration

and so on.

And the second question is—particularly smaller rural States are

faced with developing plans for the kinds of catastrophes that we

didn’t really expect before. And so the second question is: Will

there be in this new Department a group who can provide the

kinds of technical assistance to smaller States to develop response

plans for these catastrophes, really, that haven’t been certainly

right on the front of the planning agenda in the past?

Mr. RIDGE. First of all, the point about vertical sharing of information I think is critical to our national effort to secure the homeland. We have 650,000 to 700,000 State and local police and law

enforcement. They want to be engaged. They are engaged from

time to time as members of the FBI joint terrorism task forces. But

at some point in time, as we develop the capacity to share sensitive

information under appropriate circumstances with them, they become additional soldiers in our effort. And I think that is certainly

the direction that both the Congress and the President, under the

right circumstances, want us to move.

111

I notice that your colleagues Saxby Chambliss, and Jane Harman

have an information sharing initiative that takes the information

we get in the Federal Government, under appropriate circumstances, shares it with local and State law enforcement, and I

think that is—I think the administration has been working with

them and supportive of that proposal.

With regard to FEMA, in my capacity as Assistant to the President on Homeland Security, we have set up fairly routine phone

calls with Governors and mayors, because again it is a national effort, and we have to engage and develop partnerships with the

States and local communities. And if I heard it once in these phone

calls or when I have attended their events, I have heard it dozens

of times: We would like to go to one place to access dollars to help

with preparedness planning, to help us with the acquisition of

equipment, to help pay for training and exercises.

And one of the reasons that we have put FEMA into—the President has put FEMA into the new agency is to make it a one-stop

shop. We take the grants from the Department of Justice, the

grants from Health and Human Services, the grants from FEMA,

we would aggregate them into one.

Director Albaugh informed me the other day that he received

nearly 700 responses to an inquiry that he made with the States

and the local governments as to what you would expect the kind

of technical assistance, how do you want us to help you frame your

planning for a terrorist event? I would tell you that in the supplemental, there is $175 million

that the President has requested to give to the States and the local

governments so they can begin doing the kind of planning that you

are talking about, the small and rural communities and States, to

develop mutual aid PACs, to develop national capacity. And that

$175 million is to be expended for planning in anticipation of some

significant level of support from Congress of the President’s initiative in his 2003 budget where there is $3.5 billion for first responders.

It would be nice to distribute it according to plans, statewide

plans that involve mutual aid, exercises and drills, and the like. So,

again, the notion of a one-stop shop is embodied in the President’s

initiative. Mayors and others would like to go to one government

agency to get the kind of technical support and financial support

that you are talking about. The President provides that in his plan.

Mr. BARR. The time of the gentleman is expired. The gentleman

from Virginia, Mr. Schrock, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SCHROCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, as I alluded

to earlier, in April I sponsored a seaport security and force protection workshop, in conjunction with the U.S. Navy, and I have found

that recurring problems they faced in providing port security were

the problems of information sharing.

Other than organizational structures and the Federal laws preventing information sharing, one other major obstacle to the timely

transfer of information between agencies was the lack of interoperability of the data bases, communications networks, and information gathering systems between the agencies. Reorganization, I

don’t think, will solve this problem of interoperability. What do you

foresee in the near term as a possible solution to the lack of interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:40 Oct 03, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81325.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
112

operability, and what would you recommend would be a long-term

solution?

Mr. RIDGE. Congressman, the heart of much of what the President seeks to accomplish with his initiative is based upon the ability of the appropriate agencies to share information, not just the

CIA and the FBI with the Department of Homeland Security, but

INS and Customs and Coast Guard and DEA and everybody else,

to share it with each other.

We noted with an initial look at the information technology budgets of the agencies that would be fused at the borders, that there

is an anticipation of well in excess of $1 billion that is out there

potentially to be invested in IT.

It is my sense and my understanding that what has happened

in many of these agencies over the years is they get more money

for information technology, but they layer the systems, but they

don’t connect them. And by giving the new Cabinet Secretary some

flexibility with regard to procurement and the transfer of funds, I

would suspect that the new Secretary would want to make this one

of the highest priorities, because it has also been one of the

Congress’s highest priorities, and it hasn’t been done.

I mean, Congress asked 6 years ago, it directed the INS to come

up with an exit monitoring system, and the President wants an

entry-exit monitoring system, and the only way we are going to be

able to do that is to integrate the data bases and deploy some IT

more effectively than it is been deployed before.

So I think the new Cabinet Secretary has got a lot of work to

do, not only to meet congressional mandates which are longstanding, but also to improve the information flow between the consolidated agencies or among the consolidated agencies.

Mr. SCHROCK. Well, if this thing is going to work, those barriers

simply have to be broken down. And we understand there are laws

that prevent some agencies from sharing. And I guess we are going

to have to do something about that.

Mr. RIDGE. Well, I am glad you raised that issue because there

are some legal obstacles to that sharing, and there is some concern

and criticism of stovepipes; that, in fact, one of the reasons that

some of the stovepipes exist is because there are impediments,

legal impediments to the sharing of certain kinds of information.

So, again, we have to be careful under what circumstance is it

done, but obviously the new Secretary would look to the Congress

to try to make it easier to share information.

Mr. SCHROCK. Sure. Let me go back to port security for a minute.

How do you foresee this new agency working with State agencies

to ensure port security?

Mr. RIDGE. It is been my experience, working with the Coast

Guard with regard to issues of port security, that under Admiral

Loy, and now under Admiral Collins, that there had been extraordinary outreach to the State and local authorities that had responsibility for port security. And my best guess, and I think very appropriate, the new Secretary would build on that foundation that

the Coast Guard has already established.

Again, you get back to the even more basic issue, the multitasking of the Coast Guard, as we do other agencies. Forty were

multitasked before the President’s initiative brought them under

113

the Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard was

tasked with many things before under the Department of Transportation. Admittedly there is an enhanced responsibility for port security, but in recognition of that enhanced responsibility, the President in the 2003 budget has given the Coast Guard the largest increase they have ever received so they can attract new personnel

and acquire more equipment.

Mr. SCHROCK. You are absolutely right. They have been overburdened with what they have to deal with, and I think Admiral Loy

was the first Commandant to finally say, ‘‘Stop. Enough is enough.’’

And I think what the President has done in increasing the budget

is good. But I think that is a start and they are probably going to

take on a more critical role than they have had before, and we need

to understand that and start pouring more resources into the Coast

Guard.

Mr. RIDGE. Well, you know—and I am glad you raised that, because I visited with the Coast Guard for an afternoon down in New

Orleans. And it is not just the port, but obviously there are certain

areas of this country that you have got chemical facilities and energy facilities. I mean, the ports are vulnerable not just because it

is an ingress and egress for people and cargo, but more often than

not around our ports in this country, we have critical infrastructure

that are potentially vulnerable. And we need the Coast Guard to

be involved there with the assessment of the vulnerability and

helping them determine what kind of protective measures they

need to take. So they are very engaged at the port for a variety of

reasons.

Mr. SCHROCK. Thank you, Governor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARR. The gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Governor, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission made an offer to

provide potassium iodide pills free of charge to States with—for

people within a certain range around nuclear facilities. Under the

NRC proposal, States can obtain enough potassium iodide to provide pills to each person within 10 miles of a nuclear reactor. Many

States, I think it is now 16 States, have taken the NRC up on that

that offer.

What I am asking is if in your opinion as Director of the White

House Office of Homeland Security, do you agree with the President of the United States that it is in the best interest of those living within 10 or 20 miles of nuclear energy facilities to have potassium iodide readily available for use in case of a nuclear emergency?

Mr. RIDGE. I think the decision was made, very appropriately, by

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to work with the States to

make it available for distribution to the States. We have got to

work in partnership with the States.

You raise an interesting question. The NRC has a responsibility

so distribute it around nuclear power facilities. The Department of

Energy has technically the responsibility to distribute and work

with the States if it is a nuclear weapons facility or storage facility.

FEMA has the responsibility to distribute it outside the 10-mile

114

limit, and we have got to bring some rationalization to that process.

But, again, the notion of prevention and working with the States,

as we said, as we define protective measures and make

available—— Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So do you think it is a good idea for States,

in one way or another, to make the potassium iodide available

to——

Mr. RIDGE. Well, there has been so much—there have been so

many public expressions of concern about nuclear facilities, and I

think there is a consensus that making it available to the States

for distribution will hopefully eliminate some of the concern. Again,

we had the discussion with Congressman Tierney about threat and

risk. I mean, some are low probability, high consequence. Some are

high probability, low consequence. And it is a very complicated pattern and matrix that you have to work through.

But whether it is low or high probability, making these available—and we think it is a low probability—but making this potassium iodide available, it is a good way to begin partnering with the

State and local governments to give a little more assurance and

provide some protection to citizens.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. All right. Let me ask you a question on another subject. Given this new Department, will that centralize the

spokesperson role in terms of articulating threat? We just had a

situation where Jose Padilla, who apparently was from my State,

at one point anyway, was depicted by the Attorney General as— it seemed as if—on the verge of releasing a dirty bomb in the

United States.

And what I am wondering is, will threat assessments and warnings, etc., be centralized in a way that can give people assurance

that there will be some accuracy, one, and consistency two? You

know, when the Attorney General made his statements, which

seem to have been trimmed back, the stock market fell, there were

all kinds of repercussions to that statement, and I am wondering

if we will have a more orderly procedure and a single spokesperson

making those kinds of announcements.

Mr. RIDGE. The Attorney General will continue to be the administration’s spokesperson with regard to his law enforcement responsibilities. But the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland

Security will have the responsibility transferred from the Attorney

General to the new Department to monitor and make announcements with regard to the national threat advisory system that has

been deployed, and so you will have that transfer of responsibility.

You recall a couple of months ago, it was announced that we

were having—there was a color-coded threat advisory system which

was the subject of quite a few political cartoonists. And I happen

to think that humor is a good way to, from time to time, to get the

message out that it is a serious threat and we need to keep America informed generally as to what is the opinion of the Intelligence

Community as to the level of threat.

What was often lost in that discussion of the color-coded threat

advisory was that we were calling on organizations and companies

and States to come up with accompanying protective measures, so

that if the threat is at a certain level, then the protective or preVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:40 Oct 03, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81325.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
115

cautionary measures you take are at a certain level. So that whole

process will be transferred from the Attorney General’s office to the

new Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. BARR. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The gentleman

from Florida, Dr. Weldon is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. WELDON. Governor Ridge, I thank you for your endurance.

I understand you were over at the Senate all morning, and I realize the afternoon is getting late. But I did want to hear your comments regarding my concerns about the Office of Consular Affairs.

Could you please enlighten me a little bit as to why the decision

was made to leave that function within the Department of State?

I feel very strongly that Consular Affairs should be under the purview of the Secretary of Homeland Security. I consider this a firstline defense, keeping terrorists out of the United States. I am anxious to hear your thoughts on this issue.

We are considering having a subcommittee hearing to investigate

this further. So, assuming we will not be able to fully discuss it

just under the 5-minute rule here, please go ahead and give me

your thoughts.

Mr. RIDGE. Dr. Weldon, we obviously took a look at that possibility and felt that the best way to deal with the issue of converting

the priorities from the diplomatic function in the role that they

play, to the security function, was to put the controlling legal authority with regard to visa policy in the new Department of Homeland Security. As you well know——

Mr. WELDON. What if they are not getting the job done, Governor? You can’t fire them if you are the Secretary of Homeland Security. You have to appeal to the Secretary of State to do something about the problems you are having in the Consular Affairs

Office. I personally think control is your most effective tool for getting the job done.

Mr. RIDGE. Well, the language has been structured that the authority—and it is a controlling authority—goes from the Department of Homeland Security through the Secretary of State, mindful

of the fact that these men and women, in addition to providing consular services that include issuance of visas but also serve the Secretary of State and perform other valuable functions as well. There

was also a concern at this time that as the consular officers are

configured in the personnel of the Department of State, this is a

career path. This is something that they do as they continue to

work with and through the Department of State, and for the time

being, in order to take control of the visa issuing authority, it was

determined that this is the best approach.

Mr. WELDON. Well, I respectfully differ with the administration

on this position. We are not about the business of protecting bureaucracies or—you know, this is about protecting the American

people.

And considering that, just to cite as an example, this visa express program is still ongoing in Saudia Arabia, which I find to be

somewhat troubling that somebody can get a visa to come into the

United States through a travel agent in Saudi Arabia. And I am

actually disturbed to learn that the State Department actually uses

the Consular Affairs Office as an entry-level position. I personally

116

think that should be like a trained police officer or a trained investigator’s position. I don’t mean to keep interrupting.

Mr. RIDGE. I assure you the primary concern wasn’t to protect a

career path. The primary concern was, one, to divest controlling authority within the Department of Homeland Security. I mean ultimately to your question of accountability, if the service, if the performance was unacceptable, if we gave not only the authority to

issue visas but controlled the logistics of how they were issued and

whether or not the individuals were interviewed and under what

circumstances they were extended a visa. But if there was a failure

of performance, I guess ultimately the Secretary of the Department

of Homeland Security could revoke the authority of the consulars

to even issue the visas.

So ultimately, there is a rather radical means with which we

could deal with their inferior performance, and that would be it.

Mr. WELDON. I am about to run out of time. There are a lot of

other people who want to ask questions.

Mr. RIDGE. I would like to continue the discussion with you because it was something that we obviously discussed.

Mr. WELDON. I think I am out of time.

Mr. RIDGE. So maybe we can do that privately.

Mr. WELDON. Yes, I think we may actually have a subcommittee

hearing to get into this issue in a little bit more detail. Again,

thank you very much for your input and the work you are doing

for the American people.

Mr. RIDGE. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON [presiding]. Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr.—I thank the Chair.

Governor Ridge, the central mission of the new Department of

Homeland Security is to protect the American public from terrorism, to keep terrorists out of our borders. Will the Office of Homeland Security have the responsibility for classifying nations and/or

individuals as terrorist threats? Just how will they?

Mr. RIDGE. That would not fall within the purview of the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. CLAY. That will not come under the purview?

Mr. RIDGE. No, sir.

Mr. CLAY. So you won’t have any recommendations to share with

the State Department about that, or——

Mr. RIDGE. That is a unique function of the Department of State.

The President’s National Security Adviser is involved in that, Dr.

Rice; potentially, the Secretary of Defense. But that designation

historically is vested in other places, and certainly not to be invested in the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. CLAY. And you believe that it should not come under your

purview.

Mr. RIDGE. That is correct.

Mr. CLAY. Homeland Security.

Mr. RIDGE. The President believes it ought to stay where it is.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Would you—well, would you be able to make recommendations such as military action or other action as far as suspected terrorist nations or terrorists themselves? I mean, what role

will you play in that scenario, or will you have a role; I mean, whoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:40 Oct 03, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81325.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
117

ever the head of or Director of the Department of Homeland Security is?

Mr. RIDGE. The only conceivable input—because I believe the

President very appropriately believes that this critical mission is

delegated to other departments within the Federal Government— the only conceivable input might be that the Secretary would have

might be as a member of the National Security Council, if the opinion was asked.

The direct line of responsibility would not—and I would argue

and agree with the President—should not in any way involve the

new Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. CLAY. All right, thank you for that. I know you have had a

long day and have been here about 4 hours, so I appreciate your

coming.

Mr. RIDGE. You wait a long time to get your 5 minutes; you

might want to try to use it.

Mr. CLAY. I appreciate your coming. Thank you very much.

Mr. BURTON. Your demeanor is amazing after all the saddle

sores you must have today.

Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much. Governor, first I want to

thank you for your driving effort to consolidate the technology, because clearly that is something that as been fairly chaotic, and that

this agency can take a strong lead in.

Mr. RIDGE. I had a very good experience doing that as Governor

of Pennsylvania. We spent a lot of time doing it. It took a while

to get done. But if you have unitary command and if somebody is

in charge, as the new Secretary of Homeland Security will be in

charge, there won’t be any collaboration or coordination necessary.

The new Secretary and Under Secretary can say this is the architecture that we are going to employ, these are the data bases we

are going to share, and you have got X amount of time to get it

done. Next question.

You know, that is something that I think that unitary command

is really critical to the fusion of the information that is needed in

this new agency, and I am sure the Secretary will use it.

Mr. SOUDER. And that is what we have to have if we are going

to find the contraband, if we are going to find the terrorists.

I also wanted to make a brief comment, before a couple of questions, to followup on Congressman Weldon’s point, again, that I

found that the State Department objections to consolidation of the

visa clearance process to be somewhere between lame and embarrassing. The same arguments that can be made on behalf of not

consolidating that could also have been made on Treasury and regarding Customs and could be made by Transportation with regard

to Coast Guard.

In other words, you could be the final arbiter, but the people

could still stay in their departments, and we can’t let one agency

have that waiver and not other agencies or we are going to have

chaos in this Department.

This predominantly is border security for catastrophic issues.

You said clearly this agency needs to have the ‘‘who,’’ and I agree

with that. And you can be assured that many of us in this committee are going to make a strong effort, which I assume will probably

118

pass, to have this consolidated in this agency. The arguments that

it would weaken Ambassadorial control, that it would be—are just

silly. We have all been in different Embassies. We know there are

DEA agents and others who work under the Ambassador, that

there can be a unity of a command in the Embassy. But the Border

Patrol, the Customs people and other people at the border have no

reaction or ability to control who is coming through if the visa has

been cleared on a foreign policy basis rather than an internal security basis. And to do that, there needs to be line control. And I understand that it wasn’t in the administration’s proposal, and that

you have had those internal battles.

But be assured that battle is going to occur here in the House

again, and probably in the Senate, because those of us who have

worked with border issues and overseas issues realize this is very

vital.

And let me ask the questions, and then if you want to respond

to that with the other. I chair the Anti-Narcotics Committee and

we are concerned, but I am an original cosponsor of this bill and

I definitely support the unitary command. But I am concerned that

there hasn’t been much reference to the narcotics question in your

statement or in the bill, and the Coast Guard is absolutely critical

here because, as you know, from—as a former Governor of a Great

Lakes State, the Coast Guard has search and rescue roles, fisheries

roles, drug interdiction roles, and indeed with the chemical plants

on the Great Lakes and in Philadelphia and in other places around

the United States, they have become the border perimeter.

But when we pull those boats into the border, that means they

aren’t down in the eastern Pacific where they have been. The critical drug interdiction place, the Caribbean Sea, becomes open water

for narcotics traffic if we don’t have that. And partly what you said

in response to the DEA question is there would be one place to go.

But unless we have an Assistant Secretary who consolidates and

watches that inside this Department for Coast Guard and Customs,

in fact there isn’t one place to go, there are still multiple places.

Inside the primary mission of the person in charge of this agency

will be, properly, catastrophic terrorism; not the secondary terrorism that is on the streets every day with narcotics. And we need

to make sure that this function isn’t lost inside both, by giving adequate resources and by people clearly understanding that there

needs to be a coordinated mission.

And one other thing is the JIATF interagency task forces, east

and west, have been very critical, have been managed by the Coast

Guard, and I wondered whether you support them being in this

agency as well.

Mr. RIDGE. I didn’t hear the last part.

Mr. SOUDER. The last part is the interagency task forces, where

we pool the resources, have been under the Coast Guard on narcotics. And I wondered whether you support them being under the

Homeland Security Department as well.

So my questions are: How do you see the drug question, how do

you see JIATF, and if you wanted to respond to consular affairs?

Mr. RIDGE. Let me see if I can. First of all, I hope you would

agree that the fact that the President has vested in the Department of Homeland Security the legal authority to set these policies,

119

that in and of itself has said that the emphasis for the Consular’s

Office has gone from a diplomatic mission to a security mission, because it will be the Department of Homeland Security that is setting the visa policy and everything associated with it, obviously effective through the Secretary of State and a couple of hundred consular offices out there. But by the very fact that the President is

now saying this policy will be determined in the Department of

Homeland Security means that the priorities have been converted.

There has been a lot of criticism that it was diplomacy first, security second. But the President and you and everybody else feels

that you have got to be concerned about both. But the priority is

homeland security.

Second, with regard to narcotics and the involvement of the

DEA, I don’t know if it was you that said earlier in one of the opening remarks that we have been under a chemical warfare attack for

quite some time, and that is in the drug war. And unfortunately,

we have had thousands of casualties because of it. And that is why

your concern about making sure that the DEA has an opportunity

to work in closer partnership with the new agency is critical to the

success of both the DEA and the new agency, because as we are

trying to interdict terrorists and weapons of terror—and as we

know that one of the funding sources of terrorist activity happens

to be the drug trade—the tremendous synergies and the mutual responsibilities of these new agencies working with DEA I think can

advance working together.

How the new Secretary would effect that coordination within the

new Department, I just need—would be interesting, from our point

of view, from someone that has been assigned by the President to

work with the Congress to get this done. I just want to continue

that conversation with you down the road, because clearly the consolidation makes it a better partner with the DEA. You want to

make sure that it is done effectively. And I think we need to continue that conversation.

Finally, the arrangement—you talked to the joint task forces—

that they work on that is very much a part of what the Coast

Guard does now. If I understand what you are talking about, a couple of your colleagues—Hal Rogers gave me a call the other day

and said, you ought to see what they are doing down in Key West.

They are doing a phenomenal job down there, and he is bringing

some folks to talk to me about it next week.

So I would think since it is part of the ongoing work of the Coast

Guard, it continues to be part of their effort, even if they are in

the new Department of Homeland Security. It is a good model,

good practice. Apparently everybody that looked at it says it is very

effective. Maybe our challenge is to replicate it elsewhere.

Mr. SOUDER. OK, thank you very much.

Mr. BURTON. Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Governor, I think I should congratulate you on what must be setting a new record for nonstop testimony to the House and the Senate. I don’t know when you began.

Mr. RIDGE. There are records that I used to aspire to as a young

person. I am not sure that was one. But I am happy to be setting

a record of any kind, I guess.

120

Ms. NORTON. Well, you are a clear Marathon Man. Governor

Ridge, there has been some emphasis put by the Congress and by

the President on getting this done quickly. We are enslaved by

symbols, so September 11th has been raised. But clearly, everybody

wants to get it done without delay.

We have a bill over here, the Lieberman-Thornberry bill, and one

might imagine that one could simply—we are told, and you have

said, that this bill is very similar to the President’s bill, so one

might imagine that we could tweak that bill or amend that bill and

get our work done fairly quickly.

I would like you to describe what you see as the chief differences

between the Lieberman-Thornberry bill and the President’s bill.

Mr. RIDGE. Well, first of all, you do notice quite a few of the components of that bill in the President’s initiative. We do not have—

it does not include in terms of the border consolidation piece, the

Transportation Security Administration. That would need to be

grafted.

Ms. NORTON. Because that wasn’t in effect at the time.

Mr. RIDGE. Correct. That could be done. Candidly, I cannot tell

you. I know FEMA is included in that measure, but whether or not

it is the sole—whether it has been given primacy over preparedness and response. I do not know whether it is the single place

where the States and the local governments can go to access the

technical assistance and the resources to prepare for a terrorist attack. But that could be amended if it is not included.

It does not contain, I think, the weapons of mass destruction

countermeasures piece, as configured in the President’s proposal,

giving strategic direction to the research dollars, and the cyber security piece that is included in the President’s—and it does not

have the new capacity that the President would create within the

new office, and that is the threats/intelligence action piece where

the CIA and the FBI report, share their work product with the new

agency, and then it uses it to identify potential targets and make

recommendations as to what measures they need to take to protect

themselves. But the key components, the fusion of some of the border agencies the inclusion of the Coast Guard and FEMA, very

much like the Hart-Rudman proposal as well, are part of that.

Ms. NORTON. So it looks like it is a question of add-ons.

Mr. RIDGE. I think it is. And the other—obviously it does not

have some of the management prerogatives that are in the President’s initiative with regard to procurement and personnel.

Ms. NORTON. Well let’s move to management prerogatives.

Mr. RIDGE. I always thought if I finally finished my remark, that

you would probably begin the next question with it. I knew we

were going to get there sooner or later.

Ms. NORTON. You are about moving people, not boxes.

Mr. RIDGE. Right.

Ms. NORTON. I mentioned a number of concerns, but I think chief

among those would be the extraordinary flight from the Federal

Government—we are seeing part of it—is age-related; that in the

1990’s, of course, there was a real devolution of the government

downward, and many people, indeed almost half of Federal employees, could leave now on early retirement or retire.

121

I have indicated that when you stand on these protections, when

you reorganize the government, the first thing people think about

is this is the time to get out of the government. If we were having—well, let me put it this way. This committee was so concerned

about this that there were joint meetings, and there was a joint

hearing about this problem, the fact that so many of the people

with the most experience in government and in whom we have invested most can now get out the government, start a new career,

take their pension and go.

I can’t think of anything that would be more harmful to the consolidation than to have the people who know most about the agency

leave, although I recognize that we will want many new people in

some of these functions. So I am asking you whether you would be

willing to work with us to clarify the protections that civil servants

will have, or whether you don’t consider this a serious problem.

Mr. RIDGE. Oh, I think we have a governmentwide problem. It

is not just unique to a potential Department of Homeland Security.

You have highlighted a problem that several Members of the House

and Senate have been talking about for a couple of years now, and

one that I just got a smattering when I was here as a Member of

Congress and was on the Post Office and Civil Service Committee,

because you could see the trend lines as to when a rather substantial portion of the men and women in the Federal Government

were going to retire.

And we know in the next 3 to 5 years we may lose anywhere

from 30 to 40 percent, potentially, and to affect the Department of

Homeland Security, and of course you want—they are good people,

they work hard. You want to keep the experience there.

And I would just say that the President’s proposal doesn’t mandate any change. It is looking for some flexibility, frankly, to give

the new Secretary new authority or new ability to retain some of

these people who may not—— Ms. NORTON. Mr. Ridge—— Mr. BURTON. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

Mr. RIDGE. So I know it is very important to you and many of

your constituents who work for these departments and agencies,

and they have been working on Homeland Security issues for a

long time.

The first objective and the responsibility of the new Secretary is

to protect the homeland, to defend America and its citizens. That

is what a lot of these men and women have been doing as part of

their day-to-day job as well. They come over with collective bargaining, as a collective bargaining unit. They come over with the

protections. There is nothing proscriptive in the President’s initiative, but it is an unprecedented threat, unprecedented time, and if

you are putting up a new agency, I believe the President wants

some flexibility to deal with personnel. And, of course, I would be

willing to have that discussion with you.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to just for a

moment pick up where you just left off, Governor, talking about

flexibility and also, concomitantly, accountability. And I am a lot

more interested in Homeland Security than job security, to be honest with you.

122

We held a hearing, for example, down in Atlanta about 2 months

ago, and it was precipitated by an undercover GAO investigation

of the state of security in Federal buildings in Atlanta, which has,

as you know, one of the largest presences of Federal facilities and

employees outside of the Washington, DC area.

And over the course of a few days, these three undercover investigators—I think all three of them, if I am not mistaken, are

former Secret Service. They were able to secure basically full access

at any time of the day or night to every Federal building in Atlanta

that they attempted to gain access to. In not one instance were the

stories that they gave checked out. Had they been checked out one

time, they would have been proved quickly and immediately to be

false. Not one time were they required to go through a metal detector. Not one time were their bags checked. Not one time were they

questioned. As a matter of fact, individual officers down there,

when they saw them playing around with the keyboard, volunteered their security codes so that they could get in. I mean, just

rampant insecurity.

The point I think that struck Mr. LaTourette, who was at the

hearing with me down in Atlanta, was we can spend all the money

we want, all the money the taxpayers allow us to spend. We can

have all of these elaborate security measures, but if the people on

the ground don’t care about what they are doing and they are not

held accountable, i.e., fired if they allow something like this to happen, I think we are going to continue to have problems.

One thing I would just urge you to do and your staff to do is look

at that report that GAO issued. It just came out just a couple of

months ago. The chairman and I are following up with GAO on

that report.

But I think we need to have some mechanism in place to make

sure that there is accountability and that the President and the

Secretary and those under him or her have the flexibility to make

sure that the people on the ground are moved out of jobs very

quickly if there is a security problem.

The other question that I have for you—and again I would just

urge you to look at that because we are going to be doing some followup also on that, I know it is a concern to you—has to do with

Atlanta also, but from a more positive standpoint. And that is

CDC. I know there are a lot of pieces of this mechanism that you

all are still working on. Can you give us some idea—and I know

you understand, as the President does, he has been down there to

Atlanta to visit with CDC—the importance of CDC’s role in maintaining and developing an overall public response to and a health

response to an emergency situations.

What is the role that you envision for CDC in the new Homeland

Security Department structure?

Mr. RIDGE. Historically, the Center for Disease Control has really

been at the heart of the national effort to deal with public disease,

public health, and disease surveillance. And it will continue that

mission. But with the strategic focus of the Department of Homeland Security and access to research dollars, I suspect that this infrastructure at the CDC will now be tasked to do research relative

to biochemical weapons and the impact on human beings as well.

123

So I think it is a piece of dual infrastructure. It has got a traditional mission dealing with public health. Secretary Thompson and

the CDC have worked very hard over the past couple of years to

set up a national disease surveillance network. But their laboratories and the expertise they have will be made available to the

people of this country and have access to dollars under the new Department of Homeland Security.

We set a strategic research and development program, and I suspect we are going to use the good people and the resources and the

laboratories at CDC to expend those dollars to help us with terrorist-related research.

Mr. BARR. Thank you. So would it be fair to say that the importance of these issues with which CDC has been dealing, particularly the emerging bioterrorism threats, for example, will be given

very high priority, including CDC’s role therein in the new departmental structure?

Mr. RIDGE. Congressman, that is a very fair statement. The new

Department of Homeland Security and the President’s initiative is

not going to be about the business of building new laboratories and

educating new scientists. There is a terrific infrastructure that we

have across this country. You can start with CDC and NIH and

some of the other federally directed programs, and the goal would

be to task them with a specific direction based on a national strategy that is based on threat assessments. And so they would become

part of the Homeland Security effort as it presently exists.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Governor.

Mr. BURTON. Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Governor.

In New York we had trouble with agencies coordinating among

their fellow agencies. And to give one example which was written

about in the Wall Street Journal recently, the Environmental Protection Agency—it is called buck passing—delayed EPA clean up in

September 11th. It was 8 months after the disaster that it was determined by EPA that they indeed had the authority to test the air

quality to clean up asbestos and to clean up the surrounding homes

and buildings.

First they said they didn’t have the authority, that it was the

city’s authority. The city then said they didn’t have the authority,

it was the individual buildings and their residents. It was their responsibility to clean up. And then they finally decided, 8 months

later, that in fact EPA had the authority to test the air quality and

to work to clean up asbestos and the soot and everything in the

surrounding areas. And I would like to put this article in the

record.

[The information referred to follows:]

124

125

126

Mrs. MALONEY. So my question is: What plans do you have to

have a better coordination between the agencies? And very related

to the experience that we had in New York was the inability of the

city to respond to the tremendous need that victims and people

had, the lack of resources and really the ability to respond. And

FEMA did many wonderful things, but they were very slow in responding. Nine months after the disaster, after many reports came

out from the city and independent sources, it was determined that

mental health problems were indeed a huge problem in the public

school system. They did give us a grant, but this was 9 months

later. It would have been much more effective to have had it immediately thereafter.

And most recently, FEMA will say, well, we are really concerned,

we really want to reimburse the loss of instructional time for public

education, but our guidelines are so restrictive we just really can’t

respond. And FEMA may be very appropriate for a natural disaster, but in many ways the way their guidelines are written, many

of the unmet needs and unpaid bills have been disallowed for the

September 11th experience in New York.

And will you be reviewing FEMA’s guidelines? They did respond

to lost instructional time in other areas of the country, but denied

it in New York because it was, ‘‘too restrictive.’’ And what will you be doing in the Federal Government to be

more responsive to the needs of victims and to really respond

quicker and faster to the needs of the victims and the coordination

of the agencies?

Mr. RIDGE. My conversations with Director Albaugh I believe is

probably not—there aren’t too many other people, with the exception of the congressional delegation in Washington, that have spent

more time in New York trying to respond to that horrible tragedy.

Director Albaugh I think was up there within hours. I think he has

been there 50 or 60 times, and I mean for days at a time. FEMA

set up within 24 hours its initial operation.

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, FEMA was there, and Director Albaugh

met with us literally the next day. But I guess my question is

about the EPA, if it took them 8 months to determine that they indeed had the authority to test the air quality to clean up asbestos.

That is one example.

Mr. RIDGE. Under a new Department of Homeland Security,

whose primary mission goes all the way from prevention to response, we hope and it would be our prayer that all the prevention

efforts would be perfect and we would never have had to respond.

But you also have to be realistic and understand that we can’t create a guaranteed system or a fail-safe system, so part of the response mechanism has to be FEMA and their coordinating role.

It would be much easier, under the Department of Homeland Security to answer that question a lot quicker, because now you have

a Cabinet member whose primary responsibility goes from prevention to response. And I think that he or she will have the ability

and the responsibility to get it done a lot quicker.

To the extent that you worry about FEMA—and I understand

very well the limitations, because as Governor of Pennsylvania, recognizing the limitations by statute, and the guidelines that are

forthcoming because of statute, there are a couple of times where

127

I wish I could have applied for disaster assistance, but was aware

of the limitations on FEMA. They have to abide by the law themselves.

And it is fairly prescriptive as to when they can involve themselves and spend in support financially the worthy, worthy causes

and organizations you talked about. I mean, that may call for the

Congress of the United States to take a look at FEMA’s capacity

to expand to some of these additional needs in light of their enhanced role with regard to terrorist activity.

But they are fairly restrictive. They don’t necessarily want to be.

But they are a creature of statute and they do have to follow the

law.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Again, thank you for your endurance. I am concerned about the transfer of nonsecurity functions. And let me give

you an example. Your proposal would transfer animal, plant and

health inspection services to the Department of Homeland Security.

And this office is responsible for inspecting imports to make sure

that pest and bugs that could harm livestock do not come into the

United States. But your proposal would not transfer agencies that

inspect food imported for human consumption. Now, I want to

know why that is, it would remain with the USDA and HHS.

And as you answer, also do we pick up the budget that addresses

the responsibilities for the screening of bugs and pests? How do we

work in terms of funding the responsibilities under this new Homeland Security Agency, and leaving some responsibilities back at

USDA and HHS? There is some programs under FEMA that you

transfer, and some that you do not. One that comes to mind is the

Emergency Food and Shelter Program for Homeless People, those

who are homeless now.

So as you transfer these responsibilities under this new agency,

as you leave some in place, does the money follow? Do the administrators come along with that? How is this going to work?

Mr. RIDGE. It is a very important question. And you have, I

think, appropriately identified the answer. In fact, when we would

take—when the President’s initiative takes full departments, in

this instance it would be Animal, Plant Health and Inspection

Services from the Department of Agriculture, it takes both the border inspection function, and there are some synergies to the rest

of the portfolio as well. I mean, identifying pest and pathogens that

would affect animal and plant life in this country is a potential

source of terrorists activities, something that we have to be mindful

of.

There are still another 12 agencies out there that have something to do with food safety. That was too much to pull into the

Department. It might be subject to consideration of the Congress

down the road. But the dollars would follow the agency. The calculation that this agency’s budget for the year 2003 is a little in excess of $37 billion, is premised on the dollars that are in that

budget following the agencies that the President consolidates and

reorganizes to create the new Department of Homeland Security.

So when we brought over the entire agency department, we

brought over the whole budget. If we brought over a piece of the

128

agency or piece of the department, we brought that portion of the

budget over. That is how we calculated roughly the budget of the

new agencies, about $37 billion.

Ms. WATSON. Well, there is still going to be functions left behind

that these departments have been taking care of. You are going to

have the budget over here and the people over here, and you still

have some of those responsibility back in the agency. You don’t

need to respond because these are some of the problems that are

going to have to be worked out.

I cannot understand at this point how the coordinated effort

works. And I see this whole transfer of responsibilities under this

new agency is to better coordinate the services and better coordinate the response to any kind of emergency, any kind of terrorist

attack or whatever, and to protect this homeland. And I am not

quite sure yet, I cannot put my finger on how this coordinated response is actually going to work.

Mr. RIDGE. If I might review just a couple of the units that would

be in new Department of Homeland Security. FEMA, become the

coordinator of all of the programs that presently exist within the

Federal Government that help State and local communities buildup

capacity to prepare for or respond to a terrorist event.

Presently, there is an Office of Domestic Preparedness in the Department of Justice. There is Health and Human Services grants.

So by consolidating, thereby coordinating that, we consolidate that

activity and put it in FEMA.

The border consolidation, I think there is some really dramatic

examples of how we could get better utilize the personnel and technology and the resources available. At some portion of the border,

the facilities are shared. At some portions of the border the facilities are separate.

I remember going in to—coming back from Canada. And, the airport, INS had the first 50 feet, then there was a line and a piece

of tape, that is where Customs took over. It just seems to me that

if we can have a command authority over the borders that can better integrate assets and people and resources, the integration of

those people and these resources will make us—it is more effective

at the border identifying potential terrorists and making sure that

we keep those people who do us harm outside of the United States.

Coordinating information for the first time, the President, in this

initiative, sets up the capacity within a new department to get information from—not for the first time, the first time is where they

get all of the information and then apply it to the vulnerabilities

that we have in this country, and then make recommendations for

definitive action, take protective measures. This is a threat, you

are vulnerable, do this. Very prescriptive. We have never had that

capacity before. That is also a very important coordination role.

At the end of the day, having one agency primary focused is what

I am sure you consider to be job one right now, that is securing

America and citizens. The President considers that to be his job.

I think brings enormous efficiencies, and someone who believes in

command, in direct lines of communication and accountability, I

think you can get things done a lot quicker.

Mr. BURTON. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

129

Ms. WATSON. If you will indulge me for one half second. I just

may say this. I thought that was going to be your job and your responsibility. I thought they brought you in to do that. And as I

have been following the press, it looks like they are mentioning

other names. That should be your job. And it is going to take a

magnificent piece of strategy building in order to be able to bring

all of these agencies, departments together, and answer to one authority. If you put it together, I think you ought to do it.

Mr. RIDGE. You can effect certain changes if you can coordinate

them. As you can well imagine, you can effect certain changes if

you command they be done. There are two different ways to effect

change. Some are more effective than others.

Mr. BURTON. The gentlelady’s has expired.

Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Governor, a lot of us in northeastern Ohio

thought you would have made a wonderful running mate for the

President of the United States. We are obviously happy with our

current Vice President.

Mr. RIDGE. You should be.

Mr. LATOURETTE. When you were available and you could take

this job as well. But following up on Ms. Watson’s question, it is

my understanding that the President’s design not only has your

current position maintained for his administration and future administrations, but also a secretary of homeland security. And the

question I guess that a number of us are wondering since you have

done such an outstanding job in this job, is that something that interests you or would you prefer to stay in your current post and

advise the President?

Mr. RIDGE. Well, as of this morning, the President has given me

a second responsibility in addition to his assistant for homeland security. Now, we are basically coordinating the outreach both to

Congress and the transition. I have got two jobs now. There may

be a time and a place to talk about future employment. But I am

pretty busy right now and pretty content with what I am doing.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I guess you are. First responders and FEMA.

Very, very important. And I don’t remember who was talking to

you about potassium iodide tablets, Ms. Schakowsky and nuclear

power plants. One of the jurisdictional squabbles that we have here

and why I think that a number of us are delighted that everything

is being consolidated is that in the President’s budget submission,

he had basically zeroed out the Office of Domestic Preparedness

and the Department of Justice and asked for those responsibilities

to be transferred over to FEMA in the form of first responder

grants.

Maybe by coincidence, your colleague from your former State,

Kurt Weldon and others, led the fight to get money into the hands

of the first responders. It was a good thing that FEMA had that

sort of practice before September 11th, because they did, in my

opinion, at least a masterful job.

When we did the supplemental appropriation, however here in

the House, the $175 million that was supposed to go to FEMA,

wound up, because of a jurisdictional spat among committees here

in the Office of Domestic Preparedness, in the Department of Justice, which isn’t going to be an office anymore.

130

My question is, if the Congress follows the President’s blueprint

and makes FEMA the preeminent agency, will the administration,

you or the new secretary, the President of the United States, use

its bully pulpit to make sure that money goes where the responsibilities go?

Mr. RIDGE. That is clearly the President’s intent. And Congress

can help ensure that it actually is resolved that way, that FEMA

becomes the agency with primary responsibility to create an even

stronger partnership with the States and locals in terms of preparedness and response.

I want to put a plug in for the President’s initiative in the sup- plemental. That $175 million is to be distributed to the State and

local governments, as the President believes that partnership is

critical.

So that they can begin preparing State plans from the bottom up,

however, you deal with the mayors and the county executives and

the regions and the States. But prepare plans. And FEMA will give

guidance and help frame the plans for the distribution of undoubtedly what will be a very substantial sum of money, once the budget

process and the appropriation process is completed this year.

The President’s initiative in the 2003 is $3.5 billion. You can well

imagine as a former Member of this body, I really appreciate that

this will be a certain—this is going to be a paradigm shift in the

sense that we have been working with the conference of mayors

and league of cities who historically have come to Washington, very

understandably and said, this is a grant program, and we want to

apply for our own individual grants. We understand that. But

when it comes to developing a national capacity to deal with terrorism, it is the President’s belief that money should be distributed

not on an ad hoc basis to his partners, to the partners in the Federal Government, but according to a plan. And for that reason, we

are hopeful that the 175 million goes to FEMA.

Frankly, I think the new secretary, and I don’t think it is—pretty

much envisioned that that ODP, good staff, good people, 70 or 80

people will be transferred over to FEMA to continue their work and

have a bigger budget. If they pass that supplemental, that 175 goes

to FEMA, they start working with the States and the local communities to develop plans so they can make immediate distribution

once the 2003 budget is completed.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You have just made my job a whole lot easier

when the conference report comes back, because that is what we

thought should have happened to the money. And some jurisdictional difficulties got in the way. The last thing on the $3.5 billion,

this goes to nuclear power plants again. We talk a lot about security of nuclear power plants. But the first line of response when

there is an accident, not even an act of terrorists, often falls on

local fire departments.

I have the Perry Nuclear Power plant in Perry, OH in my district.

Mr. RIDGE. Erie, PA is downwind 40 miles.

Mr. LATOURETTE. We are going to try and keep it right in Perry.

The electric utility doesn’t get its license unless it has a mutual aid

agreement for fire suppression with the local company. And that

often puts a tremendous burden on the local taxpaying public that

131

has to support the fire department in case of a catastrophic accident. And I would just ask you as my final question, has some

thought been given to recognizing one, the 68 nuclear power plants

as something we need to be concerned about; but, two, as we look

at not only protection but also how to suppress fires and accidents

and injuries. Has thought been given to aiding those fire services

that are located at or near the nuclear power facilities in the country?

Mr. RIDGE. It seems to me, Congressman, that those communities that have those nuclear facilities, one, should have reasonable expectation that the private companies that own them will

maximize their contribution to secure not only their investment,

but they have invested in the neighborhood and communities and

to ensure the safety of the citizens that live around the facilities.

That is job one of those companies.

But, No. 2, part of the reason that you develop—the President

would like to see that money be distributed according to a plan, is

that the needs will vary depending on the vulnerability and the potential problems associated with that kind of critical infrastructure.

So, in fact, if the Ohio plan, looking at Ashtabula County and the

Perry power plant, includes a need for certain kinds of equipment

to be able to respond to an attack on that facility, that should be

included as part of the capacity building in that plan. So, yes, I

think there would be dollars available to address over time that

need in your community and over 100 others that have nuclear

power facilities.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And I guess it looks like I might be the wrap up person here. Governor, we have always prided ourselves in this country as being a

government of the people, for the people, by the people, with the

idea that the people would know what was going on.

I am saying that is the only way that this can work. And if that

is the case, then why is it necessary to exempt this agency from

the Freedom of Information Act, when everybody else with the exception of the CIA and the Federal Reserve are covered?

Mr. RIDGE. First of all, I think you have raised a very important

question. And it gives me an opportunity to clarify the FOIA exemption. It is a limited exception. It relates to the kind of information that the private sector would voluntarily provide the Federal

Government with regard to the vulnerability of critical infrastructure.

So it is a limited exemption. And as I have talked to other Members of Congress, and we have talked to the private sector, as some

of your colleagues mentioned earlier today, that about 90 percent

of the critical infrastructure and potential targets are owned by the

private sector. Based on experiences in our outreach to the private

sector developing the national strategy, we found they are very reluctant and would be reluctant to share with the Federal Government proprietary information relating to the operation of their facility, maybe some of these things even give them a competitive advantage, unless that information was protected and only used by

the Federal Government in order to help prevent or prepare for a

terrorist attack.

132

So you raise a very important question. I just want to make sure

it is understood. It is not complete operation of the agency that has

been exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

But it is a limited exception drawn to encourage the private sector to share some information with us about potential

vulnerabilities. We don’t want to give the terrorists a road map. We

don’t want to expose those vulnerabilities to the terrorist. That is

the reason for the exemption.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I am certainly pleased to hear that answer. I am almost also having some difficulty understanding the

necessity of establishing a new personnel system, especially since

we are going to be transferring people out of the traditional Civil

Service system that we have.

Why will we need a new system or a different system than traditional Civil Service?

Mr. RIDGE. Congressman, first of all, the way the legislation is

presently drafted, it is not prescriptive. It does not dictate that a

new system should be developed. But as we would—the President

tries to empower the new secretary of Homeland Security. To assist

that secretary in the creation of an agency that can move people

and resources around as quickly as possible to respond to unprecedented threats, even unknown threats that you and I can’t even

discuss today, because we don’t know they exist.

The notion that somewhere down the road they may need that

flexibility drives the President to include it in this plan. We need

a system. We have heard a lot of people talk about accountability.

A flexible human resource plan can hold people accountable. People

talking about rewarding performance. A new flexible system can

help reward performance. There is a concern about keeping people

in the agencies instead of retiring, personnel flexibility and pay

flexibility would give them the possibility to do that.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Then would I be accurate if I suggested

that maybe only categories of individuals may fall outside, and

there are other individuals who might remain? And the rationale

leads me to the last point that I want to inquire about. If there is

wholesale movement, or if we change the protections, what are the

plans to make sure that there is adequate focus on diversity as it

relates to race, gender, and ethnicity so that we don’t have to have

something that we want to really protect.

Mr. RIDGE. Certainly your concern about diversity is well-founded. And obviously there are prescriptive measures in statute that

would direct us to continue to be concerned about making sure that

the work force reflects the diversity of America. It is pretty clear

that it does. I would just say to you, sir, that again, there is nothing prescriptive in this. It would be difficult, I mean it is pure speculation on my part to determine what a future secretary would do

in light of what reorganization efforts that might be accomplished

in light of—we can’t even speak today as to what new agencies may

or may not be included in that.

But I don’t—I am not shying away from the notion that is part

of the President’s initiative. In an unprecedented time with an unprecedented threat, we are trying to create a 21st century Federal

department that is far more agile and far more flexible, whose job

No. 1 is protecting America, giving that secretary that kind of flexiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:40 Oct 03, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81325.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
133

bility with procurement and personnel and resources, the President

believes very strongly is the best way to maximize his or her ability

to improve homeland security.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and I certainly

want to thank you, Governor, for your answers. And I would just

end by saying, if we have to change I would hope that we would

go forward and not backward in terms of protections. I thank you

very much.

Mr. BURTON. You are not going to believe this but we are

through with questioning. But we have one last comment from Mr.

Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say to you as someone who, with others here who have worked on this issue a long

time, I think that the proposal that you put forth has simplicity

and some brilliance to it. Because, you basically took the recommendations of the Commission, the recommendations of the four

Members of Congress, and you were asked about how it differed.

All four members who sponsored legislation have endorsed the plan

you came up with because you managed to get 100 percent jurisdiction of this issue of homeland security.

In some cases direct responsibility, in other cases a plug in with

intelligence. And I just—I know it is going to be worked on, and

I know Members here are going to work their will on it. I know

you are going to cooperate with that, as it happens. But I think it

is truly a very fine piece. I just want to congratulate you.

Mr. BURTON. Well, Governor Ridge, let me, my old buddy, it is

good to see you again.

Mr. RIDGE. We did it.

Mr. BURTON. I want to thank you so much for staying. You

stayed way beyond what you anticipated. I really appreciate it. We

have some written questions by some Members who had to leave.

Mr. RIDGE. Not surprised. We welcome them.

Mr. BURTON. Would you answer those for the record? With that,

thank you very much for your patience. And look forward to seeing

you again. We stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:50 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statement of Hon. Edolphus Towns follows:]

134

Æ