April 30, 2003 Wednesday
HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE HOMELAND SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
SEN. ROBERT C. BYRD (D-WV): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is this working?
How are you, Mr. Secretary?
Our country is a great and powerful nation and we've been able to put a man on the moon and bring him back to earth again. Man has long looked at that moon and longed for centuries to put his foot on that moon. Though we haven't been able to perfect a good public address system. This thing may work.
(Laughter.)
Ours is a societylet me thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a good chairman. He's a stickler for getting started on time and I'm glad to see that. And a few days ago, I said to him, "Now, if I'm not there on time, you go ahead." So we have that understanding. And I thank the other members of this subcommittee for their presence and their interest and their attention.
Ours is a society built on freedom. We have designed our society to make our people and our institutions accessible and with access to information. You said, Mr. Secretary, that we are a nation at war and that another terrorist attack here in America is inevitable. You have said that the attack such as the attacks of September 11 are long-term threats that will not go away. I do not disagree with that assessment. Your department has a responsibility to make careful choices about how to reconcile these goals, openness and the need for security operations which cannot always be open. A proper balance must be found.
How do we make America safer without fundamentally changing the quality of a free society? How do we protect ourselves from a threat within our borders while protecting our privacy rights and our freedom to move about this great country? How do we invest the resources and organize our efforts to catch, to apprehend terrorists without trampling on the Constitution? How do we make sure that the agencies that have been merged into the new Department of Homeland Security buy also have specific missions unrelated to homeland security such as preventing and responding to natural disasters have the resources to effectively accomplish those dual missions?
Recently, in an interview with Fox News, you said, and I quoteI think I'm quoting you correctly"We have to prepare for the inevitability of suicide bombings in the United States." You went on to say, "We'll never be immune from those kinds of attacks." And I think you're right. I agree with that. But I find it very difficult to reconcile that statement with the position that you and others in the administration have taken since November of 2001, positions that have consistently opposed efforts by the Congress to provide critical resources for homeland security, funding for first responders, funding for security on our poorest borders, funding for security at our nuclear power facilities, funding for security at our ports through which seven million containers annually travel with an inspection rate only two percent, for security at our airports and for the security of our critical infrastructures such as our clean drinking water systems.
In November 2001 just two months after the attacks of 9/11 you, Mr. Secretary, wrote to the Congress in your capacity as the director of the Office of Homeland Security and this is what you said, quote, "No additional resources to protect the homeland beyond what the president has already requested are needed at this time." You see, you were writing to me and to Ted Stevens and others. Your message was, basically, let's wait until 2002. Well, 2002 came and in August 2002 the president chose to terminate $2.5 billion of funding that Congress had approved as an emergency for our homeland security program, including $423 million of funding for first responders as well as funding for nuclear security, airport security and port security.
The president in refusing to designate this $2.5 billion as an emergency in essence blocked funding for the Coast Guard, the Secret Service and for the Customs Service for the container security initiative. These are all agencies now under your control. The president's message, basically, was let's wait until 2003.
In January of this year, 2003, I offered an amendment to add $5 billion of homeland security funding to the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for 2003. Once again the administration opposed this amendment asserting that, and I quote, "It was new, extraneous spending." When my amendment was defeated, when, once again, the administration argued that homeland security funding could wait this time until 2004. In March of this year with the nation at war the president finally requested a $4 billion supplemental for homeland security.
Congress approved $5 billion for many of the same homeland security programs contained in the amendment that I offered four months ago.
Not only has President Bush failed to lead the nation in addressing these vulnerabilities, he has in fact actively opposed efforts to provide the resources necessary to address these significant weaknesses. I find this behavior more than puzzling. Since 9/11 the president, with great fanfare, signed legislation to authorize improvements in security at our airports, security at our ports and security on our borders. The president signed legislation to protect our drinking water. The president announced a plan for state and local governments to vaccinate 10 million first responders for a potential smallpox attack, and yet the president has consistently opposed efforts to provide the essential resources to fund these new priorities, these new authorities.
In November 2002 when President Bush signed the Department of Homeland Security Bill he announced, "Our government will take every possible measure to safeguard our country and our people." Well, how does one explain this disparity, these divergences?
Well, Mr. Secretary, last Thursday President Bush was in Canton, Ohio looking for support for his $1.6 trillion tax cut proposal. In his remarks he said, according to the newspaper that I readallow me just for a moment to pretend that this is President Bush reading, "Now, you hear talk about deficits and I'm concerned about deficits but this nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war."
Well, I read that statement twice just to make sure that my eyes were still fairly good. Mr. Chairman, this statement troubles me. In the budget that the president transmitted to the Congress on February 4 he did not include one thin dime, not one thin penny for the cost of the war. And yet his budget proposed deficits of $304 billion in FY 2003, $307 billion in FY 2004 and deficits of $1.4 trillion from FY 2003 through FY 2008. His budget included no funding for war in Iraq, no funding for reconstruction of Iraq and his budget assumed levels of economic growth that exceed current expectations. So I have to say that based on the record the deficits did not come from the war but they are going to come plenty. We've just made our first payment, our down payment.
When Americans are being threatened here at home it is very important that the president be straight with the American people. Mr. Secretary, you have been candid, as candid as you can be, with the Congress and the American people about the nature and duration of the risk that we face. However, we cannot respond to that threat simply by reorganizing. That is a hollow promise to hand to the American people when we're talking about the physical safety of our people and the future of our economy. We surely have to say more and do more than offer up the tired old bureaucratic bromide of reorganization.
If there is one lesson that we should learn from 9/11 it is that terrorist attacks on our nation can no longer be viewed as distant threats across the ocean. The enemy may attack our troops or citizens overseas or civilians here at home. We must provide all of the necessary resources to support our troops overseas and this committee has done that. This committee has been unanimous in pursuing that course. But we must also provide significant homeland security resources now to meet real needs that have been authorized by the Congress and signed into law by the president for port security, airport security, border security and nuclear security. And again, this committee has done that and it has acted unanimously in doing so. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes if some catastrophe happens next week at a port, or at a chemical plant or at a nuclear facility. I hope that you would be a strong and loud proponent of replacing some of this rhetoric with real resources before it is too late.
Mr. Secretary, I am pleased to be here with you today. Pleased that you will be testifying before this subcommittee and I look forward to working with you in the common cause of making America safe and keeping us free.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you, Mr. Secretary.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV): Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your good statement. I don't envy your task. You're the man who'd have the fingers pointing at you and in some cases you're the man that would be made the goat if the goat can be made. And I sympathize with you, I don't know how you can possibly do this job if you're human and I take it that you are. With all of these agencies there are enormous responsibilities that are upon you and these agencies and I want to help you whenever I can. MR. RIDGE: Thanks, sir.
SEN. BYRD: The Freedom of Information Act was enacted in 1966 to provide that any person has the right to request access to federal agency records or information. All agencies of the U.S. government are required to disclose records upon receiving a written request for them except for those records that are protected by exemptions or exclusions. When Congress last fall adopted legislation to create the new department, it also adopted a broader exemption to FOIA, allowing private companies to hide health and safety information from the public as long as the companies voluntarily submit this information to the DHS. The exemption applies to information about facilities that could be targets of a terrorist attack.
Increased security concerns call for prudent changes but not for blanket exemptions in the information available to the public. If the government is allowed to operate in secrecy without scrutiny, then the people's liberties can be easily lost. We ought to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act not undercut it. The American people ought to have access to information that directly impacts upon their freedoms as well as their safety. And I firmly believe that the Freedom of Information Act exemption that Congress enacted in the Homeland Security Bill is too broad. It allows the new department to cloak too many of its activities in secret.
This month, the department proposed new rules that would broaden this exemption even further, making an already bad law even worse. Under the new rules, there will be an enormous incentive for corporations and lobbyists and government contractors to carry a rubber stamp and mark the words, quote, "Critical infrastructure information", close quote, on everything that they touch. There will be that incentive so it can all be locked away in the darkest recesses of the Homeland Security Department. Not only can the private sector use this powerful new classification to shield itself from legal liability but I'm afraid that the government will also use it to shield the administration from public scrutiny of its activities.
Now, there will be administrations after this administration and the same will apply to them. There will be that inclination, that tendency, that proclivity to hide things under this label. Where does it end? If there is information regarding threats to the safety of the people, to the security and so on, they ought to be told. They have the right to know.
Mr. Secretary, experts in this area have concluded that these rules will allow lobbyists and government contractors to hide their relationships with the Homeland Security Department, including phone conversations and personal meetings and agency officers. How do we know that the department is just not turning over the safety of the American people to the administration's friends in the private sector like many believe have been done for the construction of Iraq?
So I guess my question to you, Mr. Secretary, is what sort of ethical and sunshine standards are you as the secretary going to insist upon?
MR. RIDGE: Thank you, Senator. First of all, I think you and I agree that the role of the Freedom of Information Act historically is consistent with the public operation of the public's business.
There's a transparency built in what we do in this country by the very nature of our political community. But the Freedom of Information Act has certainly worked in years gone by to ensure access to the kinds of documents and information to which you've referred in your statement.
I would assure the senator that the regulations to which you refer do not in any waydo not in any way relieve any company from its responsibility to provide information that may otherwise be dictated by any other law or any other regulation in the federal in the federal register or on the books anywhere. They cannot avoid disclosure under athat may be required under a different statute by lumping whatever that information might be in turning it over to the Department of Homeland Security. It is our responsibility if they try to do that and we see that the information that they have passed to us is in violation of the law to see to it that they're prosecuted. And I would assure the senator that that's precisely what we will do.
The purpose of this exemption in the Freedom of Information Act was really to get the voluntary submission of information from companies that is otherwise not required as it relates to potential vulnerability of their facilities whatever they might be so that we could take a look at it, take a look at the threat, take a look at the, hopefully, the modeling and the work we've done in our new department and get back to them and say, "That is a vulnerability that is of high interest and high risk and you need to take the following protective actions in order to deal with it."
So I would say to the senator that I would assure him that the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act exemption is not to provide a friendly forum for anyone out there to violate the laws and the requirements imposed on them by other statutes or other regulations.
SEN. BYRD: Your new rules expanded this exemption to include information that is voluntarily submitted to any agency in the federal government. How can this departure from the language chosen by Congress be justified?
MR. RIDGE: Senator, they still will be required to file whatever reports or whatever papers necessary and consistent with the laws as it relates to those agencies. The exemption is based solely on the need to get voluntary information, make it available to us so we can look at potential vulnerabilities in their infrastructures. But they still have tothey're still required to file whatever other reports, whether it's EPA, the Department of Energy, whatever it is. This does not immunize them from potential prosecution if they try to avoid that kind of disclosure by sending information to us that we may conclude as we look at it, you are in violation of the statute, the pre-existing statute. If you're violating the law, you're violating the law, whatever agency gets that information as required, we turn it over to the appropriate authority and see to it that you're prosecuted.
SEN. BYRD: As I indicated, a private company can stamp anything as critical infrastructure information. That information would be automatically exempt from public disclosure unless the department reviews the information, decides it should not be protected. Your rules designate one man, a single program manager, I take it, who would be responsible for reviewing this massive amount of information voluntarily submitted, information that will pour into the Homeland Security Department. How can we expecthow can this subcommittee be assured that one individualI take it, one individualto have the resources and the time to determine whether companies are abusing these rules?
MR. RIDGE: Senator, that description obviously conjures up a no- win situation for the project manager because that individual, he or she, couldn't possibly be able to deal with all that. I assure you inthe under-secretary, the director dealing with information analysis and infrastructure protection, there will be a team available to make that assessment. There will be lawyers that will review it. And again I underscore the notion, Senator, that this is not information that these companies have any responsibility under any law or any regulation, any statutethey don't have to share that information with us at all. There's nothing out there that compels them to do that.
And what we're saying to them, as many companies have already begun the very important work of taking a look at their own security challenges, that when they're taking a look at their own infrastructure, in addition to information that they are compelled to submit, they voluntarily submit some of the information, perhaps some of their own self-assessments, critical self-assessments to us that otherwise they wouldn't have to disclose, under any statute. And based on that information, we then develop, hopefully, a plan of action so that they can reduce their vulnerability to a terrorist attack. But they would not be providing that information, Senator, under any other statute or any other regulation and it is voluntarily provided.
SEN. BYRD: My time is up and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. You've given me a liberal five minutes. Thank you.
SEN. COCHRAN: Thank you, Senator Byrd.
SEN. BYRD: Mr. Secretary, are there proposals under consideration to contract out existing activities in specific agencies?
MR. RIDGE: It's a big agency and I can't tell you that I see the contracts that my colleague are signing on a day to day basis over a period of a years. There'd be literally hundreds and hundreds but I am not presently aware of any contracting out of existing responsibilities that the men and women are presently engaged in.
SEN. BYRD: So your answer is --
MR. RIDGE: To my knowledge, the answer is no. There may have been some contracts that were let for privatization before the department was created.
That could very well be the situation and where they are, I don't know. I mean, I think it is possible but in terms of new ones, I am not aware of any.
SEN. BYRD: Do you not feel that you should be made aware of such?
MR. RIDGE: Well, I think given the sensitivity of where we are with the negations with the employees, the concern that members of the Congress would have with that course of action, that's why I feel pretty confident in telling you that I'm not aware of any right because I think I would be made aware if it was intentionhopefully be made aware of when it was an intention to do rather than a contract that was let.
SEN. BYRD: Mr. Secretary, I would hope this is a veryI'd say this is a very serious issue. We're going to hear more about contracting out. William Wordsworth said, "No matter how high you are in your department, you are responsible for what the lowliest clerk is doing." And so this, I dare say, will not be the last time that questions will be asked about contracting out. And I would adjure you to not just wait until you're made aware of such but that you make it your business to become aware and let the subcommittee know what criteria will be used, what examples of activities that are being considered. Would you do that?
MR. RIDGE: I will, Senator.
SEN. BYRD: Agencies are encouraged to submit management plans to the OMB which incorporate the competitive sourcing quotas outlined in the president's budget. The OMB hasit's my understanding the OMBthat the information from the OMB indicates that these plans, while submitted to the OMB for approval, can be released to the public at the discretion of the agency heads. If this subcommittee is to appropriate $36 billion to employ 179,000 full-time equivalent positions, the subcommittee would expect you to provide Congress with a copy of any management plan or competitive sourcing proposal that the department submits to the OMB. When do you expect to submit a management plan to the OMB and how soon could that plan be made available to this committee?
MR. RIDGE: Senator, if we understand your very appropriate question correctly, I think, it will be submitted to them by the end of August.
SEN. BYRD: The end of August? Is the time plan The end of August?
MR. RIDGE: The end of August. Yes, sir.
SEN. BYRD: Very well. I hope, Mr. Secretary, you'll take a long look at this matter of contracting out and make yourself aware of what's going on in this area. If there is something going on, I hope you'll take a long look. The safety and security of the nation, that's what you are talking about. That's what we're talking about. That's what the American people expect. The safety and security of the nation should not become a for-profit endeavor. Security of the people should be the driving motivation. I believe in my heart that that's the way you see it. The security of the people should be the driving motivation, not a business bottom line.
Very well, Mr. Chairman, are we going to meet later? We're going to have a vote at noon, are we?
SEN. COCHRAN: Senator Byrd, that's my understanding. A vote was supposed at 12:00 noon and it is 12:00.
I hope we can recognize Senator Specter who's come back in, did not ask questions. He did make an opening statement. Our intention would be to recognize Senator Specter and then, if we do have a vote, simply declare a recess. I have two or three more questions to ask the secretary and I think you do too.
SEN. BYRD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also have an appointment at 1:00. I wonder if the committee, Mr. Chairman, and the secretary could consider coming back at 1:30 or 2:00.
SEN. COCHRAN: My hope is that we could be through by 1:00. So that would not interfere with your appointment.
SEN. BYRD: You're doing --
SEN. COCHRAN: My hope would be that we would go vote at 12:00 or soon thereafter as the signal is given for the vote and we could return and complete our questions by 1:00.
SEN. BYRD: I see, I see. So if a senator has a stomach ulcer, he'd just have to bear with it.
SEN. COCHRAN: And those that don't might have one, might get one. We can sympathize with that senator more appropriately.
SEN. BYRD: I have several questions, if --
SEN. COCHRAN: I hope we can complete action by 1:00, if we can. I would like to try anyway.
SEN. BYRD: Very well. I'll try with you.
SEN. BYRD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very interested in the question you just asked, as well as other questions.
I put a hold on this BioShield legislation before the recess. I don't mind stating when I put holds on matters. The specific issue that you have raised hereand I want to stress that I share your viewpoint and I hope that the administration will work with Congress to resolve this issue. Mr. Secretary, I can understand the kind of emergency which you possibly contemplate. But remember, and I hope the administration will remember, that within three days following September 11 Congress, both houses, passed a $40 billionis that correct?
MR. : I think that's correct.
SEN. BYRD: Forty billionam I not correct?
MR. : Mm-hmm.
SEN. BYRD: I am correct I'm told. A $40 billion emergency package just like that, the snap of my finger. Congress can act and will act when the emergency is there and when it's clear that it's an emergency that needs it. But I want to tell you one thing. We have to guard the constitutional prerogatives, responsibilities and authorities and powers of Congress in any emergency. And I'm not in favor of this administration, or any other administration, seeking more of the powers over the purse than Congressthan the Constitution permits. So if there's an emergency, let us know. If it needs to be done in three days, let us know about it. Show us theI'm not just talking to you personally.
MR. RIDGE: I understand, Senator.
SEN. BYRD: I hope you'll understand that.
MR. RIDGE: I understand.
SEN. BYRD: I don't say this --
MR. RIDGE: I understand.
SEN. BYRD: -- in that spirit. But I'm saying to the administrationand it needs to be said to this administration, if it ever needed to be said to an administration. And this administration will be succeeded by other administrations and I have always found that the executive branch and the judicial branch are very zealous in protecting their prerogatives, their powers, their authorities.
The executive branch is out there at some point on the compass, at some place in the globe, working every minute of every 24 hours, while the Congress is sleeping or while the Congress is in recess or while the Congress is off on a break of some kind. The legislative branch is not always out there, and the executive branch and the judicial branch are always ready to protect and to sound off and to stand up and to stand straight and tall when it comes to the protection of their authority. The one branch of the three that is not as zealous as it ought to be is the legislative branch. Now, I understand these cases can be made for quick action, but the record can be cited to show that the Congresswhen the need is for quick action, that Congress can act and will act.
And I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you'll continue to be zealous on this point and other points. When I came to Congress I guess 85 percent of the moneys came through the appropriations process, and today only about a third or less come through the appropriations process. Now, I stand with you and will stand as long as I'm a member of this Senate and live and can speak, I'll be with you on this. I'll respond to any emergency as quickly as will President Clinton or President Bush or President Reagan or President Nixon or President Truman. Truman is my favorite Democrat president during my time here, and I've been here longer than anybody else: 50 years and past.
Did you know that out of 11,707 men and women who have served in Congress in these 215 years of our existenceout of 11,707 only two have served longer than this senator from West Virginia.
And I wasn't as zealous in protecting the constitutional power of the purse when I first came here to the Senate as I am today. But I've been on this committee nowI'm in my 45th year, and this administration or any other administrationI don't care if it's a Democrat.
I don't care, it doesn't make any difference to me if it's a Democrat down there in the White House, I feel exactly the same way. I didn't go all the way with Mr. Clinton. When he soughtwhen he asked me to bend theto bend to include health reform in a reconsideration package so that it would be severely limited by debate time, I said no, that's not the purpose of this Senate. We're here to debate. The American people need to know what's in that health package and we, as members, need to know what's in it. So I did not bend and I will not bend for any president, with all due respect to every president.
And I'm concerned about this thing and getting a little here and a little there and a little here. And the first thing you know, as Mr. Dirksen said about spending billions of dollars, the first thing you know a little bit here and a little bit there and the power over the purse would be vested down there in the White House. And if you've studied the history of England like I have, you'll be aware of the blood that had been shed by Englishmen to wrest the power of the purse away from tyrannical monarchs and divest it in the House of Commons, the people's representatives.
And I say this with all due respect to you. But I'm with you, Mr. Chairman, on this. Any time, anywhere, any hour of the 24 hours I'll be with you. Now, to a couple of my questions.
One crucial component of ensuring our homeland security is ensuring that we as a government know which foreigners are visiting our country, why they are here, and that they depart when they are required to do so. Our existing visa tracking systems are not doing the job. One of the major criticisms of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service was and remains its inability to adequately track the entry and subsequent exit of non-U.S. citizens who come to the U.S. and, for whatever reason, overstay their visa.
For instance, only recently the Department of Justice's Inspector General released a report stating that there are a significant deficiencies in the tracking of foreign students. The acting assistant secretary of the new Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agreed with the I.G.'s conclusion that they need more resources to properly manage one of the many tracking systems. What steps are you taking to ensure that this system is on track and can be deployed in a timely fashion? I believe the budget before us requests only $480 million for the new entry/exist visa tracking system. This is only a $100 million increase over last year's level.
Many members of Congress and outside experts are concerned about the lack of progress in implementing the system. It's my understanding that the department has not yet determined what technology will be used in developing the system. So what steps are you taking?
MR. RIDGE: Senator, the entry/exit system that we'd like to call the U.S. Visit System was one of the highest priorities for the new department as we took a look at the work that we had inherited from the old INS. Candidly, we made an internal assessment that it'sthat there was more work that needed to be done, better work needed to be done, and expedited work had to be done in order to meet the timetable to get the system up and operational at the airports and seaports by the end of this year, as mandated by the Congress of the United States.
My colleague Secretary Asa Hutchison and I havenow that we have reigns and responsibility over that program, have refocused our internal work. We have combined the work that they had been doing with our science and technology unit so we could take a look at the technology applications that are out there in the world today. We know that it will be quite a challenge to get the system up and operation at airports and seaports by the end of this year, but that's what Congress mandated, we inherited it and we're going to do everything we possibly can to get it up and operational in a way that's consistent with your intent and, frankly, consistent with the need of the country. We have a legitimate need to know who's coming in, when they're coming in. We have a legitimate need to know if they left.
I would tell you, Senator, that there are real challenges to take that same approach and apply it to our land borders, and we will have to address them both publicly and privately I'm sure. But I would be prepared to come back with a couple of my colleagues to explain to the Congress the kinds of things we're doing in order to meet the deadline by the end of the year.
SEN. BYRD: But the --
MR. RIDGE: We have not let any money out yet, Senator. We're not going to doput out a request for a proposal until we're satisfied internally that we've done the hard work that we needed to do, and maybe should have been done before in order to get this thing prepared, to let a contract in order to get it done.
SEN. BYRD: You're to be applauded. You're to be applauded for that. But let me ask this question. As I said earlier, the budget before us requests only $480 million for this new tracking system, only $100 million increase over last year's level. Do you feel that this is adequate? Do think this is an adequate amount? Do you think the funding request is adequate?
MR. RIDGE: Senator, I can'tI believe that it is. At least that is the figure we requested based upon earlier calculations. We're doing our own internal calculations based on our technology team taking a look at our needs and if it's not enough, you've given me some reprogram authority. And I think your first admonition to me would be if it's not enough and you need a few extra dollars, you ought to find it within your own operation before you come back to us. So that's exactly how we would go about trying to resolve and find any additional dollars. So, again, we can report back to you and you'll require us to report back to you, and we should report back to you in the near future as to the progress we've made on this initiative.
SEN. BYRD: And you --
MR. RIDGE: Congress started talking about this in 1996 and has put substantial money in the budget starting, I think, last year or perhaps the year before. We know we've got to accelerate things in order to make it happen and we're going to do everything we can to make it happen.
SEN. BYRD: During floor debate on the Iraqi war supplemental appropriations bill, an amendment to add $30 million for the study and deployment of antimissile defense systems for commercial aircraft was narrowly defeated. A few days later you publicly commented, Mr. Secretary, that deployment of this type of technology was merited and deserved to be looked into by the department. Does the department believe that the potential threat to commercial airliners from such an attack is sufficient threat to warrant the deployment of antimissile defenses? If so, what funds would be used to do this and what level of funding, and which agency within the department should take the lead in the effort?
MR. RIDGE: Senator, we have not concluded for policy purposes that commercial aviation should be equipped with military type anti- MANPAD devices. But we have concluded that the threat is significant enough to proceed on a couple of paths. Clearly working with other agencies in the government, and it's been working quite some time, the proliferation of these devices around the world require the attention of State, Defense and other agencies, and they're focusing on that. Clearly, given the fact that there have been futile uses of this equipment in other countries, give reason for us to work with local law enforcement and aviation security folks to develop protocolssecurity protocols with regard to the areas around the airport, as well as other adjustments conceivably in flying the aircraft.
And the third piece of this is for us to take a look at the existing technology, and also perhaps the development of new technology that might have an application to commercial aviation. We have reprogrammed some money from the Department of Defense and we're going to use some of those dollars to begin that technical inquiry to look at effectiveness, efficiency, cost and the like. So we have begun that process with some of the dollars that you've given us the opportunity to reprogram.
SEN. BYRD: How much money have you usedhas been reprogrammed for this purpose?
MR. RIDGE: Basically I think, Senator, Congress took a look at it and I think we've reprogrammed about $420 million from DOD. It goes across a wide range of issues and I can't tell you today the specific dollars that we're going to initially invest in taking a look at MANPAD technology.
But I do know that in my conversation with our leader there that some of these dollars are going to go to an initial effort there. And depending on that research, again it's part of our responsibility to pick and choose among priorities with the dollars you give us that we have now. And in the 2004 budget, we're asking for over $800 million in the science and technology piece, which I presume will mean that I can only anticipate we're using some of those on this research as well.
SEN. BYRD: Mr. Chairman, you'veI don't want to impose on your time overly. Would I have time for one or two more questions?
SEN. COCHRAN: Yes, sir, Senator. If the secretary can oblige us; I hope he can. We are now advised that the vote that was to occur at 12:00 has been put off to 1:45, so that's not a problem. But he has been sitting there for a good while.
SEN. BYRD: Yeah, he's a much younger man --
SEN. COCHRAN: He's cooperated very --
SEN. BYRD: He's a much younger man than I am. I know he's tired.
I know you are tired.
MR. RIDGE: Thank you, sir.
SEN. BYRD: I have two more questions. One deals with chemical plants. Last month the General Accounting Office reported that chemical plants remain vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency, the GAO noted that 123 chemical facilities across the country, if attacked, could inflict serious damage and expose millions of people to toxic chemicals and gases.
Now, I remember when I was earlier in my career that we had the largestI suppose about the largest chemical plants in the Canoga Valley anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. They're notperhaps we've lost some of them in recent years, as we've lost a lot of our other industries. But the administration identified chemical plants as part of a critical infrastructure in its national strategy for the physical protection of critical infrastructure and key assets report. In your written response to my question at our March 27 hearing you identifiedas one of the several that you identified, you identified chemical facilities in close proximity to large populations as one of our most significant vulnerabilities.
The CBO estimated that it will cost $80 million over five years to conduct vulnerability assessments associated with our chemical plants. And yet the administration has not requested any funding, as I understand it, for this purpose. Why have not resources, the requested resources to enhance security at chemical plants, been requested? Now, what plans do you have to improve security in the area, including the identification of appropriate resources to accomplish these goals?
MR. RIDGE: Senator, first of all, theI can't agree or disagree with the dollar figure associated with the cost of securing these sites, so I will pass on that estimate. It does seemwell, I don't know enough about how they concluded that so I will just leave it alone. First of all, a lot of the chemical companies have begun their own internal vulnerability assessments and defray that expense as a corporate expense. Secondly, I think you are aware that several of your colleagues havethere's legislation pending or will be pending before the Senate of the United States so we can address this very important issue as we go about securing those sites on a risk management basis that offer the greatest potential for catastrophic personal harm and consequences.
I would tell you that this is one of the areas, Senator, if I might link this question with a question and an inquiry that we had before about freedom of information. We will want the chemical companies, as we'll want some other companies, to look real hard at potential vulnerabilities, and be honest in that assessment and be critical in that assessment. And we'll want them to share that with us. Now, that's not information we necessarily want to put in the public domain. We don't want to provide a roadmap to terrorists by revealing publicly some of the vulnerabilities we have at these sites.
So it's an interesting question because it raises who should do the vulnerability assessments, I think frankly, and who should pay for them. I think clearlyI believe that the companies should pay for them. Should they share that information with us so that we cancan we find a way so that they share it, so we can give them some direction to secure the vulnerabilities, to avoidto secure the venues and reduce the vulnerabilities? I want them to do that. And do we need some legislation? I believe we will be in a position to work with this committee and other committees to see that we get that legislation during this period of Congress.
But, again, I would tell you, Senator, I think most of these chemical companies are traded on the public stock exchange. They do a lotthey have a lot of legitimate expenses they deduct before they pay taxes. And it seems to me one of the most legitimate expenses in the post-9/11 era is the cost of enhanced security to protect your employees, to protect the community in which you have the facility, and protect the interests of the people that own the plant. So we look forward to those continuing discussions, Senator.
SEN. BYRD: Thank you. I have other questions, which I will submit for the record. I do have one final question, Mr. Chairman. You've been very, very liberal, as I say, with me and I want to thank you. And I want to thank the staffs on both sides. We have excellent staffs who have helped us to prepare.
On March 27, Mr. Secretary, of this year I asked you to provide the committee with your written assessment of the 10 homeland security vulnerabilities that you're most concerned about. And I thank you for responding rapidly. It wasn't a request that was put aside and delayed and perhaps forgotten, but you responded quickly. And your response was useful in making final decisions on the Supplemental Appropriations Act that Congress approved.
In your response you noted that the threat environment is continually changing, but that you did have guidanceyou did have guidance that helped you to focus your priorities. This response, which is not classified, focused on potential attacks on chemical facilities, nuclear power plants, large dams, liquid natural gas storage facilities, electric and telecommunication systems, data storage systems, transportation systems such as rail and air transportation systems, water supplies that are vulnerable to contamination, food processing centers, and petroleum handling facilities such as pipelines, and ports. Excellent. Excellent response.
The president has signed authorization bills to expand federal investments in many of these areas such as port security and drinking water security. But the president has not requested funding for these new authorizations. In fact, if your vulnerability guidelines to the president's budget are compared, if you compare your vulnerability guidelines to the president's budget, there does not appear to be much, if any, correlation. Now, can you tell this subcommittee where in the budget are the resources to cope with each of these vulnerabilities?
MR. RIDGE: Senator, the first resourceand I think the most important first step that we take in this country is looking at those sectors of our economy that we itemized and referred to in our letter to you, and then take a look at the vulnerabilities in that sector, take a look at the threat as it relates to that sector and then make some conclusions as to how much it would cost to protect whatever vulnerabilities we find. And then the next question is who's to defray the cost? But the president has requested a rather substantial sum of money for us in the 2004 budget to conduct those vulnerability assessments. And, again, some of it are dollars that very appropriately will be expended by us to do those assessments on our own.
But part of the function of the new departmentand the Congress provided a private sector advocate, and the private sector intersects with the department in so many different places: in the science and technology unit, in the information analysis and infrastructure protection unit. And one of the challenges we have, and we welcome the task, is to engage the private sector, those that haven't begun their own vulnerability assessments, to do that and to work with us to identify on a risk management basis what should be hardened. And our job, frankly, is to convince them it's in their interests to harden it.
SEN. BYRD: But, Mr. Secretary, you haven't really answered my question. I've listened very carefully. Let me say this again.
The president has signed authorization bills to expand federal investments, so the decision has been made with respect to who's going to do some of these investments. The president has signed authorization bills to expand federal investments in many of these areas such as port security and drinking water security. But the president, the chief executive, has not requested funding for these new authorizations.
Now, what I'm saying is if you compare your vulnerability guidelines, which were very, very good andif you compare them to the president's budget, there doesn't appearat least to this senator and to this senator's staff, there doesn't appear to be any correlation. So my question was, and maybe you can't answer it: can you tell me where in the budget are there resources to cope with each of those vulnerabilities that you have set forth in response to my request earlier this year? You may want to --
MR. RIDGE: Senator, I'd be happy to go back over it. You ask a very perfect question. I think there are dollars dealing with some of the transportation infrastructure. I think there are dollars dealing with food safety.
I don't think they come up by any stretch of the imagination to the level the Congress authorized. And I would say to the senator I think when it comes to the identification of risks, I think we may have agreementgeneral agreement. But I also think when it comes to appropriating the money toconsistent with the authorizations, that there is an opportunity for Congress as well to shift its priorities in terms of the national budget, having passed the authorization bills, to take a look at the appropriation process, match it against authorizations and in the years ahead work with us to meet some of those priorities that we've identified and you've identified in the authorization process and come up with additional dollars in the appropriations process.
SEN. BYRD: Well, may I just comment, and this is --
MR. RIDGE: Yes, sir.
SEN. BYRD: This is all I have. We have done that repeatedly. Congress has done that repeatedly and appropriated moneys, and the president has turned the back of his hand, as he did on the $2.5 billion that was designated as emergencyso Congress has been out front. We've appropriated moneys time and time and time again, only to see this administration turn its back on those appropriations. And so the rhetoricthe rhetoric has not matched reality. So I say to you, yes, we want to work with you and we want to appropriate the moneys. But I hope that this administration will take a look at its responsibilities and particularly its rhetoric in so many instances, and not vetoor in effect veto the funding that Congress has appropriated. I thank you for your work.
MR. RIDGE: Thank you, Senator.
SEN. BYRD: For your listening to our complaints, and hopefully we can work together in ensuring the increased safety of our country in these matters.
MR. RIDGE: Thank you, Senator. Yes, sir.