Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security Holds Hearing on FY2004 Appropriations

FDCH TRANSCRIPTS
Congressional Hearings
Apr. 10, 2003

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security Holds Hearing on FY2004 Appropriations

BYRD:

Mr. Secretary, the Homeland Security Act gives you the responsibility to develop a national policy and strategic plan for identifying priorities, goals, objectives and policies for and coordinating the federal government's civilian efforts to identifying and develop countermeasures to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and other emerging threats.

In recent testimony, FBI director Robert Mueller said, "My greatest concern is that our enemies are trying to acquire dangerous new capabilities with which to harm Americans. Terrorists worldwide have ready access to information on chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons via the Internet".

Mr. Secretary, our agencies have identified new and existing technological capabilities and can be used today to help prevent terrorism, but they have not received the budgets to obtain them. Do you think our agencies are adequately equipped and prepared with existing technologies and capabilities?

MCQUEARY:

Sir, I believe the reason the science and technology directorate was created as a part of the Department of Homeland Security is to help improve the overall situation at our borders and provide adequate protection, so I think the answer has to be the country has decided we are not adequately protected and we have work to be done and I believe that we are chartered with the responsibility of leading that effort in concert with the other units that make up the homeland security department, deciding what needs to be done and doing it.

I do so believe that it is very important that we understand quickly what kind of capabilities exist in the country today so that we can implement those things that will make a difference as quickly as we can because speed is important in the business that we are in.

BYRD:

Last year Congress appropriated additional funds to purchase technology and equipment critical to homeland security, but the administration rejected the funding.

This year, as we continue to operate under a heightened state of alert, the administration did not request specific funding for this technology and the supplemental spending bill.

I speak with respect to technology that has been identified by the agencies such as radiation podlam (ph) monitors and non-intrusive inspection equipment for the bureau of customs and border protection and radiation pagers and isotope identifiers for Coast Guard officers who board suspect vessels. There were attempts to add funding to the emergency supplemental a few days ago that would have provided the homeland security agencies with additional technologies and capabilities.

Secretary Ridge and the attorney general said that there was a high risk of a terrorist attack right now. Are you working with the various homeland security agencies to identify existing technologies and capabilities that could immediately be deployed to the men and women securing our homeland?

MCQUEARY:

Yes, sir. That is a significant responsibility that we have and indeed, the role that we play in the Department of Homeland Security is to be the supplier of technologies to the other agencies and units that make up the Department of Homeland Security.

I describe this as a customer supplier model, if you will, having come from the industrial sides of things in which they are the customers as are the people working on the front lines and we are to be the suppliers of the technologies that are needed and our job is to help evaluate, determine what should be done and help implement that rapid deployment of those things that are needed.

BYRD:

Could you provide the subcommittee with some examples?

MCQUEARY:

Examples of things that we are doing?

BYRD:

You say are you working with the various homeland security agencies to identify existing technologies and capabilities that could immediately be deployed to the men and women securing their homeland.

MCQUEARY:

Well, if I may, we've been in existence just since the first of May. We have a relatively small staff at this particularly point. I take that fully as a responsibility that we have. I can't tell you today specifically examples of other than there are radiological detectors at our borders even today and there are upgrades that are underway in many of those locations but has science and technology affected those in great way to date, the answer would be no, simply because we have not been in existence, nor have we had people.

If you recall, when the homeland security was formed there were no people that transferred into science and technology, so we are building our organization a person at a time today in order to be able to do the work and accomplish the responsibilities that Congress has given us in the construction of the bill.

BYRD:

Since the threat of terrorism is imminent, could you be focusing on both longer-term development of technologies and technologies that are currently available so that the homeland security personnel can work more efficiently and effectively.

MCQUEARY:

Yes, sir. I believe that is very important that we have a multilayered strategy in what we are doing. In fact, that indeed is a part of our planning and the strategic plan that we are working on that we expect to publish in the near future. Very important—I think this, if I may, the homeland security issue is a very large systems engineering problem, if I may describe it coming from the background in which I do, in which we have large numbers of inputs and outputs and the important thing is to understand how this system needs to work to provide the protection. From that understanding will come the ability to determine what we must do in terms of long range developments as well as to be able to use those things that we know already exist.

And there are many companies that have things out there today, as certainly you have alluded to, that may be and probably will be very beneficial to us as we make this country safer than what it is today.

BYRD:

There has been much talk about the need to secure our commercial airliners from the threat of shoulder-fired surface to air missiles. Last November it was reported that al-Qaeda operators fired two shoulder-fired missiles at an Israeli passenger plane. The cost to purchase these weapons is roughly $5,000 to $30,000 and over 500,000 are available worldwide on the black market.

Secretary Ridge announced on Tuesday that the government should pay for research and technology to protect commercial airliners from this type of attack. Has the secretary discussed this with you and if he has, what steps are you taking to pursue this.

MCQUEARY:

Yes, sir. He has discussed it with us a few weeks ago. We are aware of the man pad (ph) as you have described. It is a very serious issue and one in which we have already begun to participate in a systems engineering analysis to determine what would be an equitable approach for our private airline industry.

There has been work that has gone on in the Department of Defense and certainly we would build upon that work, but there is not a system, as I understand it, that exists today that one could simply applique onto a commercial airliner with no additional development work.

BYRD:

I want to yield shortly to the chairman who will in turn call upon Senator Domenici, but let me get this further question in, if I may.

Your budget justification doesn't include anything specific on this issue. TSA has requested $75 million in research and development to improve current security technology. Industry estimates that the cost to design and certify effective countermeasures for different aircraft types will cost close to $55 million.

So, can you tell me where the funding will come from to do this?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BYRD:

On biometrics, Dr. McQueary, are you aware of the Defense Department's biometrics initiative.

MCQUEARY:

Sir, I am only aware of it in a very general sense. I have not had a scientific review of that, but it is certainly an important thing for me to do.

BYRD:

Do you plan to work with the Defense Department and other agencies to build on the testing already done and the lessons already learned?

MCQUEARY:

I would view that we would have not done our job unless we do that. We certainly must do that. That is the way we determine how much money really should be spent is by knowing that we're using what has already been done.

BYRD:

Well, the Defense Department is then quite active in this area.

MCQUEARY:

Yes.

BYRD:

I hope that you will pursue that opportunity to build on the testing there.

MCQUEARY:

I assure you we will.

BYRD:

If Secretary Ridge believes that there is a serious threat of a shoulder launched missile being fired at a commercial airliner, why did the administration oppose an amendment in the Senate a few days ago to provide $65 million to test existing technologies on commercial aircraft.

MCQUEARY:

Sir, I don't know the answer to the question, but I can try to find out and respond back to you, but I don't know.

BYRD:

Well, could you give us a timeline for coming forward with your recommendations?

MCQUEARY:

I have, first of all, to determine in concert with Secretary Ridge, whether it is appropriate that the science and technology group make that recommendation or whether it should come out one of the operational directorates. I can't answer the question today, but certainly I should be able to answer it soon. I can certainly discuss that with Secretary Ridge and get back to you.

BYRD:

Would you supply to the subcommittee an answer to that question?

MCQUEARY:

Yes, sir.

BYRD:

You are responsible for developing a national policy on strategic plans for identifying priorities, goals, objectives and policies for coordinating the federal government civilian efforts to identify and develop countermeasures to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear and other emerging terrorist threats, including annual measurable objectives and specific targets.

On page 26 of your budget justification, we find these words, "performance measures for the science and technology directorate have not yet been established." And yet, you are requesting an $803 million budget, including a $242 million or 43 percent increase over last year.

How is this subcommittee supposed to evaluate your request if we don't have any performance standards to go by?

MCQUEARY:

I think you should ask us to provide those performance measures and I agree with that. The response that we have there is the one we have today, but it is not satisfactory long term and we do need to have performance measures. I agree. I come out of an industry where if you can't measure it, you can't be sure it's been done.

BYRD:

Exactly. Well, I would suggest that you do your best, Mr. Secretary, to provide this subcommittee with reliable performance measures during the FY 2004 budget process so that we can evaluate your $803 million request.

MCQUEARY:

Yes, sir.

BYRD:

Congress has appropriated billions of dollars since 9/11, much of which has gone to the development of technological capabilities to prevent terrorist attacks. The subcommittee is going to be working very hard to make sure the investment is spent wisely. So, please take steps since you don't have anything on paper, please take steps to develop performance measures as you have indicated you will so we will know that the money being appropriated is being spend effectively.

MCQUEARY:

Yes, sir.

BYRD:

I have one other question. Public law 107-296, the Homeland Security Act created the homeland security advanced research project agency. The agency is modeled on the advanced research project agency except that the goal of the agency is to develop technologies that would benefit homeland security. In your prepared testimony, you estimate that $350 million of your overall request of $803 million will be carried out by this new advanced research projects agency.

But the Homeland Security Agency Act authorized only $500 million. Why is there a $150 million gap between your funding request and the authorized amount?

MCQUEARY:

Sir, my approach having come out of the industrial side is we are in the business of funding products and systems and those products and systems in general will cut across not only the homeland security advanced research project agency, but the work that is done in the laboratories and so, my belief, strong belief, is that developing a budget based upon products and systems is a better way than doing an organizational budget which would be equivalent to saying how much are we going to spend in HSARPA.

I assume the $500 million may have been an estimate that someone had and the $350 million that we estimated is certainly that. It is an estimate, because the detailed programs have not been put together by—through competitive approaches or through work that is done in the laboratories.

BYRD:

In 1959, Congress approved $485 million for what was then known as the advanced research projects agency, ARPA. This was the first year it received an annual appropriation. I can't—what is matter with my throat today. I'm not smoking any cigars, although I do like them.

MCQUEARY:

Perhaps I can join you in a private moment with one of those.

BYRD:

I've tried that. Have you got anything else on your hip? I think you would acknowledge that to date, research and development activities in support of homeland security have been underfunded. In light of that, what do you think an appropriate funding level for this agency would be?

MCQUEARY:

I missed which agency, sir. For the Department of Homeland Security, is that what the question is?

BYRD:

The next question is pertinent. Are you planning to request a higher level for HSARPA in future years?

MCQUEARY:

Sir, it's premature to say yes or no to that, because I think it is important that we examine the needs that the directorates that make up the Department of Homeland Security and from that, determine what the program should be and those needs will be looked at from the standpoint of do we need to be funding the work ourselves or do we need to be simply buying what already exists out in America today.

We have to answer that question and you have an expectation that we should be doing that.

BYRD:

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.