HEARING OF THE HOMELAND SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
SEN. TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I just have basically three questions. One has to do with coordination between DHS and state offices. In the last session we had I asked a question and you responded in writing regarding two sites in Iowa that were supposed to be protected. The letter I got from your office basically said, and I quote, "Governors and state homeland security advisers are provided with examples of facilities and systems within their states that met these criteria from a federal perspective. These references were intended as examples only," et cetera, et cetera.
So I passed that back out to Iowa and they basically said, they came back and said that that was not right, that that was not so. That Iowa was told that the two specific sites were the ones to be protected and that seemed to be the view from several other state directors as well. In fact, one sent an email that they said that they were specifically told by FEMA that this answer that I got was not correct. That sites were specifically told to be protected.
So, again, I want to get this cleared up because it seems to be of some concern. And I say openly that the two sites are two railroad bridges that go over the Mississippi. Well, we've got rivers. We've got the Mississippi on one side and the Missouri on the other. Those railroads keep going on. So, we protect two on one side but nothing on the other side. So I'm wondering about the coordination here. That's my deal, it's just on coordination between the state offices and DHS and are those two sites where they feelI almost feel they were told they've got to do those two and nothing else. And what I'm getting from your office is no, those are just supposed to be examples but not specific. And so I'm trying to get this kind of cleared up. That's all.
MR. RIDGE: First of all, Senator, I appreciate the inquiry. There wereand I can't assess right now, he said, she said, what was said.
SEN. HARKIN: I know. I know that.
MR. RIDGE: It was clearlywe gave specific directions to some communities to deal with specific pieces of infrastructure. And I know that for a fact.
SEN. HARKIN: I can believe that.
MR. RIDGE: And whether or not those were included in the communication to Iowa I'll go back and double check. The point being, however, that as we ramped up Liberty Shield, in addition to providing federal direction to secure certain pieces based on our analysis of risk management and the loss that would be incurred if something transpired at that particular site, we also said to governors, that's what we want you to do. But I mean, at some point in time, we've got to rely on the governors and others who may view other pieces of infrastructure that they want to support and defend and secure as well. So I'll get back to you on that.
But the challenge we haveand we accept the challengeis communicating in a timely and accurate way the kind of support we need with our friends at the state and local level and I believe that there's no other agency in the history of the federal government that communicates more frequently with the states and locals. We think we have a good communication system now, Senator, but we know it's got to be better because the relationship for us to be able to secure the country is going have to be a lot stronger and the confusion that arises in your statement we cannot afford to have that occur if we are to secure the country in times of need. There should be no hesitation if instructions are given, secure that place, and we all need to understand that.
SEN. HARKIN: I appreciate that very much, you've kind of cleared up that little thing. The other thing was I was meeting with some of my firefighters from Iowa recently, this morning, and it's been brought to my attention that there's a concern in my state that some of the new provisions for training is going on an almost parallel level with what's already existing with the existing fire marshal in Iowa.
We have the Iowa Department of Emergency Management that does the DHS work where your efforts flow through. They want to set up like, for example, new training teams for bomb disposal that already exist under the Fire Service Training Bureau in Iowa. The fire marshal, as they told me, first responders need to be trained in the basic like Hazmat, basic firefighter training that's already existing but, now, it seems that Iowa Department of Emergency Management now is going to set up other parallel types of systems when this is already existing.
And so, again, I'm wondering if we're looking at existing structures within states that already do the kind of Hazmat training, basic firefighting training, things that are already in place, utilizing them rather than setting up some parallel kind of structure?
MR. RIDGE: Senator, you've teed it up for me. This is precisely why I believe that, once our department and your department, our department sets standards for this kind of training, each state should be required to submit a plan and tell us what agency within that state is going to provide the training. It makes no sense to your question to have two or three centers unless the capacity matches the need, but to be setting up two independent training programs that may only be operating at 50 percent capacity, particularly when you already have an existing training program. I mean that goes to the very rationale behind setting up state plans to deal with questions of training, equipment acquisition, distribution of funds and the like. The question is germane to what we're trying to avoid in the future.
SEN. HARKIN: I appreciate that very much, Mr. Secretary. One last thingtwo last things. I looked at the cost supposedly for protecting these two bridges in Iowa and it comes out that the cumulative daily cost estimate to protect these two bridges is $11,000 a day and I'm wondering if I could get that contract. Eleven thousand dollars a day. Now this is not from you. This is coming out from underneath.
MR. RIDGE: We have to beat a lot of other people to the head of the line, Senator.
SEN. HARKIN: I think so. But I'm hopefulI say it because I'm looking at the cost break down and I'm saying if this is what's going on around the country, Lord help us because we're spending a lot of money, I think, needlessly. So I guess my point is I hope that you have a good inspector general on board and to really start taking a look at some of these costs estimates that come in and what they're doing. I look at thisto protect two bridges per day -- $11,000 a day. It just doesn't make sense.
MR. RIDGE: One of our goals, Senator, now that we've stood down Liberty Shield is to go back and review the different sites, the costs that were allegedly incurred at each site and I think, after this, we debrief ourselves and scrub all those numbers and then compare them to what otherwise might have occurred. We'll be able to report back to you and give you an answer if that's the common occurring or if there's a cheaper and more efficient way of providing the security at those bridges.
SEN. HARKIN: Well, I sure hope you look at this. I hope you have good watchdogs --
MR. RIDGE: We will.
SEN. HARKIN: -- to look at this because this stuff is coming up and I'm not saying that the bridges aren't vital and needed but the cost of this protection is just way out of line, just way out of line. And, again, I'm just concerned that if this is just two bridges, what happens when you multiply that by all the different sites around the country and what you're doing and how much money this bubbles to be. So I hope --
(Cross talk.)
MR. RIDGE: -- Senator, if you will, the notion that we can'twe don't have enough money in the federal treasury, the state treasury and in the personal pocket books of very American citizen to harden every target, ever site. We have to manage the risk and what is the infrastructure that, if it was destroyed, would result in the greatest catastrophic loss of life, what is the infrastructure destroyed would have the greatest catastrophic economic impact. I know as a former governor in Pennsylvania, I had over 100,000 bridges. There were some that would have had to consider were far more important to safety, security and economic matters and others. And I think that's the kind of assessment that we have to do nationally. We have to have our friends at the state and local level help us with it.
SEN. HARKIN: One last thing. I know you met with the Civil Air Patrol.
MR. RIDGE: Yes.
SEN. HARKIN: I appreciate that very much and I hope you're going to continue to work with us on that.
MR. RIDGE: We had a very good discussion with them. As you pointed out in our earlier conversation, they do provide some benefitnot only provide considerable benefit as they work with some of the other units of the new department and we're going to look for ways to take advantage of their patriotism, their equipment and their professionalism and see if we can expand their mission in certain areas.
SEN. HARKIN: And they're cost effective.
MR. RIDGE: Absolutely.
SEN. HARKIN: Thank you very much.