Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs and Product Safety Hearing

FITZGERALD:
Senator Smith.

SMITH:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary welcome.

RIDGE:
Senator.

SMITH:
Mr. Chairman, I would ask an opening statement be included in the record.

FITZGERALD:
Without objection.

SMITH:
And I apologize for my late arrival. I found myself, Mr. Chairman, delayed in my departure from home glued to the television set watching what I think is truly an historic moment of the coalition of the willing, and right now Saddam Hussein's statue has a rope around it.

An American tank is filled with cheering Iraqis who are for the first time tasting freedom, and I for one am thankful that we have a military as capable as this and a commander-in-chief that had the courage not to listen to Hollywood or "The New York Times" or the French.

Some have predicted for every—that this action would create 100 Osama bin Ladens. I think today on the streets of Baghdad there are tens of thousands of new freedom fighters. It's a great American moment and I celebrate that.

And you're part of an administration now tasked with not just winning a conflict abroad but keeping us safe at home, Mr. Secretary. And, I think we've just come through a supplemental last week where we were struggling to know just what your department needed.

Senator Hollings had an amendment, I think well motivated, to add more money to port security, and I think what I want to know is what's enough and what's too much? What is wise and what is unwise? And, my question is, is what's coming out of conference? Are you a part of that and is it enough to protect our ports?

RIDGE:
Senator, we sent up a dollar amount that we thought was very appropriate for the needs, the short-term needs, because we took a look at the dollars that are available in many instances from previous appropriations including the 2003 budget.

If you add it on to the request for the supplemental and being of an optimistic sort, believing that Congress will get its appropriations bills completed this year, by the end of the year looking at the budget request that I believe when it comes to homeland security at the very minimum the Congress will honor, that in that continuum of those dollars available to mayors and to governors and to others, it was $7 billion to $8 billion.

There were sufficient dollars for us to begin some of the critically needed demonstration and pilot programs that we need as we tackle some other unique challenges with infrastructure protection, both publicly and privately held. You've given us some reprogramming authority that we've begun to use already under the 2003 budget to commence research in dealing with weapons of mass destruction countermeasures, dealing with means of technology of detection for biochem agents.

So, I think in the scheme of things as we set up the department, looking at the flow of funds that we would have available to us this year and to begin to develop our partnerships with the rest of the country, we felt it was adequate.

We knew that we were on perilous ground and, as a former member of the Congress knew we were on perilous ground looking for a little flexibility on some of the appropriations because, as I well know, the Congress takes and holds very appropriately and very dearly its constitutional authority and responsibility to oversee the expenditure of every dollar.

Therefore, there's a much stronger preference to the legislative branch to say to the executive branch tell us specifically what you need and we'll give it to you. Well, we tried to provide some of that specific information but, at the same time, I think obviously we were looking for $400 million or $500 million to deal with unanticipated needs in the next month or two.

SMITH:
And did you get that? Are you getting that? Are you confident you'll have sufficient -

RIDGE:
We will deal with the dollars that—I think we're going to get the dollars we wanted, probably not going to have quite the flexibility that we wanted, but again when you set up the Department of Homeland Security you gave us a little transfer authority and we do have a little wiggle room, and to the extent that we'll be able to use it appropriately under the authority Congress has given us, it's our job to make it work.

SMITH:
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate knowing that, and I want you to know we want to know what you actually need.

RIDGE:
Yes.

GORDON:
Because I think there is a lot of will on the part of the Congress to get you that, and obviously we hope you won't ask for what is surplus. We've got to be careful with our budget.

RIDGE:
Right.

GORDON:
But I would hope you would use these resources to address the tension that will exist between providing increased security in our ports without sacrificing efficiency in our ports.

Portland, Oregon would cease to be a port if we make it so difficult to trade that its commerce is choked off. So, whatever you can do to work with our trading companies to make sure, because I know they're committed to security as well, so I'm pleading with you to look for opportunities to provide for the security of the American people without sacrificing the efficiency of American commerce.

RIDGE:
That's our challenge and I think working with Congress we'll be able to get there. If I might just comment, Senator. Your colleagues, Senators Breaux and Hollings, also talked a little about the dollar figure, and what I would like to share with you and with the chairman and other members of the committee, I do think that it's one thing to say to our first responders and to our governors and our mayors, here is a sum of money and feel comfortable about the dollar amount.

I do think that it will be important for the department to work in a bipartisan way with the Congress to see to it, particularly around the 2004 budget, that the formula by which billions of dollars are presently allocated to states and locals is reviewed and modified so that it can reflect threat and vulnerability and the critical infrastructure responsibilities that states and mayors have.

So, I think a lot of the dollars we're going to distribute to a formula that's been in existence for three or four years through the Office of Domestic Preparedness, but I've talked in both chambers and leaders of both parties I think it would do us all well if we sat down and thought reflectively is there a better way to get these dollars out and to target them more specifically to meet the needs of the country?

SMITH:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.