Copyright 2002 FDCHeMedia, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  
FDCH Political Transcripts
July 16, 2002 Tuesday
TYPE: COMMITTEE HEARING

LENGTH: 41847 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

HEADLINE: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DICK ARMEY (R-TX) HOLDS HEARING ON HOMELAND SECURITY (PART II)

SPEAKER:
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DICK ARMEY (R-TX), CHAIRMAN

LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C.

WITNESSES:

FIRST PANEL
ANN VENEMAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
TOMMY THOMPSON, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
NORMAN Y. MINETA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
SPENCER ABRAHAM, SECRETARY OF ENERGY
KAY COLES JAMES, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
SECOND PANEL
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MAC THORNBERRY (R-TX), U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JANE HARMAN (D-CA), U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JIM GIBBONS (R-NV), U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ELLEN TAUSCHER (D-CA)
THIRD PANEL, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE F. JAMES SENSENNBRENNER (R-WI), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN CONYERS (D-MI), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

BODY:

 
HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY HOLDS HEARING ON
HOMELAND SECURITY
 
JULY 16, 2002
 
SPEAKERS: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DICK ARMEY (R-TX), CHAIRMAN
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TOM DELAY (R-TX)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE J.C. WATTS, JR. (R-OK)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DEBORAH PRYCE (R-OH)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROB PORTMAN (R-OH)
 
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI (D-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN FROST (D-TX)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT MENENDEZ (D-NJ)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROSA DELAURO (D-CT)


*


ARMEY: The Select Committee will come to order. We are meeting today to hear a second day of testimony on H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Before we get started this morning, I would like to announce that it is my intention, for members of the committee, it is my intention to proceed with testimony and questions for our first panel and then recess the Select Committee until 2:30 p.m. this afternoon when we will resume with our second panel.

The chair will also continue its practice of recognizing a member on each side of the aisle for opening statements. And, then, asking the remaining members to put their opening statements in the record so we can get on with the hearing. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Pryce, for a brief opening statement.

PRYCE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the Select Committee and our witnesses here this morning, thank you very, very much for being here for this important hearing. This is one of the most important things that this or any Congress has ever contemplated and your input will be invaluable, so thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I also would like to take an opportunity to thank you for your steady and bipartisan leadership of this committee.

As we get started on our third day of hearings on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, I'd like to begin by thanking you once again. We have before us today three very impressive panels of individuals who have risen to their current post by virtue of their expertise and leadership in their respective fields. The diversity of our witnesses today demonstrates the collaborative and bipartisan nature of the process that we're undertaking.

I look forward to your valuable input on the department and look forward to your statements.

Today, with the benefit of the recently unveiled national strategy on homeland security the committee continues its in-depth analysis of the administration's proposal. Last week we began our process by examining the nature of the threat facing our nation. To be sure what confronts America is, in many ways, the most unique and most deadly enemy that we have faced in our entire history, hiding in shadows, crossing our borders with ease and preying on the opening society in which we live.

Our response must be smarter, more agile and every prepared, but always rooted in the principles that have made our nation so strong. As Governor Ridge pointed out to us yesterday, we're fighting a war on two fronts. We fight this war, not just abroad with our military, diplomatic and economic weapons, but at home with every federal, state and local government tool at our disposal. During this phase of the committee's work, we will examine specific ideas for consolidating our myriad and unique responses to the threat at home through a new cabinet-level department.

We will hear from a wide-range of members of the administration whose departments undertake homeland security tasks and whose diverse functions demonstrate that under the current system, the homeland security work of our government is dangerously spread out.

We will hear from a bipartisan group of members of Congress who have long been staunch advocates of the need for a Department of Homeland Security and we will also hear the first of the committee chairman and ranking members who have begun the process of crafting the legislation to create this new department. By tapping into all of their collective expertise, we can maximize the effectiveness of the department, sharply focus its mission and offset any associated costs by eliminating unnecessary redundancies and increasing government efficiencies.

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security will unite the current patchwork of government homeland security activities into a single department with the primary mission of protecting our homeland. The need for a single, responsive and agile department, organize the homeland security functions that are currently disbursed among more than 100 different government organizations cannot be overstated.

As President Bush pointed out in his address to the American people announcing the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, we are a different nation today, sadder and stronger, less innocence, and more courageous, more appreciative of life. As we continue our work on this historic task to create a new federal department to respond to the threats of our nation through the 21st century, we must be ever mindful of the spirit, sacrifice and resolve of the American people who rightfully require us to be persistent, yet judicious and balanced in our tasks, preserving the freedoms we all enjoy while ensuring the safety of our families, our communities and our country.

The witnesses before us reflect the strength and the spirit of the American people and I look forward to hearing from all of you today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

ARMEY: I thank the gentlelady.

The chair is now happy to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.

MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the administration who are here, let me start off by saying what I hope is obvious to all of us that in the work of securing the homeland there are no Democrats and no Republicans, there are only patriots. And, this work may very well be the most significant work that any of us will do in our public careers.

I want to take this opportunity, however, to outline a few priorities that I believe this legislation must address if we're going to get this ambitious undertaking right in the first place. We recently learned that in an all too public spat between two of the most venerated agencies of the federal government that the key problems with the events and circumstances leading to September 11 was the glaring and unacceptable lack coordination and information sharing within and between intelligence and law enforcement agencies, as well as state and local authorities.

Ms. Colleen Rowley of the FBI in her Senate testimony, unlike and probably despite her superiors informed us of much in great detail. On the very same day the administration proposed to establish this new Department of Homeland Security. Since effective coordination and adequate information sharing is the main problem that the establishment of this new department presumably would address, it is up to us in Congress to make sure that it is not only presumably addressed with verbal assurances, but that it is actually addressed with legislative language.

So, to make a twist on the words of Teddy Roosevelt's if it's broke, then fix it. And, it is broke, so we need to fix it. Merely combining agencies with like missions into a larger institution setting in and of itself will not suffice. So, I suggest to my colleagues that we must conclude mechanisms in this bill to guarantee that such coordination and information sharing, indeed, will occur.

Secondly, we must get it right in terms of both focus and balance. As the House Democratic Homeland Security Task Force, which is chair, spelled out in two of our bills, the Bio Tax Act and the U.S.A. Act, we must be in the business of prevention. We must prevent, not just prepare for and respond to future terrorist attacks. The key challenge to ensuring adequate prevention is to have all the databases that matter integrated and available in real-time to the new secretary. The minute that this department goes online there should be no basis whatsoever for doubting whether the new secretary will have all of the intelligence and law enforcement information on domestic threats that he or she would require. And, at this point, I'm not persuaded that the bill will accomplish that. That is something I hope that we can work towards.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like, with your approval, also, to submit for the record the principles adopted by the Democratic Caucus Homeland Security Task Force and by the Democratic Caucus. These principles state that the new department should be created and operated in an open and fiscally responsible manner through an amended White House budget proposal.

That Washington should promptly move resources to local first responders and continue the operation of local programs already proven to be effective, such as the COPS Program, the Fire Act (ph) in assistance to our hospitals and community healthcare centers.

That the proposed department not jeopardize those functions of departments and agencies that are not specifically related to security and that as we protect and defend our country, we must also protect and defend the constitution and our civil liberties. And, that we protect the rights and benefits of civil service employees.

Lastly, going back to the local communities for a moment, Governor Ridge repeatedly has said that if the home town is secure, the homeland is secure. We have asked the administration whether there are plans, for example, to deal with some of the challenges our communities face, for example, in overtime costs that go on after 9/11 and continuing. And, we look forward to seeing that continue in a way that is responsive to these local concerns. Yes, there is burden sharing, but there must also be a sharing of resources in that context.

Now the administration has finally produced a strategy and I want to salute it. I just came from the White House with my members of the Select Committee and that strategy is something that I have been looking for for quite some time because I believe that you need to set out a strategy and then you organize the department in response to a strategy. And, I look forward to hearing from our cabinet secretaries as to what role they provided in the preparation of this strategy document. The improved coordination and data sharing this bill seeks must begin with a comprehensive threat assessment, followed by a strategy and plans to implement that strategy. That strategy should outline specific priorities along with a budget that would allocate the resources necessary to implement it. These are not proposed embellishments. They are basic requirements. Although we must still review the strategy, its completion as clearly a significant step forward and I salute the administration for producing it.

Lastly, we have heard much about the talk about the need for flexibility for the new secretary in this department. And, today, this morning, the president made that case again and I understand the nature of some of what that flexibility needs to be. But, I also hope that in the process of providing the flexibility necessary to guarantee the effective and efficient operation of the nation's security that we, in the process of setting up this new department, that homeland security should not mean insecurity for the employees for which we will have to call upon their greatest talents, their collective institutional wisdom, their knowledge of the challenges we face, and to unlock their abilities to be able to respond to those challenges in the new role for which they are being transferred to.

So, life in American has forever changed after September 11, Main Street is now the frontline of a new war. American values, however, have not changed and must not change. We continue to value liberty and freedom and justice and fairness. So, what we're tasked here as part of our job, be we need to demand that the will of the people, the people's top priority, keeping their families and our nation safe is carried out effectively.

Toward that end, Mr. Chairman, we Democrats are continuing to work with you in a partisan process in order to ensure that what we produce is ultimately achieving that ultimate goal.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ARMEY: I thank the gentleman. And, the gentleman is aware that the record is open for your submission and we appreciate that.

Well, let me thank the panel for being here today. I do appreciate the effort. I want to especially thank Secretary Abraham for your late night plane ride that brought you here. Spencer, we do appreciate this extra effort on your part so you could be with us today.

Without any objection by the members of the panel, we would put your written record in the -- statement in the record and ask you to take a few minutes each in your turn to summarize your statement. And, with that in mind, I would like to begin with Secretary Veneman to give your statement.

VENEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the president's proposal for a new Department of Homeland Security.

As you've discussed in this committee, the president has put forth a bold and historic plan that's aimed at better protecting our nation from potential terrorist threats in the future.

VENEMAN: For the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the events of September 11 changed forever the context of which we do our work, along with the other federal agencies. In the past, the focus of what most of our efforts has been to prevent and deter the unintentional introduction of pests and diseases from entering our country.

Beginning in February of 2001, our systems were put to the test when we saw the devastating impacts of foot and mouth disease in the UK and other parts of Europe. At that time, USDA initiated an aggressive strategy to prevent foot and mouth disease from reaching our country by providing technical support to Great Britain. We increased staffing at our ports around the country by adding new inspectors, additional detector dog teams and port veterinarians. We worked very closely with state agricultural departments to strengthen our coordination and our training, as well as our contingency plans. and, launching a public information -- we launched a public information campaign to educate the public about their role in keeping foot and mouth disease out of the U.S.

Through the president's 2003 budget proposal and supplemental appropriations by the Congress, we continue those efforts today. Our border protection and personnel level will be at their highest ever. And, investments in the area of research, laboratory upgrades, security, have enhanced our ability to prepare for the potential threats to American agriculture.

These much needed resources not only help protect against unintentional threats, but they are helping as we deal directly with the potential acts of terrorism that we now face in the wake of September 11. But, the potential of intentional threats to agriculture protection and our food supply have required us to do even more. We've been working closely with other federal agencies, state agricultural departments, academia, the agriculture and food sector, on multiple fronts to secure and strengthen, both our planning and preparedness. For example, we've expedited work with the U.S. Customs Service to implement an automated inspection targeting system. We've collaborated with research universities and state ag departments to step up the development of rapid detection systems, expand our network of diagnostic laboratories, strengthen pest and disease surveillance, better secure and strengthen our laboratories and improve emergency preparedness capabilities.

While we have done a great deal of work, the job is far from over. And, we cannot let down our guard. When it comes to protecting U.S. agriculture and our food supply, we must continuously improve and strengthen our protection capabilities. Governor Ridge and I enjoy a strong working relationship and I can tell you that he clearly understands the importance of USDA's role in homeland security.

In the months since he became the president's adviser on these issues, I have grown to appreciate his knowledge and understanding of the complex issues throughout the federal government. And that's why this proposal for a Department of Homeland Security is so critical.

In putting forth the proposal, the president made clear the important role of agriculture and protecting the food supply by including parts of USDA in the plan, the Animal Plan Health Inspections Service, or, as we commonly refer to it, APHIS, and the Plum Island Animal Disease Center. This is a clear recognition of APHIS's vital mission as it relates to homeland security. There's been considerable discussion about the best way to protect America and the vital role that USDA's APHIS program serve in that regard.

Many states and industries and stakeholders have provided valuable input regarding the move of APHIS to the Department of Homeland Security and the ongoing programs with APHIS that are not directly associated with the protection of homeland security. These programs include protecting livestock from predators, eradicating bull weevils, fruit flies, blue sclerosis (ph), controlling rabies and wildlife, negotiating with foreign countries on technical requirements for U.S. exports and imports, regulation of biotechnology, animal welfare, as well as other programs.

In the past few weeks, the House Agriculture Committee has worked with the administration to refine the president's proposal. The result of that work appears in the committee's amendment, which would move the specialized border inspection and enforcement functions of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as well as the Plum Island Disease facility to the new Department of Homeland Security. The administration looks forward to working with Congress so that the final bill provides the Secretary of Homeland Security the coordinating authorities required to ensure integrated plans to address the threat of agri-terrorism.

The House Agriculture Committee's amendment is consistent with the president's goal of unifying the border and transportation security functions of many federal agencies. It affirms the critical role played by inspectors of our agricultural cargo, conveyances and international passengers. It acknowledges the close partnerships USDA inspection personnel have developed with the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Border Patrol.

It also recognizes the importance of USDA's working with the new department in training homeland inspection personnel involved in examining cargo, passengers and trade and food and agriculture products. Finally, the amendment recognizes that the transfer of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center is integral to the Department of Homeland Security.

In short, the transfer of APHIS, agriculture quarantine inspection program and the Plum Island Animal Disease Center to the Department of Homeland Security is the right step to protect our nation's security and agricultural health.

Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for this opportunity to appear today. We appreciate your leadership and that of this committee in addressing the important issues relating to homeland security, particularly as it relates to protection of agriculture and the food supply.

Thank you very much and I look forward to answering your questions.

ARMEY: Thank you, Secretary Veneman.

Secretary Mineta, we would love to hear from you now.

MINETA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and to Representative Pelosi and members of the Select Committee, it really is a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to appear before you today and to give you my views on the president's proposal to create the Department of Homeland Security.

First, I want to congratulate the leadership of both sides of the aisle for their responsiveness to his legislation and compliment you on the decision to establish this committee. This is an incredibly important issue that responds to the very real danger facing our great nation. Having served in Congress with all of you, I know that all of you are answering the call.

Now, I would like to limit my comments to what the impact of this department's creation will be on our nation's transportation system and whether it is wise to proceed with this sizable task while we are in the midst of fighting a war.

First of all, the nature of the threats facing America requires a consolidated government structure to protect against invisible enemies that can strike with a wide variety of weapons. And the president's proposal underscores the importance of transportation security as a major part of America's overall homeland security. I believe that it is impossible to create a Department of Homeland Security and not have agencies like the United States Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration at the heart of it. Regardless of a threat, it is a given that our transportation system will be used by the enemy to arrive in our midst or deliver its weapons. That is why the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration will be key components of the new Department of Homeland Security.

The Coast Guard is our nation's lead maritime security agency and the first line of security on our maritime borders. It has broad military and statutory authorities that are critical to securing our coastline, our economic exclusive zone and seaports. And, nearly 40 percent of the Coast Guard's current operating budget is directly related to the core missions of the new department.

To maximize the Coast Guard's effectiveness in this new department it is essential that the United States Coast Guard remain in tact, retain its essential attributes as a military, multi-mission and maritime service. Thirdly, that it retain the range of critical Coast Guard missions and be adequately funded to fulfill its mission.

Admiral Collins, the Commandant of the United States' Coast Guard, recently testified that the greatest danger to any Coast Guard mission would be to fracture the Coast Guard. Its multi-mission assets are critical to each of the five fundamental overlapping roles. Maritime security, maritime safety, maritime mobility, protection of natural resources and national defense, missions that will continue to flourish in the new department.

The Coast Guard's multi-mission assets are critical to each of its roles and are leverages so that the same cutters, boats, aircraft and personnel that maintain maritime mobility also provide maritime safety and security, as well as protect our natural resources. And, I am fully confident that the Coast Guard will be an outstanding part of the new Department of Homeland Security.

Now, another key component of the new department is the Transportation Security Administration, TSA. And, it will be better able to secure the nation's transportation infrastructure as part of a department whose principle mission is protecting against terrorist attacks. The entirety of TSA's budget, personnel and focus is directly related to the core missions of the proposed department. TSA has the statutory responsibility for security of all modes of transportation. And, it directly employs transportation security personnel. At the Department of Homeland Security, TSA will have ready access to the department's intelligence architecture to support its transportation security efforts. Combine TSA with established organizations will allow TSA to benefit from their relevant experience and will permit the efficient leveraging of security assets.

The continuity of security from our borders throughout our transportation system will also improve as TSA, INS, Customs and other elements of the DHS become part of the same organization with access to shared systems.

I know some have expressed concerns that moving TSA will slow or interfere with the agency's ability to meet its congressionally mandated deadline. The concern, while understandable, is without merit. We are going to meet the deadlines that Congress gave us with respect to TSA. When the day comes for TSA to transfer to the new department, TSA will be ready, and being ready means meeting every deadline asked of it before that day, period.

In closing let me say as a member of Congress for over 20 years, I know the challenge before all of you. And, as former chair of a major committee, I am keenly aware of the jurisdictional questions and the issues that you face. And, as a cabinet member, I am familiar with the various pressures that come with protecting the elements of cabinet members department that add to one prestige and budgetary authority, but having acknowledged all of those factors, I believe this legislation is necessary and a very good idea.

It is needed and it is needed now. It is, indeed, timely. We are at war, a real war. And, some have suggested that we wait until the current war is over, arguing that President Truman waiting until after World War II was over before he reorganized the Department of Defense.

MINETA: I believe that historical comparison fails. Yes, this legislation is similar to President Truman's in boldness and in terms of scope. But, it also has the vision and foresight characteristic of the work of President Franklin Roosevelt when he was preparing the country to fight the rise of fascism. It is forward-leading and seeks to prepare us to succeed at goals of prevention and protection. And, so I strongly urge the support by this committee and its passage by Congress.

Again, let me thank all of you for your leadership and your continued support of the mission that is envisioned by the president and I will look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.

ARMEY: Thank you, Secretary Mineta.

Secretary Thompson, if you would like to make your opening statement, the panel would love to hear.

THOMPSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Pelosi, and members of this bipartisan Select Committee, I thank all of you for giving me this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the proposed Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, our country is in your debt for your many years of visionary leadership in the House of Representatives and I personally thank you.

Mrs. Pelosi, I deeply appreciate what you said in your opening statement at last week's hearing that the issue of national security cuts across party lines. It was also echoed this morning by Congressman Menendez and I thank him as well.

And, to all the members of this committee, let me say thank you for your diligence and thoughtfully considering this very serious matter. I'll begin by underscoring that I join my colleagues in affirming unequivocally my support for the reorganization initiative that the president has announced. I have worked and will continue to work to implement his proposals with energy and enthusiasm.

The president is absolutely right to create a Department of Homeland Security to make sure that our nation is as safe and protected as possible. And, if you're going to create an agency that focuses around the clock on protecting the homeland, there clearly needs to be a bioterrorism component in that operation.

Since Governor Ridge began as Director of Homeland Security, he and I have worked very closely together on the programs and the policies we need to keep American safe. We have coordinated our budget priorities and we have a sustained a very close and friendly working relationship. And, we at HHS are continuing to work closely with the White House, Governor Ridge, as well as Congress to ensure that this new department has the ability to protect America from a biological attack.

HHS will provide DHS with whatever scientific expertise and other technical assistance it may seek to manage this program. In addition to the substantive changes, certain program level details in administrative choices are still being studied in order to ensure the most seamless transition and to give the greatest possible levels of efficiency and effectiveness to our fight against the threat of biologic and chemical warfare in order to protect the public health.

At the same time, the implementation of the public health components of that program, such as the state and local preparedness grants, will be carried out largely through HHS. As to the regulation of certain dangerous pathogens known as select agents, this function would be transferred from the CDC to the new Department of Homeland Security. the newly created Office of Public Health Emergency Preparedness with its emergency medical functions would also be transferred, as would maintenance of the strategic national stockpile of medicines and emergency medical equipment. We've gone from eight push packages totally six tons of medical supplies.

Before September 11, and especially since that day, our department has worked fervently to build our capabilities to effectively respond to any bioterrorism attack. We work closely with state and local governments, with experts in the field and with public health partners to make sure that we're going to be able to get stronger each and every day. And, I'm happy to report that we've been able to accomplish that goal.

We were also able to disburse nearly all of the $1.1 billion in grants for bioterrorism preparedness activities to the states and to major cities and we've done so efficiently and with energy. We've taken our task seriously and we continue to do so. We are extremely proud of how much stronger we've built America's preparedness in such a short time.

I, again, thank this committee and Congress as a whole for supporting my department in this endeavor. But, there is much work to do before our level of public health readiness is where we want it to be. We are committed to getting the job done within HHS and by working with the new Department of Homeland Security.

The president's proposal strikes the right balance. It plays to the strengths of HHS and recognizes this agency's core mission, the protection of our nation's public health, while at the same time capitalizing on the strategic and logistical strengths of the new Department of Homeland Security. By wisely marshalling and managing our expertise and our resources, and by joining together with the same spirit of perseverance and determination of which the president has so elegantly spoken and that the needs of our time demand. We will, we will build a more secure America and we will safeguard our families from the vicious threats of our enemies. That is our common task. It is one I know that we are all, Democrats, Republicans and Independents, committed to fulfill.

So, thank you again, Mr. Chairman and members, I will be more than happy to answer your questions and those of all of the colleagues.

ARMEY: Thank you, Governor Thompson.

Secretary Abraham, again, I want to thank you for flying all night and we'd...

ABRAHAM: Thank you.

ARMEY: ... love to hear your comments this morning.

ABRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, and Ms. Pelosi and members of the committee, the president's proposal to create and organize a new Department of Homeland Security is an important and necessary step toward ensuring the security of all Americans. And, I want to thank all the members of this committee for your leadership and the hard work you're doing to make this vision a reality.

From ensuring the security of our nuclear weapons complex, to coming up with creative ideas on how to deal with a variety of threats, our department, the Department of the Energy has many responsibilities, which support the homeland security mission. And, of course, many of those responsibilities will remain after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. But, we feel it makes eminent sense to ensure that certain missions of the Department of Energy are combined in a way that enhances homeland security and therefore we proposed to move some programs and capabilities from the Department of Energy to the new Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, probably the most significant proposal effecting the Department of Energy involves how we support the new department's need for world class scientific and technical research and development capability. I've often describe the national laboratories of our department of which we manage as the crown jewels of scientific and technical achievement in America. And, in the aftermath of September 11, the ability of our scientists, engineers, and other employees to respond quickly and effectively to the challenges imposed by terrorists was well demonstrated.

The president's proposal offers a creative way to leverage these assets in support of the homeland security mission.

(CUT IN AUDIO)

ABRAHAM: We propose organizing into the Department of Energy national laboratories and sites in a manner to create a network laboratory system for the purpose of supporting the missions of the Department of Homeland Security. at various appropriate facilities the DHS would assume responsibility for the management of domestic security research and development. The Department of Homeland Security would control the funding for those homeland security programs and allocate that funding as necessary to meet its goals.

Mr. Chairman, we also propose to transfer certain other programs to the Department of Homeland Security that directly support its homeland security mission. These programs would be transferred entirely to the new DHS. Let me just describe a couple of them. First, research and development to counter the chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological threat, this Department of Energy-wide program provides research and development for a DHS-core mission, the detection and tracking of the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

This activity includes the development of new technologies and approaches for detecting fissile materials at border crossings and technologies that monitor the environment for the release of biological or chemical agents. The transfers in this area would include $69 million programs in the chemical and biological national security area, R&D and $10 million in the combating nuclear smuggling programs as well.

In addition, we propose that we transfer a portion, amounting to about $20 million, of the Department of Energy's program in the life and environmental sciences area. These activities consist of rapid DNA sequencing of pathogenic microbes and technological development. DNA sequencing would allow DHS to identify and build defenses against potential terrorist actions. And, the technology development activities would allow DHS to use computational tools to compare the gene sequence from an organism against the database of existing gene sequencing. In other words, to be able to better identify possible threats and to determine ways to neutralize those threats.

I'd also like to mention another area, which we propose to transfer. And, that's our energy assurance activities. This program develops and maintains a capability for identifying potential threats to the national energy infrastructure, developing and maintaining a national strategy for energy assurance and the development of a federal response plan. Activities in this area also include funding for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center, which is a key homeland security research and development activity. It's literally a computer modeling system that allows us to analyze what impact on the overall national energy infrastructure, the breakdown or an attack on any one component of that infrastructure might produce.

Finally, we propose to transfer to DHS the environmental measurements laboratory, which is located near New York City. This laboratory provides program management technical assistance and data quality assurance for the measurement of radiation and radioactivity relating to environmental restoration, nuclear non-proliferation and other priority areas.

In addition to these, we also propose shifting specific programs in the area of advanced computer modeling in the area of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction threat assessment, and certain intelligence functions to give core capabilities to the new department so that it could ultimately expand in each of those areas and have the potential to coordinate better, the work down there.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to highlight one other critical part of the president's proposal regarding my department. as you know, the Department of Energy maintains the ability to respond immediately anywhere in the world to nuclear radiological incidences and emergencies. We propose that assets supporting this mission stay within the Department of Energy, but that the Department of Homeland Security have the ability to control their deployment as necessary.

There's seven basic teams that make up this so-called NEST response capability, which includes nuclear emergency support activities. These include aerial measurement teams, accident response teams and the radiological assistance program that works closely with state and local agencies. Through these tailored and responsive teams, we've able to marshal highly trained and unique scientific and technical expertise. The more than 900 individuals on call to respond in the event of a nuclear incident or emergency, radiological incident or emergency, but only a handful of those 900 people, 70, are fulltime. And, it is our ability to call upon a broad range of professionals from across the department's nuclear weapons complex that brings this program its depth and ability to respond to a wide range of crises or emergencies.

Comparisons have been made to a volunteer fire departments or the National Guard because these teams are staffed with nuclear professionals who take this work as an additional duty. Thus, we concluded that while it didn't make sense to propose transferring this capability in total to DHS, we do propose, however, that these teams would, when requested by the Department of Homeland Security, be activated and deployed to help manage a crisis. In response to an incident, our teams would deploy under the authority and operational control of DHS.

Mr. Chairman, I believe, the president's proposal will ensure greater security for all Americans. Our ability to identify, deter and, if necessary, respond to threats to our security will be enhanced. Our homeland security missions will be executed more quickly and more efficiently and the Department of Energy will stand ready to assist, as it does today, in any way that we can.

Thank you very much.

ARMEY: Thank you, Secretary Abraham.

Director James, I am sure the entire committee would join me in saying it is a pleasure to hear from you today on the day of your first anniversary in this job. We do appreciate your work and we look forward to your statement.

JAMES: And, thanks for the party. Mr. Chairman, and Congresswoman Pelosi, and other distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. And, thank you, also, for the opportunity to have worked with you and your staffs in the last few days on behalf of the American people.

You have before you, the weighty task of creating the legislation that will create a new cabinet-level department to protect our country and our people and keep us safe at home. We all know that the stakes are high. We saw the enemy for what they are on September 11, ruthless murderers who relish, rather than regret the death of innocence and who have made the institutions and people of our country the target for their hatred.

It's against this backdrop that the president has asked Congress to create a Department of Homeland Security in our government and will be properly organized and prepared against this new kind of enemy and the changing threats posed to our people.

The department is a key component of the national strategy for homeland security that the president unveiled today, the first ever strategy for mobilizing the nation's resources at every level to protect America from terrorist attack. Now is not the time for timid reforms and halfway measures. We are at war.

The enemy has already shown his boldness in pursuing every possible avenue of attack. And, we must be equally bold in pursuing every possible defense. My administration colleagues have addressed the issue of what agencies and responsibilities properly belong in the new department. My role is to focus on the people who are counting on -- who we're counting on to protect and secure our homeland, our patriot public servants.

The Department of Homeland Security will bring together more than 170,000 federal employees from agencies that not only have their own distinct culture, they operate under seven different payroll systems and 22 personnel systems. Our responsibility to these dedicated public servants is to give them an organization that is as focused and committed to protecting our homeland as they are.

The Department of Homeland Security must be world class with the best possible equipment and the best possible personnel system, not a patchwork of antiquated systems and inflexible outmoded practices. The bill that the president sent to Congress creates a broad framework to allow the new department to retain the best aspects of the government's existing personnel system and to build on them. Our objective is to ensure a smooth transition of people and functions to the new agency at the outset and ultimately put in place a 21st century personnel system that meets 21st century needs.

OPM will work with the new department leadership to ensure that employees are not needlessly distracted by concerns about their pay and benefits, that these public servants are able to concentrate solely on the department's critical mission. Federal workers transferring to the department will come with their current pay and benefits.

The president's legislation allows the Secretary of Homeland Security, working in conjunction with the Director of OPM, to develop a new agile personnel system. The new department is being given great flexible, but not carte blanche. The Department of Homeland Security will be subject to the principles of merit and fitness. These are operating principles that will serve as the foundation for employment in the department.

Employees can expect to be treated with respect and compensated appropriately. Whistle-blowers will be protected when they disclose waste, fraud and abuse. The veterans' preference law, the long- standing cornerstone of the civil service and veterans will still receive employment preference in the Department of Homeland Security.

In addition, department employees will continue to be covered by generally applicable employment laws such as the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Labor of Standards Act, the Social Security Act, government ethic standards and Hatch Act restrictions on political activities.

What tools might this flexible, hypothetically provide to support a culture of urgency to this new department? The ability to bring in new talent quickly to fill vacancies in critical positions, the ability to shift gears and assignments rapidly as new threats or new enemies emerge or when science and technology open up new opportunities to protect the American homeland, the ability to reassign those who cannot adapt to the culture of urgency for whom homeland security is not the right environment. And, for these individuals, given the current needs of the federal government, other options will exist so long as they are not poor performers.

With a mission this critical we cannot afford a personnel system that rewards mediocrity and demoralizes high performers. I understand that change creates uncertainty and overcoming it can be no small challenge and our focus in the midst of this environment is protecting America.

Our commitment is that we will bring everybody to the table and that includes employee unions and other stakeholders. We will ensure the development of this system will be fair and balanced and objective.

The President of the United States himself affirmed that when the department is established employees represented by unions will continue to be represented. Their bargaining units will move with them. And, let me be as clear as I possibly can be on this issue, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security is not an effort at union busting. There are no hidden agendas here. The flexibility the president envisions for the new department is aimed at one result and one result only, ensuring the security of our homeland. we must get our priorities right.

More than 3,000 people were killed in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and in the plane that crashed into the woods in Pennsylvania on September 11. and, as you move forward with your deliberations you will be asked to consider many competing interests and I respectfully request that we keep foremost in our thoughts those victims and the lives of potential victims that may be saved by the actions that we take here.

And, once again, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these matters with you and look forward to working with you to answer any questions that you may have.

ARMEY: Thank you, Director James.

The chair will now proceed under the five-minute rule and we can direct our questions to any member of the panel.

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Delay.

DELAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the panel. I appreciate your testimony. Since I have five minutes I've got a lot to talk about and I want to quickly go to it.

Mr. Mineta, it's great to see you here and I might say that I served on the old Public Works and Transportation Committee and have had a long relationship with you at that time, and now I serve on the Transportation Subcommittee of Appropriations. So, I've dealt with these -- the Coast Guard issue and the issue of the Transportation Security Administration too. I have long, and I don't know what your position is, but I have long understood that in any organization it's vitally important to put an organization that allows people to do the best job that they can and in that organization the mission statement or the goal or whatever you want to call it of that particular agency, department or office is pretty much lays out how people perceive the mission or the authority or the responsibility of that agency. I have always worried about the Coast Guard being in the Department of Transportation. Every time we try to appropriate money for the Coast Guard people considered it a transportation agency instead of a law enforcement/military group.

The number one priority to me for the Coast Guard is to protect and defend the borders of this big United States; all other issues are important, but not as important as that main mission of the Coast Guard, the same with the TSA. The TSA was put under the Department of Transportation for whatever reason and I had concerns about the Airport Security Act, as you know. But, it was put there, but it's not a transportation agency, it's a security agency. It's a security office. It is charged with providing for security of passengers that happen to be going on an airplane. Could you speak to -- your testimony sort of alluded to that, but could you speak to the importance of bringing these two agencies under the homeland security and finally focusing on their prime responsibility and that's protecting and defending, not only the citizens of the United States, but protecting them through protecting our borders.

MINETA: Well, first of all, the mission of the Coast Guard fits very closely to the new mission that is being charged to the Department of Homeland Security in terms of the maritime or border protection, in terms of the maritime issues regarding port security. and, so there are numbers of missions and goals of the Coast Guard that fit very closely and well with the mission and the goals of the Department of Homeland Security. and, I think when you look at the history of the Coast Guard it has always served the nation well regardless of what department it's been in. it's been in the Department of Treasury. It's been in the Department of Navy. And, since the formation of the Department of Transportation, it's been there.

But, it is also a part of the National Defense Authorization Act. So, it is equally treated as with the Navy, the Army, the Air Force, the Commandant of the Coast Guard is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So, the Coast Guard is both a -- has a military mission, as well as a law enforcement mission in terms of interdiction of drugs on the high seas, interdicting illegal immigration and other kinds of protecting in that sense, the border.

So, I think that this, the mission and the values and the goals that are attached to the Department of Homeland Security fit well with the missions, values and the goals of the United States Coast Guard.

And, then with the Transportation Security Administration, again, they are a security body. Yes, they have elements of law enforcement involved in them, but, again, they are basically a security administration and so to that extent, since the primary responsibility of this new department is going to be homeland security, I think again this ought to be moved into the new department and fit with the missions and goals and values of the new department.

ARMEY: Thank you.

The chair recognizes Ms. Pelosi.

PELOSI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

ARMEY: The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

FROST: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions for Director James if I may.

Director James, under the existing Labor Management and Employee Relations Act, which was amended by Congress in the late 1970's, the president is the one who has the authority by executive order to waive that act. Under the legislation that is before us that has been submitted, that authority is given to you as the Director of OPM and the new secretary of this agency rather than having it exercised by the president by executive order. Why should this authority be given to the new secretary and to you when this does not apply to any other agency currently or other departments?

JAMES: Well, I think that there's a unique mission that this particular agency has and there's the opportunity to use it in a -- use that particular authority in a very surgical way. I think that the intent is to make sure that employees who are represented by unions maintain the opportunity to do that. But, where it's necessary in the interest of national security to carve out for a particular reason, particular work groups or it is very imperative that I think that the secretary has the ability, in conjunction with OPM, going through a regulatory process where it would be open and for the public and not done in any way that would not be transparent in the interest of national security to have the ability to do that.

FROST: Well, if I may follow on that, as you know, there was an amendment adopted in in committee last week authored by Congresswoman Morella from Maryland. That amendment narrowed the ability of the president to issue an executive order precluding the rights that are protected under the Civil Service Act. Of course, it didn't even address -- it assumed, that amendment assumed that you and...

JAMES: Right.

FROST: ... the new secretary would not have the authority, that only the president would have that authority. And, I have that amendment in front of me. And, it said it should be limited to those instances in which the mission and responsibilities of such unit, bargaining unit, materially change and that a majority of the employees within such unit have as their primary duty intelligence, counter-intelligence or investigative work directly related to terrorism investigations.

So, there are two elements here, one that a majority of the employees would be directly related to the fight on terrorism and second that the mission and responsibilities of that particular function within the new department will have materially changed. Now, I would ask you what's wrong with the Morella amendment? That seems to be a very reasonable proposition that a majority of the employees should be directly involved in fighting terrorism and that the mission should have changed rather than just being a continuation of the existing mission.

JAMES: Sure.

FROST: What is wrong with the amendment that was adopted by the committee?

JAMES: Several things. First, I believe that there's one component of the amendment, which we can all agree on. And, that is that when employees move into this agency they move there in their current bargaining units and with the full protection that they have. I think that it diminishes the president's authority to protect the American people, however, by diminishing his ability to determine and use in a very sparing way the authority that every other president has had to determine that for national security interests some of those particular bargaining units may be, perhaps, better served by not falling under those particular protections.

There's been specific examples throughout the history of our country where every president, be they Republican or Democrat, has used that authority and this particular amendment, the Morella amendment, really diminishes the ability of the President of the United States to use the authority that has been granted to him to protect the American people.

FROST: Even if their mission and responsibilities have not materially changed?

JAMES: Well, you know, I think even if their mission and responsibilities have not materially changed then, perhaps, the environment in which they operate has. We are in a new war in a new day and I think that the determination should be left to the president in conjunction with the secretary to make those kinds of determinations.

FROST: Of course, the legislation specifically delegates this to the secretary and doesn't even have the president involved.

JAMES: Well, right now we're talking about the Morella amendment, which goes far more sleeping and truly diminishes the authority of not just this president, but of the presidency.

ARMEY: The gentleman's time...

FROST: Thank you.

ARMEY: ... has expired.

Mr. Watts?

WATTS: Mr. Chairman, I want to direct my question to -- first I'd like for Secretary Thompson and then Secretary Mineta to answer and then if we still have time in the five-minute segment, we'll go to Secretary Veneman and Mr. Abraham. But, we all know that homeland security, when we talk about homeland security you're really talking about state and local defenses, state and local security.

So, with that in mind, can you detail for the Select Committee how the entities to be transferred from your department or agency according to the president's proposal will work with state and local officials and agencies to better secure the homeland?

THOMPSON: Congressman Watts, first off, as far as the Department of Health and Human Services, Congress gave the Department of Health and Human Services $1.1 billion effective January 10 of this year. We had to set up a procedure in which we could get that money to each state. And, we asked the states to come up with a comprehensive plan. They had until April 15 to do so. They came in with their plans. We critiqued those plans through CDC and through HRSA and through the department, came up with a program.

We sent them out templates and how to do their job better, as far as securing the local responders, the emergency wards in the hospitals, the communications from CDC, through the state health departments, the local health departments, putting epidemiology in there, securing the laboratories, improving the laboratories and we got all that money sent out by June 1 of this year.

And, now the states are incorporating that plan. What's going to take place on the new procedure is is that it's going to be in consolidation with the homeland security. The money flows to the Department of Homeland Security but the Department of Health and Human Services actually got to do the work in consolidation with the new Secretary of Homeland Security and then they will contract back with the Department of Health and Human Services to continue this program. And, this, of course, is to secure, on a regional basis, a better protection for all the people as it relates to public health and also to protect the citizens against any bioterrorism agent or any chemicals whatsoever.

WATTS: Secretary Mineta?

MINETA: In terms of the mission of the Coast Guard and moving it over, the president's direction is that, in the legislation, is that there only two that would be kept in tact, Secret Service and Coast Guard in terms of moving to the Department of Homeland safety.

And, I know that there have been -- we had a lot of discussion in the domestic or the homeland security council for a long time as to whether or not there's a clear care line about splitting the Coast Guard into its functions. And, there really is not. When you think about search and rescue or fisheries enforcement, drug interdiction, immigration interdictions, those assets are interchangeable and really -- and that's the Coast Guard ought to be kept as a distinct unit. And, that's why that is -- what we have recommended and why we support this legislation in its form.

WATTS: Secretary Veneman?

VENEMAN: We at USDA have a very strong relationship with our state partners, particularly through state departments of agriculture, also through universities in cooperating in many of the things that we do. As we look at the issues of homeland security, both on the prevention and preparedness parts of homeland security, our relationship with the states is very important and we've been strengthening those relationships as I talked about in my testimony through the period of time we were under the threat of foot and mouth disease, and also since September 11 when we're looking at threat of intentional terrorism as well.

Under the House Ag Committee's proposal, the Ag quarantine inspectors that are at our ports of entry would transfer to the Department of Homeland Security. There are some partnerships that we have with the states that enhance that inspection. And we would anticipate that through contracting authorities we would continue to have those partnerships, both with APHIS and with the Department of Homeland Security.

So, I would anticipate we're going to continue to have a very strong relationship, both on the preparedness side and the prevention side, both within the Department of Agriculture and through the Department of Homeland Security.

WATTS: Thank you.

ARMEY: Thank you.

The gentleman from New Jersey?

MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the secretaries and the Director for their testimony.

This is H.R. 5005, the president's proposal, can any one of the cabinet secretaries point to me the language that ensures that non- security missions of departments transferred in here are preserved? Can you point to me the language in the president's bill that will ensure that non-security missions of departments transferred from your respective departments, of agencies in your respective departments transferred into the new Department of Homeland Security that those non-security missions are preserved?

MINETA: Well, I'm convinced that in terms of Coast Guard being moved in tact over to DHS that there are a number of non-security functions of the Coast Guard and that they will remain in tact.

MENENDEZ: And, Mr. Secretary, could you tell me what the language here that gives us that guarantee?

MINETA: Well, in the case of Coast Guard, I believe it's Title 14 that moves to this new law. So, I assume that as Title 14 is moved under with H.R. 5005 that that would be the...

MENENDEZ: But, that will transfer the missions of what exists as the Coast Guard, but my point is that there is no guarantee in the legislation for, for example, in Secretary Thompson's the National Institute of Health and other similar agencies that all of those non- security missions that they so importantly carry there's no preservation of that. In the Coast Guard, there is no preservation. As a matter of fact, before the Transportation Committee the Commandant said that about 80 to 85 percent of the Coast Guard's functions are not security related. You described, Mr. Secretary, as about 60 percent.

So, anywhere between 60 and 85 percent of the Coast Guard's missions and budget are not security related. How do we guarantee that when departments are being transferred like the Coast Guard in its entirety that non-security missions are guaranteed, which are equally important to the American people? I don't see any language...

MINETA: I think...

MENENDEZ: ... that says that.

MINETA: I think that's in Title 1. It doesn't lay out all of the specific functions. It doesn't list them out. But, I believe in Title 1 the president's legislation does obligate the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to perform all of the duties of the agencies that are being transferred...

MENENDEZ: Those are very broad functions given to the secretary of the department for the purposes of operating that department. The question is, and I think that, you know, my question obviously doesn't have the answer because it does not in the legislation and that's my point here.

We want to preserve non-security missions, such as the Coast Guard, which the Commandant said 85 percent is non-security. You've described it in your own testimony, as 60 percent is non-security. How do we ensure and -- that those non-security missions are preserved in a department whose focus is homeland security?

So, I would ask the secretaries and all of you have agencies that are being transferred that have multiple missions and we want to preserve those other missions. We want to make sure we're continuing to pursue Alzheimer and cancer and AIDS and all those other entities that are research and development being done.

Would you believe that language that would guarantee that the budgets of departments transferred to the new Homeland Security Department for whose missions are not security related that they be established with this fiscal year as a baseline and that prohibitions would be made against transferring money out of those non-security missions for security purposes? Because, unless we do that, the answer to my question is there are no guarantees.

If we say that 60 percent of the Coast Guard's missions are non- security and somehow we don't ensure the budget for that non-security mission, then you can have Coast Guard's operational capacity go primarily for security and leave search and rescuer and leave navigational issues and others potentially abandoned. As a matter of fact, isn't it true, Mr. Secretary, that the Coast Guard has already decreased operations up to 25 percent because of funding shortfalls, and that's before we get into its new focus function?

MINETA: Well, first of all, there's no question before September 11 security was probably, I don't know, 5 percent, after September 11, security went up to probably 35 percent. We did very little in terms of drug interdiction, very little in terms of immigration interdiction, fisheries enforcement. But, again, that seems to -- it seems to me that's also from a former members perspective is the responsibility of the committees in terms of the oversight they're doing, in terms of the appropriation committees of allocating the financial resources.

MINETA: So, I think, like a lot of legislation, it is within the four corners of the legislation there is a lot of delegated authority to the Executive Branch and then the exercise of those powers by the department I think -- and in accordance to some of the things that are in this legislation or in this legislation in the practice, practices that Ms. James talked about.

But, the important part is that there is that kind of language to preserve the functions from the various departments, of various agencies that go to the new department, but I also think that there's a responsibility on the part of the congressional committees to do their oversight to make sure that the functions and the missions of the agencies that are transferred over are kept -- especially those that are moved over in tact and are, under this legislation, as I recall, it's only the Secret Service and the U.S. Coast Guard that are moved over in their entirety and to be kept as distinct entities in this legislation.

ARMEY: The gentleman's time.

The gentlelady from Ohio?

PRYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary Thompson, would you talk to us a little bit about hospitals? I think that hospitals are just like first responders; they're on the frontlines. They will bear a huge brunt of whatever this nation suffers if we have any kind of bioterrorist attack. And, it would just seem to me off the top that they're woefully unprepared for anything like that currently.

What is happening now? What are you encouraging and what changes will we see as this new law is implemented in how our local hospitals are going to be prepared?

THOMPSON: Congresswoman Pryce, first off, this Congress in their wisdom appropriated $135 million last year and it was signed into law on January 10 by the president in order to have the hospitals develop a comprehensive plan as to how they would educate, how they would communicate with first responders, how they would handle a surge capacity, how they would handle problems if, in fact, there was an epidemic such as the smallpox.

We sent out that money through HRSA in June 1 this year after the hospitals and the state health departments developed a comprehensive plan. We've also got the hospitals and the local health departments hooked up through our health alert network, which administered by CDC and this was part of that $1.1 billion of which the hospitals got $135 million.

Now, in their upcoming budget for fiscal year 2003, there's an additional $518 million for hospitals to implement those plans that were being planned this year.

And, so that's an additional $518 million to do several things, to strengthen the emergency wards, to have coordination between the first responders and the police and fire departments in the community, to have a regional capacity this year to have a surge capacity of 500 beds to be upgraded to 1,000 beds next year, to have a place where, if there was a smallpox epidemic that would need 1,000's of beds that they would have some place in a large city or a large area that people could communicate.

And, we're strengthening the laboratory capacity. We're strengthening the communication and all of that. Now, that is going to be -- the money is going to be transferring over to the new Department of Homeland Security.

But, it's going to approximately $1.8 billion. But, they are going to contract back to do the work, which we're doing very effectively in the Department of Health and Human Services but it'll be in consultation with the new Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in order to strengthen the hospitals, the strengthen our comprehensive plan that we've already set in motion and I'm very proud of what we've been able to accomplish today and I thank your question was further alluded to that you didn't think we're prepared.

I want to be able to report that I think we've very prepared and we're getting stronger every single day and the department has done an excellent job of getting this country prepared for any bioterrorism, any chemical agents whatsoever.

PRYCE: Well, that's...

THOMPSON: We've got a long ways to go, but we have it.

PRYCE: How about the bricks and mortar? Are we going to need some...

THOMPSON: Bricks and mortar is not part of this. We're putting the money -- some of the money goes into bricks mortar, especially for laboratories because what we need if, in fact, there's a strange pathogen that comes in, if somebody's sick and comes into the emergency ward and is sick we don't immediately know that pathogen, that part of that tissue has to be sent into a state laboratory immediately.

We're expanding our state laboratories. We're strengthening the security and then if, in fact, there's a strange diseased caused by a chemical or biological pathogen, there in direct communication through the Health Alert Network and the laboratory network to the CDC.

We have airplanes on standby that we're leasing that we will send doctors immediately to that hospital to work in consultation with the local doctors, the local health departments to determine what is wrong, find out what it is, decide what a cure is, and then, of course, we will then have all of the push packages which are distributed at 12 different locations around America, to send in medical supplies, any antidotes, any antibiotics or whatever is needed. And, we have to be able to move those within seven hours and we've been able to do that.

PRYCE: Thank you. That's a very complete answer and it's a very encouraging one.

THOMPSON: Thanks.

PRYCE: Very quickly, because I think our time is running out -- my time is running out, Secretary Mineta, as you know the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee adopted an amendment to the administration's proposal that sets floors or minimum percentages on the spending for the Coast Guard's homeland security missions. Do you believe those floors are necessary? Do you think that they are important? How do you feel about them?

MINETA: First of all, they did put in their amendments to H.R. 5005, 12 percent for search and rescue and 13 percent for drug interdiction and these are all minimum amounts.

But, I believe very, very strongly that these floors are really inappropriate because it really restricts the president's flexibility, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard in terms of being able to view with surges in terms of any kind of activity that may be going on. So, even if that kind of legislation or that kind of amendment were put on any bill, I think that would effect any department. We would find that to be inappropriate.

PRYCE: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ARMEY: The gentlelady from Connecticut?

DELAURO: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to welcome the secretaries and thank you for your testimony and thank you for your continued efforts and good public service. You do an incredible...

(AUDIO GAP - TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES)

DELAURO: ... and quickly die from anthrax. Fortunately, local responders, hospitals, state departments of health, labs at our academic centers, which I visited, with whom CDC now works very, very closely, these are well-trained people.

They use the skills that they have honed from years of investigating naturally occurring outbreaks, such as West Nile Virus, to investigate the incident. Wouldn't this plan that's being suggested separate public health activities related to bioterrorism from those related to naturally occurring events and wouldn't that, in effect, threaten our ability to respond.

In both cases we used the same labs, investigators, the scientific methods to investigate. Separating responsibilities seems counter productive and how do you avoid a duplication without harming our public health system? Who is then responsible for investigating an outbreak when the source is unknown, meningitis, West Nile Virus, I'm just -- I've got a couple of other questions, but let me just address those to you right now.

THOMPSON: First off, I have to agree with you, I think the departments done a hell of a good job. Far be it for me to say we haven't, we have. And, under some very trying situations and we continue to do so. But, that doesn't mean that it cannot be strengthened and improved in the future.

And, with the homeland security, Tom Ridge, Governor Ridge and I work very closely in cooperation in developing the budget for bioterrorism and was very much involved in developing that budget, going up to $4.3 billion in fiscal year 2003. The basic system is going to stay in place, but the dollars are going to be over and the homeland security in regards to helping make sure that we take care of the security.

But, as far as the public health concerns are determining Ebola, West Nile Virus, whatever the case may be, that's still a public health issue and that will be administered and surveyed and researched by the Department of Health and Human Services through CDC and through National Institutes of Health. And, so, there's going to be a collaborative area between homeland security and health and human services.

I do not believe it's going to be repetitive or duplicative. I think it's going to strengthen homeland security and will not, in any way, harm our public health initiatives.

DELAURO: Follow-up question, what is the (inaudible) going to be on research?

THOMPSON: Pardon?

DELAURO: If we've got large amounts of money then that are going to be moved and priority setting, it's money and priority setting authority is going to be transferred to another agency.

THOMPSON: That's right.

DELAURO: How are -- or shared with several agencies for that matter, if you're going to take that authority away. If you're going to take the funding away then how do you then deal with the research that we are doing, which is ongoing, which is equally vital in terms of efforts. So, how is this going to be?

THOMPSON: It's going to be approximately $4.7 billion transferred over to homeland security with the written language that it will have to contract back to CDC and contract NIH in consultation with the two secretaries in developing a plan for homeland security. And, that is dealing with bioterrorism, it's dealing with the agents, it's dealing with chemical and so on. And, so that's where the difference is. It's more of a consultation, but the money actually flows through the homeland security, but the work still is being done by the Department of Health and Human Services.

DELAURO: And, tell me then how are we going to integrate to work and the research that's already underway at the NIH with the new department?

THOMPSON: Well, the work at NIH, you know, the vast majority of it...

DELAURO: They're working on bioterrorism and...

THOMPSON: We're working very hard with bioterrorism. The NIH budget dealing with bioterrorism is $1.8 billion. That leaves approximately $25 billion for all the other institutes. It's only that $1.8 billion that's going to be transferred from NIH to the homeland security with the understanding and with the written affirmation that that will be contracted back to NIH for the continuation of the research in consultation, as I mentioned, with the two secretaries.

DELAURO: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

ARMEY: The gentleman from Ohio?

PORTMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And, I want to thank the secretaries and the director for their thoughtful testimony today and for what they're doing every day and their people are doing to protect all of us from the terrorist threat. I thought the testimony was very compelling in terms of the need to consolidate functions.

And Secretary Mineta, perhaps you could follow-up a little bit on the Coast Guard issue. You talked in your testimony about the seamless nature of the work of the Coast Guard. Could I ask you to approach it from a little different perspective, not so much the benefits of consolidation, but what if we don't? What if the Coast Guard were not made part of this new agency and what if TSA, Transportation Security Administration, were not made part of this new agency. How would that affect the security of our homeland?

MINETA: Well, first of all, it seems to me that the critical mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to provide for the security of the American people. And, if you have two major elements of that homeland security not part of that department, the United States Coast Guard and Transportation Security Administration, then it seems to me that the DHS will be likely to fulfill whether it's airport security or the port security or the -- what we call the maritime domain awareness within the United States Coast Guard those are all elements that would stand and do fit in very nicely with the mission of the Department of Homeland Security.

PORTMAN: I thought Mr. Menendez made a good point that we need to be sure that the existing responsibilities that are not security functions continue to be maintained, but we also need to be sure that we're getting the benefits of consolidation, including the synergies be involved and having all these organizations working together and, of course, the efficiencies in terms of our government being better able to protect our shores. There are lots of questions I have for the other secretaries, I wish I had more time, maybe we'll have a second round.

But, Ms. James, if I could ask you a couple of questions. You've had a great background, both academia and private sector, federal, state and local government and we appreciate what you bring to the table today. I want to get back to the flexibility issue and there's been discussion of this agency needing to be lean and mean and I couldn't agree more.

PORTMAN: I think one way you ensure that is by having the right functions there, but having some flexibility to be able to direct those functions properly. We went through this with the Internal Revenue Service back in 1998. We came up with significant flexibilities, actually more than you're asking for in certain respects. And I can tell you the commissioner is using every one of those flexibilities and as a result we're getting a little better service, believe it or not, at that agency. And, I'm very encouraging of us moving forward with as much flexibility as we can. But, we don't want to do anything to hurt people's civil rights or people's rights under civil service or do things like change the whistleblower protections or do anything else that would affect the merit system, which you talked about.

On whistleblowers, just a quick yes or no, do you provide whistleblower protections in this proposal?

JAMES: Yes, we would.

PORTMAN: And, you would support that fully?

JAMES: Absolutely.

PORTMAN: With full protections? With regard to the issue which was raised earlier about the president's authority to designate and agency as a national security agency, I have a question with this, I don't quite understand maybe where we've come out on this. But, Mr. Frost mentioned the Morella amendment. As I read the Morella amendment and that approach it would say in essence that this agency, unlike other law enforcement agencies or security agencies, would not be in a position to designate certain employees as national security employees for purposes of collective bargaining and so on. But, rather the president would have his inherent right to commend really with a rather blunt instrument and say the department itself, because of national security concerns, would be subject to this general waiver. Wouldn't it make more sense for the employees themselves who might not be part of exemption, in other words, might be in a collective bargaining unit for instance, that the president did not determine it was necessary to determine with national -- was subject to a national security waiver, wouldn't it make more sense for them not to have just the blunt instrument of saying everyone needs to be included in this, but rather be able to pick and choose.

And, I would think also in terms of flexibility some employees one month; certainly one year to the next might be in that category and then might not be in that category. I've heard you talk about cross training. We've heard that from the Director yesterday or the Assistant to the president, Governor Ridge, could you respond to that and talk about how, perhaps, the president, by having more flexibility gives workers, in a sense, more flexibility as well and more rights?

JAMES: Yes, I would. And, I think one of the more eloquent statements that I heard this morning is that homeland security does not mean workplace insecurity for the federal worker. It cannot and it will not and that certainly is not the intention of this legislation. I think that we are involved in a very delicate balancing act.

Earlier in my testimony I talked about the fact that we're operating in a backdrop of a nation at war. As a result of that, it is imperative that the president and the new secretary have at their disposal, the tools in which to balance national security and the rights of federal workers.

I think that by giving the opportunity for the president to not with a blunt instrument, but very surgically look at, in a changing environment, and in an answer to the question what's different, the environment changes day by day, the threat today may be biological, tomorrow it may be something else. And, as a result of that, I think that we need to have the flexibility available to say that the president can use that authority. The American people trust the president to use that authority wisely. He has not misused it, nor has any president. But, I think it makes more sense to do it in a way that gives more flexibility, allows more people the opportunity who are currently be served by and in unions to stay that way. There is no intent to use this authority to deny people the opportunity for collective bargaining or to be in units, bargaining units. But, there is an opportunity to say that that must be and has to be balanced against changing threats to our country, and the environment in which, you know -- it's not that an individual union member may become a national risk. That's not what this is about. But, with, you know, the bargaining unit if the secretary has to say we're going to move this unit, we're going to change some authorities, we're going to respond to a threat by changing a mission, then it's imperative that they have the opportunity to do that.

In the interest of the American people, balancing the individual member's rights against national security. And, I think that the way it is currently -- the way it was worded, the way the law currently states, gives that flexibility to the president, but does not and has not historically, in any way, diminished the opportunity for a federal worker to be involved in a union.

PORTMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ARMEY: The gentlelady from California, Ms. Pelosi.

PELOSI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to join you in welcoming our distinguished panel here today. I want to take special pride in our two Californians, Ann Veneman, Secretary Veneman, who I knew when she was a student, I was not, she was. And, we're so proud of her. She comes from a very distinguished Republican family in California. We're proud of her work here. And, Secretary Mineta, of course, I knew he was mayor of San Jose over 30 years ago. So, could you hear all the wonderful things I was saying (inaudible)? Thank you. Welcome, and we want to welcome the other members of the panel as well. They're used to hearing the testimony -- the excellent testimony of Secretary Thompson and welcome him here as well.

I have a very serious concern about this new department. Certainly, we should have a Department of Homeland Defense. Certainly, we should have a very strengthened Office of Homeland Security in the White House and I would hope that we can move to make that statutory rather than just by executive order because I think that is in the interest of how to best protect the American people, which is the president's standard. How do we best protect the American people and that is the right standard? I'm afraid, as I've said, in my opening comments the other day that this proposal is old fashioned and that it is very bureaucratic and that actually there are only about 125 municipalities in our country that have a population higher than the number of people who will work in this department. I could read off a list here of those who are smaller. You would be very surprised at how many great, proud cities in our country have fewer people living in them then will be overseen by this secretary.

I'm concerned about certain aspects of it being bloated. I'm concerned, Mr. Secretary Thompson, about the $1.8 billion, that's a lot of money even by Washington standards, now under the discretion of this new department's secretary. I'll take the money any day when it comes to who has the discretion over how it is spent. I think it's bureaucratic to go back and forth with who has the money, who decides, the priorities, the biomedical research, we have always said that should be with the scientists.

I think it's bureaucratic to talk about the -- some of the other aspects in other departments as well too numerous to mention here, one in the secretary of -- in the Department of Energy, Mr. Secretary, that I have a concern about, is a new undersecretary concept in terms of -- as opposed to a Centers of Excellence which have been recommended by the Armed Services Committee, have you established criteria as to whether such a Center of Excellence might be possible and, of course, we view it as less bureaucratic. Would you have suggestions would Lawrence Livermore Lab be one that might be considered for that?

ABRAHAM: Well, our view at this point is, and we're trying to work this is a way that maximizes the talents of people throughout the complex. When we first started looking at how to best pull together a technology and science support effort for the Department of Homeland Security we thought, perhaps, one lab should take the lead and be in charge. And, then we realized that we had people throughout, not all the labs necessarily, but many of the labs who were already working on very important research and expertise that should be involved. And, so that's who we sort of moved into the -- as you described the Centers of Excellence concept. And, we're still trying to decide what the best approach is to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security to tap all of those.

Now, whether it makes sense to have a -- maybe a managing office at one of the facilities who then oversees or pulls together the work that would be done, or somehow interrelates with the others or not is something we're still actually trying to assess because we've discovered as we look across the complex there are a lot of people with -- who are working on these kinds of projects in labs across the country. But, it certainly the direction that we're moving towards as trying to figure out to...

PELOSI: Well, I hope we'll make every decision in favor of less bureaucracy and more excellence. I wanted to put another concern on the record, Mr. Chairman, and I want to address this to all of the secretaries and the director. Do you agree that the new legislation should not alter or diminish the regulatory authority of your executive agency or establish regulatory authority at the Department of Homeland Security except to the extent that the functions of another agency that includes such authority are specifically transferred by the secretary?

I'm particularly concerned about the nuclear regulatory commission, Mr. Secretary, that the existing authority should continue to be exercised -- those authorities to assess vulnerabilities and critical infrastructures and take necessary actions. Of course, the new department would have access to this vulnerability assessment as is appropriate. So, I put that out there to you.

ABRAHAM: I appreciate the point. I mean I would count it that we don't, that is the Department of Energy, doesn't oversee the nuclear regulatory commission. It's an independent commission.

PELOSI: Right, but everything is in flux at this point.

ABRAHAM: Right. I just mean in terms of areas of my current oversight that is not one of them and so, I don't want to try to speak for an independent commission. I would just say when I mentioned energy security or energy infrastructure there are variety areas that are within the current responsibility of our department and those are the ones we talked of as being ones that would be, in part at least, under the homeland security oversight under this proposal.

PELOSI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ARMEY: The gentlelady's time is...

PELOSI: I'll wait for the next round.

ARMEY: The chair now recognizes himself for five minutes.

Secretary Veneman, as I understand it, our House Agriculture Committee and your agency got together, worked out what you felt was a workable compromise that appears as an amendment to the president's plan, recommended or passed by the Agriculture Committee. Is it also correct that this work was cleared with the White House and they, too, find this acceptable?

VENEMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I believe that Mr. Ridge yesterday testified that the administration does support this amendment by the House Ag Committee.

ARMEY: So, we could expect, then, that this committee could probably recognize that good work, that discussion between the administration and the House and probably be content to accept that?

VENEMAN: Yes.

ARMEY: Thank you.

Secretary Thompson, I want to really get down in the weeds with you now. As I work through the president's proposal, one of the things that just baffles me is this what I find curious relationship between your agency and the Department of Homeland Security with respect to grant making. I wonder if you understand this any better than I do.

But it appears from my reading that your agency would transfer the funds for grant making to Department of Homeland Security, they would make decisions, and then they would transfer the funds back to you and you would make the grants. Am I correct in my understanding of that?

THOMPSON: You're correct.

ARMEY: I assume this is -- I kind of grew up in a little old rural town in North Dakota where we had this theory that every time money passed through a government agency you lost 10 percent of it. I am just a little bit worried about this money moving back. Isn't it possible we could streamline this procedure somewhat by working out some kind of a cooperative working relationship between the two agencies?

THOMPSON: I think we could, Mr. Chairman.

ARMEY: It just strikes me that that's a fairly clumsy procedure, and I think this committee might want to look at if we can streamline that a little bit. Thank you. I appreciate the affirmation. I was a little bit wondering if I was going a little dipsy reading that, but I do feel better. I know you're not -- dipsy that is.

THOMPSON: Thank you very much, and I know you're not either.

ARMEY: I'm trying to find a way to compliment whenever I can. Mr. Secretary Mineta, my vision of the Coast Guard is this is a multi- tasking agency that has personnel and assets that are designed and trained to sort of pick up the ball wherever it falls. My guess would be that when the Coast Guard sees a storm like that which hit our east coast, I think it was in '91 or '92, that which is known as the Perfect Storm, they probably dropped a lot of other things and said, "Hey, everybody, come on over here and get on this job."

They probably dropped a little bit of their interest in drug interdiction, perhaps even buoy maintenance, perhaps in the Gulf Coast or other assets. And from what I understand of the Coast Guard's record of performance during that fairly awful time, they were able to move with the agility and the quickness to be of great service and save a great many lives.

Now, what strikes me in this funding formula that the committee suggested, that we could have a great storm and all of a sudden the agency in their effort to move resources to meet that might say, "Oh, Lord have mercy, we've run up against our 12 percent limit, and we cannot" -- I think this would be the loss of flexibility that such a rigid funding formula might incur. And I just wondered if you might want to comment or if you have any examples of what it is I am searching for here?

MINETA: Absolutely. That would be the case, Mr. Chairman. When you add up the total that's in the T&I markup, it adds up to 53 percent in terms of the designated amounts in that legislation. So ostensibly that means that 47 percent would be for homeland security purposes.

But the problem is that when you have a cutter that's doing fisheries enforcement and then they have to be dispatched to a search and rescue mode, again, if you're, as you say, up against the percentage and you can't shift the assets or in terms of the financial resources, then it seems to me everybody loses in terms of the multi- mission capability of the Coast Guard. And I think one of the things that the Coast Guard is always able to do is to be able to respond to surge activities.

ARMEY: So it would be possible that our Coast Guard cutter captain might hesitate in responding to an SOS for fear that he would offend both an appropriating and an authorizing German.

MINETA: And a helicopter may have to stay on the ground before going to search and rescue.

ARMEY: Very foreboding circumstances for that captain to face. And I thank you.

I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Frost.

FROST: I have a couple questions for Secretary Mineta, and one of those is a follow-on on Mr. Menendez' question. And this relates and, again, also deals with what Mr. Armey was just asking. And this regards the non-security functions of the agencies and the department, Coast Guard or other. We've had an indication from the Congressional Budget Office that setting up this agency is going to cost an additional $3 billion over and above the current costs of operating these programs.

The concern of a lot of us is that when the administration starts looking for ways to satisfy that $3 billion, that they'll take that money out of the non-security functions of these programs, because the secretary of the Treasury has said this is going to budget-neutral, there's not going to be a $3 billion. We're going to have savings. And our concern are that those savings would be out of the very important non-security functions of the Coast Guard and other agencies. And what is to prevent the new secretary from shifting money out of the non-security functions, very valid non-security functions of these programs so that there won't be a $3 billion of transition costs?

MINETA: Well, first of all, I think since the CBO report just came out, OMB hasn't had a chance to really get into the report itself. But I think that when you consolidate a number of agencies under the Department of Homeland Security or you consolidate any -- let's say any department consolidates offices within its own department, there are savings that result from it. It seems to me that there are things like administrative overhead costs, computers, a number of kinds of functions that in terms of redundancy would be eliminated.

FROST: Well, Mr. Secretary, there is a disagreement between the CBO and some of you in the administration about this matter, and my only concern is if the Congressional Budget Office turns out to be correct that there is this $3 billion cost, my concern is that would be taken out of search and rescue and some very valid functions that the Coast Guard and others would be conducting.

MINETA: Well, again, I would think that that would be the responsibility of the secretary of the department and, again, if I might refer to again as the oversight responsibility of the Congress.

FROST: Yes. Mr. Mineta, I have another question, if I may, specifically to you. You state in your testimony that we are going to meet the deadlines, any deadlines Congress gives us with respect to TSA, Transportation Security Agency. It is my understanding that TSA will not receive a report from its contractor, Boeing, regarding the logistics of installing explosive detection machines at our nation's airports until September. Given this tight time frame, do you anticipate that TSA will meet its December 31, 2002 deadline of installing explosive detection systems at all of our nation's airports requiring such systems?

MINETA: We have met every deadline that was mandated by Congress, and we intend to meet all of the remaining deadlines. And the major ones are November 19 for having the federalized employees for both baggage and passenger screening, and December 31 for EDS systems. So our intent right now and everything we're doing is gearing to meeting those two dates, even with the advent of the concept of the Department of Homeland Security.

What I've said to our people is, "Don't look over your shoulder." We've got a responsibility to meet in terms of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, and that is what we are concentrating on and that we are literally working seven days a week in order to comply with these dates, including pushing our contractors so that we can meet the obligation that we have under the law.

FROST: OK. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

ARMEY: Thank you.

The gentleman from Texas.

DELAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Director James, I appreciate your testimony, and I appreciate the administration's position when it comes to personnel matters. And if I recall your position on personnel matters is not to diminish the benefits and rights of federal employees. You articulated that you want to protect civil rights, whistleblower, veterans' preferences and all the other rights and benefits that they enjoy now.

But what bothers me is the Morella amendment expands the rights of federal employees by omission or by contradiction, if you will. Under current law, as I think you've stated, the president has the authority to restrict collective bargaining of governmental units that are critical to national security. This is an authority that has been used judiciously by both Republican and Democrat presidents since the last '70s.

And the Morella amendment would weaken that presidential authority or expand the rights and benefits of the employees as it pertains to the Department of Homeland Security. I find it ironic at a time when national security concerns are paramount that this provision, the Morella amendment, would give the president less authority over the Department of Homeland Security than he has over any other department.

I would ask if you agree with my assessment of the Morella amendment in that it expands present rights and benefits of federal employees and how -- and I ask the other secretaries that they might comment as to how that would impact the flexibility that you're asking for for this new department?

JAMES: I would agree with your assessment, and I'm convinced that the majority of Americans would agree with your assessment as well. When we are operating in an environment of a nation at war, when we are talking about a president and a secretary that will have to make rapid decisions in the interest of the American people, it's almost mind-boggling to me that at this particular moment in America's history we would diminish the president's authority and the presidency and his ability to move people, make decisions quickly and do that in an environment that would protect us all.

Saying that, I say it within the context of of course we recognize the patriotism and the enthusiasm of union members, and that's not what this discussion is about at all. This is a discussion about the ability of the president of the United States to make quick decisions about units of people, to make quick decisions about management and to do that in the interest of the American people. And this is not the time to diminish that authority.

DELAY: Would other secretaries speak to how you could envision the different agencies, offices and departments could function under a diminished authority by the president of the United States?

MINETA: Mr. DeLay, I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the Morella amendment, but, again, I think the whole thrust of this legislation is to have the flexibility of the Department of Homeland Security just because of its nature. The Department of Defense has the ability to be flexible in terms of its organization, of its financial resources. And I think that that's what we have to have within the Department of Homeland Security. And that is the case with TSA and Coast Guard that we will be giving up to DHS, that they do have the flexibility to be able to meet the surges.

And Congress, itself, as I recall, in terms of flexibility, in terms of personnel and procurement activities, gave essentially that same power to FAA and to TSA, and I believe that language is in the H.R. 5005, in terms of the flexibility on personnel and procurement of goods and services.

THOMPSON: Mr. DeLay, in regards to somebody who's gone through the anthrax thing and been involved in something that directly relates to homeland security and how to get prepared to respond quickly, you've got to have the secretary have as much discretion and flexibility as possible. If you limit that, you're going to abrogate or diminish your mission. And that's basically it.

THOMPSON: In regards to anthrax, it was a brand new situation, nobody knew what to do, nobody actually knew what the response was going to be, how to respond and so on. And you have to make sure that your experts are in place and that you're able, as the secretary, to make those tough decisions quickly and that you have individuals that are going to follow through in order to carry out that mission. That's the same thing in the Department of Health and Human Services, it's got to be the same thing, even more so, in the new Department of Homeland Security.

ARMEY: Thank you. The gentleman's time.

The gentleman from New Jersey.

MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary Mineta, you know, I have the highest respect for you from our service together on the Transportation Committee, but I have a difference of opinion of whether TSA has met all its guidelines. It depends how you look at it. They could trace devices, not detection devices, which the Congress really did not approve. They did not meet their deadline on the 15 major airports by the time that they were supposed to. So I don't quite think we can honestly say, or we might have a difference or disagreement as to how we're interpreting, that TSA met all its deadlines.

But let me just make sure of what I'm hearing you say today, because what the Transportation Committee did in its amendment on TSA is not to prohibit the transfer of TSA but to ensure that it would not be transferred until three major issues take place. Number one, that the leadership of the department, as it relates to that section of the Homeland Security Act; secondly, the deployment of explosive detection systems and all baggage being screened; and, thirdly, a certification that a sufficient number of screeners have been deployed.

You are telling this committee that TSA will meet all of its congressionally mandated deadlines under the act without reservation, yes or no?

MINETA: Yes, we are.

MENENDEZ: OK.

MINETA: We have contractors...

MENENDEZ: I just wanted a yes or no answer, so you said yes. So then why is there an objection to the Transportation Committee's amendment? If you're going to meet all the deadlines, then it will be transferred into the department.

MINETA: I'm sorry, I didn't catch that.

MENENDEZ: If you're going to meet all the deadlines, as you just stated, then the TSA will be transferred into the department. So what's the objection to the Transportation Committee's amendment.

MINETA: Remember, the November 19 date is for screeners; December 31 is for EDS. This legislation, if it gets passed this year, doesn't become effective until January 1, 2003. So the effective date of this legislation is after we have performed under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act.

MENENDEZ: That's exactly my point. That's exactly my point. What is the objection to the Transportation Committee's amendment if you're going to achieve the goals and those goals will therefore take place before the creation of the new department? There should be no objection.

MINETA: Well, as I recall, under that legislation, and I'll have to look at it, but I believe there was some other requirement...

MENENDEZ: Those were the only three requirements, and I would ask you to look at it at some future time and give us a written response.

MINETA: I will get back to you.

MENENDEZ: Secondly, I want to follow-on on Chairman Armey's comments. I was not suggesting that non-security budgetary functions could not be transferred within non-security budgetary functions. I was suggesting that you can't drain non-security missions for security purposes. So, therefore, the hypothesis that Mr. Armey put forth, that you so aptly bought onto, would not apply here, would not apply.

And I'm wondering whether the secretaries would give me a yes or no answer, do you believe that language that preserves the non- security functions of departments being transferred out of your respective agencies into homeland security should exist to preserve those non-security functions? If you could just each tell me yes or no.

THOMPSON: Well, just for our department, we actually aren't moving full departments or subdepartments. We're moving programs that are specifically security related. So it's probably less applicable to us.

ARMEY: If the gentleman would yield...

MENENDEZ: Surely.

ARMEY: ... I think the answer is really found in the committee's mark. The committee has put in generous language that describes all of the important functions of the Coast Guard but, in addition, rigid percentage allocations of funds among these. And what we're suggesting is that while we want that language that cherishes all the functions of the Coast Guard, we do not want the straight jacket of those rigid spending...

(CROSSTALK)

MENENDEZ: Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I'm not even referring just to Coast Guard. I'm referring to preserving all of the missions. I turn to Secretary Thompson and say you look at what Dr. Hamburg has said from the Nuclear Threat Initiative, "If these programs are carved out of their current habitat to move into this new department, it will disconnect bioterrorism preparedness from other essential components and complicate the ability of our public health partners to work together, likely to weaken and fragment our nation's capacity to respond to infectious diseases."

If you look at what Dr. O'Toole said, the director of the Center for Civilian Biodefense at John Hopkins. She goes on to say that those issues as well of splitting bioterrorism preparedness, in essence, doesn't help us, it hurts us.

So my point is, where I'd like to get a response because my time is expired, is don't you believe in pursuit of your obligation to non- security missions as well as to security missions, that we should have language here that preserves those non-security missions?

THOMPSON: Congressman, there's some language on page five that you may want to look at. It's subsection three of the department, which is the new department, shall also be responsible for carrying out other functions of entities, paren three, transferred to the department as provided by law. You may want to strengthen that, but that basically I think is the language that you're referring to.

MENENDEZ: Mr. Chairman, if I just may very briefly, where are you reading from, Mr. Secretary?

THOMPSON: I'm reading on page five.

MENENDEZ: Of what?

THOMPSON: Of the act, proposal. Section 101, paren three.

MENENDEZ: Thank you.

ARMEY: The gentleman's time has expired. If the gentleman wishes, we may try to come back to this point.

MENENDEZ: OK.

ARMEY: Gentleman from Oklahoma.

WATTS: Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Director James, we've heard for some time concern in this agency that we need to be lean and mean, and I agree with that, but I must confess that in the eight years I've been in Washington I've seen very few occasions that we've taken to really streamline things and try and make them run efficiently and effectively for the American people.

And I think when you -- I was sitting there thinking about the different ways that you can get to that lean and mean posture in the government and one is sometimes you can have a reduction in force, you can have public-private partnerships to try to make things work a little better, you decentralize, find waste and abuse in the government or you can do what I think the president's proposal is trying to do and that's to say, "Give us flexibility so that we can manage in a streamlined way or in an efficient way to focus as much attention on protecting the homeland as we possibly can. Give us that flexibility."

So let me ask you to pretend that I am one of those 170,000 employees that's going to be shifted from Agency A and Agency B and Agency C over into this new Homeland Security Department. I'm one of those 170,000 employees. What would you say to me to put my mind at ease that I will not lose my job or my protections, and what can I look forward to as a worker in terms of incentives for doing good work?

JAMES: Thank you. We want to create a world-class organization where federal employees will be excited about coming to work, looking at the opportunities that are there for them to perform and be rewarded for the work that they do. What assurances can I give you? I can remember going to college the first time and sitting there during orientation and being exhorted by the president to look to my left and look to my right and being told that several of those individuals would not be there on graduation day.

Quite frankly, the crisis that we face in the federal work force today is that we could go a long way towards streamlining if we did nothing, quite frankly, because of the looming retirements that we have in front of us. We are not dealing in a situation where we have too many workers. We're in a situation where we have too few. And as a result of that, a big part of the challenge is going to be not reductions in forces but how to retain the people that we have, how to create an environment where people will want to come to work, how to attract the best and brightest from the private sector to come in and fill those job openings.

And so what I would say to the federal worker who may be listening today, and I suspect quite many from your departments are, that there is an opportunity to join a world-class work force, to be in an environment where they will have the opportunity to be rewarded for the work that they do, where they have a clear mission that's set before them, where they have an opportunity to defend this homeland and do significant work.

I think it's a tremendous opportunity, and knowing the federal worker as I do, I am confident that they will step up to the plate to do that and do it with vigor and enthusiasm.

WATTS: Secretary Abraham, how important will it be for the nation to have a robust research, development, test, evaluation and acquisition organization within the new Department of Homeland Security?

ABRAHAM: Well, I think the advantage, Congressman, is that it's important for there to be effective direction for what already is I think a strong program. And I think what we're proposing to do here will provide tools to people who will have the comprehensive intelligence gathering information and threat assessment information to direct those assets at the technologies we most need.

We've got great folks in these laboratories in terms of cutting- edge work, they're doing it, but this will give us the kind of coordination of that effort that I think is really missing.

ARMEY: The gentlelady from Connecticut.

DELAURO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Director James, I would just like to follow up with you. I appreciate the commentary. I think the rhetoric is soaring, and I couldn't agree more with the new opportunities, and I have no question in my mind about federal workers, union workers, workers who dedicate themselves every single day to their job, and the unsung heroes who do this.

On the other hand, there are some practical issues and matters that people have to deal with in their lives in order that they sustain themselves and their families. And that has to do with benefits, that has to do with pay scales, that has to do with pensions, and, quite frankly, we haven't had in the last almost a year real fine examples of a dedication to what happens to workers in a crisis. We have done what we needed to do with regard to industry and to make sure that industry and airlines were flying and secure and that companies were secure.

When it has come to the workers in these institutions, we have been less than forthcoming with making sure that they sustained their economic livelihoods and their viability. So that I think that there is a great sense here that what we need to do is to provide assurances to people very clearly about what -- if you've got an INS inspector at the State Department, doesn't get paid on the same scale as someone else with different benefits. How, in fact, are we going to determine what they are going to receive?

We are very careful to work at how the various authorities and functions are going to be viewed. Everyone wants to know how that happens. I think workers have every, every single right to want to know before they take that leap, and I would say not for the first time being patriotic Americans. They are patriotic Americans all of the time, and a new agency isn't going to make them more or less patriotic.

But tell me about how I sustain myself and my family as you decide, in the Congress or anywhere else, to take my job, put it someplace else and then tell me that I have to rely on the good will, the trust, the faith of people and not verify what it is that I am going to be able to take home on a weekly basis and what protections I am going to have if someone says, "We're going to change the mission, change the allocation, and, my friend, too bad for you."

JAMES: Thank you. Congresswoman, the last thing that we are saying in this legislation to the federal civil service worker, "It's too bad for you."

DELAURO: Then why not work on the Morella amendment, which shows some faith and trust in the worker? Let's start from there. Let's start from there.

JAMES: You raise several issues and I'd like the opportunity to go through as many of them as I possibly can. And I do appreciate your passion on behalf of the federal worker. I share that passion.

DELAURO: Workers in general, I might add.

JAMES: Well, unfortunately, my only responsibility at this table right now is the federal worker, and we share a passion for them.

You mentioned an INS worker. What's wrong with the system that we're operating under and why do we need these flexibilities? Let me just give you an example. Suppose we have a worker who is a GS-9 in one of our agencies somewhere and they're doing a great job, they're doing an excellent job. And as a matter of fact, what we'd like to do is to reward them with more money as a result of the job that they're doing, but our current pay system does not allow us to do that.

The only way we can get that particular worker more money is to promote them into a supervisory position. But you know what? They don't want to be a supervisor; they like the job that they're doing. They enjoy it and they're quite good at it. But the systems in which we are operating right now prevent us from doing that.

And so what do you do? You promote that person into a job and make them a supervisor, something they've never wanted to be and something they're not equipped to be. We must fix that system, and we must have the flexibility to do that. And that's what we're talking about. And right now the legislation, as it currently exists in the chairman's mark, doesn't allow us to do that. That's why we need the flexibilities.

You talked about the Morella amendment and how in the world can we show a good faith effort to the federal worker right now? Well, quite frankly, we have a responsibility to the federal worker and to the American people in total, and it is a very delicate balancing act. But, quite frankly, when there are decisions that have to be made that will protect our national interests and protect this country, we must balance those. And so...

DELAURO: Excuse me.

ARMEY: If I may, I think the gentlelady's time is expired.

DELAURO: Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that we have a government that has been functioning with all kinds of -- we have Defense Departments, Justice Departments, sensitive information, all kinds of structures in place that have been thought through and sifted out and vetted, et cetera. All of a sudden with a new department that's coming up, we want to change the rules of the game.

ARMEY: If I may...

DELAURO: Maybe we should think about changing the rules of the entire game. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to you.

ARMEY: ...I may call to the gentlelady's attention that this committee will address, I have no doubt, substance of the Morella amendment and the extent to which it indeed is what changes the rules of the game from what they have been. We will address that later, and I thank the gentlelady.

The gentlelady from Ohio.

PRYCE: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And if Ms. James would like to use my time to finish her answer, I would be very happy...

JAMES: I would only say and echo what the chairman was about to say and that is that the Morella amendment expands rather than keeps things the way they are. And, quite frankly, you know, historically when you look at the Department of Defense, that authority has not been abused in that particular department. It has not been abused by any president in the history of this country, be they Democrat or Republican. And I think that given the backdrop of where we are right now in terms of being a nation at war, given the delicate balancing act that we have to go through, that we cannot put the American people at risk at a time like this.

PRYCE: Thank you. And reclaiming my time, I'd like to address Secretary Mineta one last time. You made a good case of why the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration should be incorporated under Homeland Security. Can you tell us, in your mind, what would happen if that were not to take place, how it would affect the entire operation, how it would affect upon the Department of Transportation, because that's going to be a very difficult thing for us to accomplish. And as we, as a committee, try to mesh the administration's proposal with our committee's mark, I think that we would be well-served to hear from you about what would happen if we're not able to do this.

MINETA: Well, it seems to me that if the Coast Guard and the TSA are not transferred over to the DHS but remain in our department, there would have to be increased -- or there may be responsibilities on the part of the Department of Homeland Security that they will still have to create on their own. And if that happens, it seems to me we'd have a redundant or two or we'd have a duplicative services, one provided by the Department of Homeland Services and the other by the Department of Transportation.

On the other hand, seems to me you'd have to have increased liaison between the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security or TSA and DHS. Again, it seems to me it would add to the budget rather than what part of this whole effort is to make it more efficient and to make it more effective and be able to take advantage of the savings that would come from combining these agencies in the DHS.

PRYCE: In terms of efficiency, would it have any effect?

MINETA: I think it would, because the Coast Guard would be able to deal with and coordinate their activities through all of the intelligence activities of DHS. The secretary of Homeland Security would be in a position to utilized the resources of the Coast Guard based on the intelligence that you have about doing things. So, again -- he or she has. But, again, it would, it seems to me, add to the cost if it were remaining in the DOT.

PRYCE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ARMEY: The gentlelady from California, Ms. Pelosi?

PELOSI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have a very serious responsibility here. We work in a very bipartisan way, a very patriotic way, unified way with the president of the United States to protect the American people, a very serious responsibility. As we take this next step, we have to again meet the president's challenge, to do what is best to protect the American people.

I understand the support for the administration's position that has been expressed here by a number of the secretaries and by the director, but I want to seek clarification on one point, because, as I said last week, again, there's a responsibility of every person in America particularly to the families affected on September 11. They live in their own special fear. When they hear a plane going over or hear of any incident, it revisits horrors for them. But we would like to remove the risk, provide some comfort to them.

Director James, when we talk about the Morella amendment and you say we have to consider the backdrop, we are a nation at war. Indeed, we are. But I'm drawing from your comments that you consider that a finite state and in this special circumstance of a nation at war, this balance is required. I believe that the conditions that we put forth as we go forward with this legislation are for the very, very long term.

We are in a different way of life. So we ought not to make judgments as if there is some finiteness to what we are doing here. This is for the very long term. Threats to our country are different now than before. The unimaginable has become almost the predictable, sad to say.

So in making this decision about the work force and you say we don't want to endanger the American people, I say that, yes, I completely agree. I think the morale of the work force, the respect that we have for them and the job that they do is a very important component of protecting the American people. Certainly, we want to have, as some others have heard me say over and over, I think it's in furtherance of protecting the American people to have a department that is manageable, that is manageable, and I fear that this department may not be.

But I hope that I'm not drawing from your comments an inference that you did not intend, and that is that these are temporary, because it's against a backdrop of a nation at war. We are a nation in a new kind of state and we have exposure that we didn't realize before. We should have; we didn't. And so when we do that backdrop, I think we have to think very long term about it.

And I'd like to get back to my question earlier. First of all, I want to say to the secretary of agriculture, I'm pleased that the confirmation that you gave to our chairman that you would support the amendment that came out of the Agriculture Committee. I want to address the issue that I talked about earlier, a bipartisan amendment came out of the Energy and Commerce Committee that I referenced earlier but I couldn't hear from all of your because my time had run out. And that was with respect to regulatory authority.

For example, Secretary Mineta, would you agree that with respect to regulatory authority this act may not be construed as establishing such authority for the secretary except to the extent that the functions transferred to the secretary include such authority and that altering or diminishing such authority with any other executive agency would have to be definitely transferred to that secretary?

I can read it another way to you in a briefer form, but it basically retains for the department the originating department the regulatory function unless it is spelled out that that function is moved to the new department.

MINETA: Well, I would assume that in the case of the Coast Guard it is an operating agency as well as regulatory, so that since the Coast Guard is being moved in tact, in its full, over to the Department of Homeland Security, that the regulatory authority would go with it.

PELOSI: And it should be spelled out in the legislation.

MINETA: And that's the way it should be. And that's the way it should be.

PELOSI: Mr. Thompson?

THOMPSON: I couldn't agree more. That's the way it should be.

PELOSI: But that it should be spelled out to that extent as well. In other words, altering or diminishing such authority of any other executive agency except to the extent that a function of such agency that includes such authority is transferred to the secretary by a section specified in the legislation.

THOMPSON: I don't know what your real question is, but I agree with the statement.

PELOSI: Well, the question is about regulatory authority.

THOMPSON: Yes.

PELOSI: And we don't want to be in a vague state of limbo. We want it to be specific as to where it will be.

THOMPSON: There's no question it has to be, and it has to be spelled out.

PELOSI: And if it is not, then it is retained by the department of origination.

THOMPSON: It's going to have to be determined by this committee. It seems to me this committee should be able to determine which secretary is going to have that responsibility.

PELOSI: But I was wondering what your point of view was, as the secretary.

THOMPSON: Unless it's changed, unless it's transferred, it's got to be, I would think, retained by the originating secretary, because that's the one that has the responsibility.

ARMEY: The Chair may announce that I will presently recognize the gentleman from Ohio, and then the Chair will use his time to recognize Mr. Frost for a question, and I believe Mr. Menendez, and we'll try to wrap this up in the Chair's time if the committee will agree.

The gentleman from Ohio?

PORTMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm glad I wasn't at the table having to respond to Ms. Pelosi's question because it was a tough one, and I'm not sure I understand it, but I understand what she's getting at, and I think this subcommittee will be sensitive to that.

One specific one, then one general one. One of the recommendations that comes out of the Authorizing Committee's work, Secretary Abraham, is with regard to the undersecretary for Science, Research and Technology. I believe under your proposal, it's a directorship not an undersecretary. Do you have strong views on that?

Some have said that if it's a director, the director could report directly to the secretary and service all of the other undersecretaries, all of whom would have science research needs and also interface with the private sector, academia and others. And that adding an undersecretary would add some unneeded bureaucracy. Do you have strong views on that issue?

ABRAHAM: I don't think we have strong views. I mean I think we could support an undersecretary designation as well. I think, as I said in response earlier on this, that the key ingredient is the coordination of these programs and the direction that's needed. Obviously, we've got a lot of, as I said, talented people and a lot of assets being deployed already. They've been effectively deployed in the last few months. But having an office that is trying to set priorities for this sort of research in the future is really the essential ingredient. But I think we could support an undersecretary designation as well.

PORTMAN: One general question. This has to do with this issue of flexibility. I couldn't agree more with Ms. Pelosi on her notion of, again, a leaner department, a meaner department, one that can really effectively address this agile challenge of terrorism. You said a moment ago you're concerned it won't be manageable and I share that concern as well. But I think we need to point out a few things, and I want to ask Ms. James a question at the end of this.

First is that all these people will be in the bureaucracy somewhere. In other words, 170,000, roughly, employees that would not be moved stayed in the bureaucracy, we'd have a growing bureaucracy. And in fact as Secretary Mineta just said, by not moving them into a central, consolidated function where you get those, as I mentioned earlier, synergies or efficiencies, you're going to have unnecessary duplication and some inefficiencies. So in terms of bureaucracy, the people are still there. The question is whether they're all working toward a common goal.

Second is that I think we have acknowledged in the federal government, and I won't put any of you on the spot, I think the reason we're doing this is, in part, because we want to change the culture of some of these agencies and departments that do have all these other functions, bring them into an agency or department where the culture and the focus and the mission is the fight against terrorism. And to the extent post-tragedy in New York City, we have decided that we need to change the culture. It's certainly easier to do it within a new culture rather than keeping them in the old culture.

Third, I would say that if we're really worried about manageability and flexibility and being leaner and meaner, we have to give the new secretary the ability to manage. And I would say there are three aspects of that. And, Ms. James, I want to ask you about the third. The first, of course, is some transfer authority so you literally can move some funds that we appropriate back and forth as the challenges change. Second would be the flexibilities that we've asked for in the proposal that has come out of some of the committees in terms of management flexibility, generally. And, third, of course, is personnel.

And if you could, Ms. James, just talk a little about if we do have these personnel flexibilities, again, consistent with the merit system and all those principles that I think need to be outlined, frankly, more in the legislation, perhaps in the initial draft, but if you outline all those principles, stick to those principles, fix the whistleblower protection, the veterans' preferences, the other things we talked about, the collective bargaining rights, how do we ensure that the employees, your people represented by these four secretaries who are on the line now, have input into the system?

Roughly 30 percent, as I look at it on the chart, are currently represented by unions, so 70 percent would not have union representation. Of those represented by unions, I'm told not all are participating members, so it's a smaller percentage than 30 percent. But I think the union needs to be brought in. We've brought in the National Treasury Employees Union with regard to the IRS reforms. They supported the reforms. At the end, they actually were quite constructive in moving the IRS toward a new, more modern, leaner, better agency, and yet a lot of these workers will not have union representation.

How do you intend to bring these people in to the start-up to make sure they have a stake in this and make sure that their views and needs and concerns are addressed?

JAMES: Well, you know, one of the earlier comments alluded to the fact that we have great storing rhetoric but how do we in fact ensure that the details are worked out in such a way that they are in the interest of the federal worker? And I think that's an excellent question that deserves an answer. And the answer is simply this: The way that the legislation is designed it's so that these employees move into the department whole, as they are, with all of their benefits and protections and rights and leave and everything that they currently have.

I think that the way that you ensure a world-class organization is to make sure that the people who are doing the jobs are involved in the process of setting it up. That's one of the reasons that I believe that it would be difficult to try to work out all the details of what that would look like through the legislative process. But it is the intent to involve all of the stakeholders, involve union and non-union members, involve management associations in sitting down at a table and designing together what it would look like if all of us could have our desire to have a world-class organization.

I think at the end of that process, it should be said yet again that it would be an open and a transparent process that would go through the regulatory process so that people would have the opportunity to comment. We can't get this done in the confines of this hearing room. We can't even get it done within the confines of the Office of the Secretary or the Office of the Director. I think the process that we set in place to get where we need to be will be an inclusive process and one that includes the people who are on the front lines and doing the jobs to help design the systems that they will work in.

PORTMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ARMEY: The Chair will now use his time, and I believe the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Frost, has indicated a specific question, and I'll share my time with him for that purpose.

FROST: Yes. This is a question directed to Director James, and I would just ask that she address this question for the record. I'm not asking her to answer this question right now.

There's been a lot of discussion yesterday and today about the president's right under an executive order to exempt certain employees from civil protections, and here's my question. What specific criteria did President Bush apply when he issued an executive order in January of this year to remove 500 employees of the Justice Department from union coverage? And what specific criteria would you advise he apply in exercising his authority under section 7103 of the existing act with regard to the Department of Homeland Defense? And you may answer those questions for the record.

JAMES: Thank you.

ARMEY: The gentleman from New Jersey has a specific question as well.

MENENDEZ: I have two very brief ones, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for yielding your time.

Secretary Mineta, if you could just answer this yes or no, has the Coast Guard done a bad job in defending the security of the United States in the territorial waters which it operates in?

MINETA: Absolutely not.

MENENDEZ: It has not.

MINETA: Has not.

MENENDEZ: It has done a good job.

MINETA: Absolutely.

MENENDEZ: Thank you very much. Secondly, Secretary Thompson, since I have not been able to elicit from the secretaries a response to my question about dual missions, let me ask you this. Under the president's proposal, Homeland Security would control both the research and preparedness programs at another department. The GAO found that this structure does not ensure that both the goals of homeland security and public health would be met or how priorities for basic public health capacities that are currently being funded through the dual use CDC programs would be maintained.

Add to that Dr. Tara O'Toole's comments, since she's the director of the Center for Civilian Biodefense at John Hopkins, who said, "Instead of consolidating similar programs, the proposed agency would split bioterrorism preparedness programs from the related but more encompassing mission of public health protection, which is your department's main objective. The country would be forced to create parallel work forces, one in Homeland Security for bioterrorism preparedness, and another in HHS for normal public health functions.

And then, lastly, Dr. Hamburg's comments, which I read to you before in the Nuclear Threat Initiative, who said, "That the likely outcome would be to weaken and fragment our nation's capacity to respond to infectious disease whether occurring naturally or caused intentionally."

Now, just those three independent sources, not any member of this Select Committee, people in the academic community, the GAO, my questions are not meant to undermine the president's initiative, they are meant to strengthen it.

In that regard, do you not think that a mechanism could be devised under which a memorandum of understanding for those functions, which the Department of Homeland Security is concerned about by virtue of the transfers proposed here, could be achieved in your department, and we would get the synergy, the cost savings, the benefit that we've heard so much about in other regards by keeping it in your department with a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Homeland Security, getting the synergies of both producing a research and development that would deal with homeland defense issues but public health to which there is so much integration in the process?

THOMPSON: You raise a very valid question, Congressman, but overall structure actually accomplishes instead a memorandum of understanding, it's a consultation procedure between the new secretary of Homeland Security and the secretary of HHS. And so instead of a memorandum of understanding, it's basically a consultation procedure that is set forth in this proposal, and I think either one of those proposals would work well. But I think the one that the president advances works better.

MENENDEZ: So you dismiss all these criticisms as not valid.

THOMPSON: I don't dismiss them, absolutely not, because all of those are very learned individuals that know the programs. They've been very much involved in helping to strengthen bioterrorism. But overall the actual dollars, the actual consultation really was between Governor Ridge and myself, the original program that we advanced in Congress, and it worked out very well, and I think it's been working out extremely well ever since.

MENENDEZ: Well, consultation is one thing, but budget authority which will reside with the secretary of Homeland Security is ultimate authority.

ARMEY: Let me thank the gentleman from New Jersey and reclaim my time before it expires.

(LAUGHTER)

I do want to thank the panel, and if I might make here a recommendation to Director James, that in addition to your standard GS ranking that you create a new category called Gee Whiz 10 and give it to every member of this panel. We want to thank you for your attendance today. You're very helpful. And without objection, the Select Committee will stand in recess until 2:30 p.m.

(RECESS)

ARMEY: The Select Committee will come to order. We are very pleased to have our next panel of witnesses, Representative Thornberry, Harman, Gibbons and Tauscher, otherwise known as the brains of the mob, I believe. And we're excited about your being here and anxious to get on with your testimony. So let me just suggest to you that without objection we'll put your formal statements in the record and we will ask you in your turn to present your summarized statement. We'll begin with Mr. Thornberry.

MAC THORNBERRY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me thank you for having us before you. And let me thank each of the members of this committee for the time and effort that you are putting into this endeavor. You all have full plates already and this is no small responsibility. And as someone who cares and is about this a lot and has worked on it for a while, I appreciate the time and effort you're putting into it.

Let me try to make just a couple of summary points. One is that the effort to take the Hart/Rudman recommendation to create a new cabinet Department of Homeland Security originated in the House. And the people you see before you on this panel have worked on it together. I nearly say bipartisan, but the truth is totally nonpartisan way for months and months and months. And I want to express my appreciation to my colleagues here, not just for the work they've put in, but for the attitude and the approach they have brought to this work.

Now I'm sure that if you go down and ask us whether we agree or disagree with every single item that you have to decide we're not all going to agree with each other. But any differences we have have been overcome by our strong feeling that we must take bold action to reorganize the federal government so that we are better equipped to deal with the threats we face. And I would respectfully suggest that if we can carry on that attitude, not just with your committee, but with the whole House, then we will all have done our duty.

You have a lot of issues to sort out. In my mind, some are more important. Some are less important. Let me just outline what I think the three pillars of any Department of Homeland Security has to be. One of those pillars has to be border security. And as a matter of fact, if you look, about 90 percent of the people who would be in a new Department of Homeland Security are involved in border and transportation security. They have to be made to work together as one seamless integrated unit. That's an essential pillar.

Secondly, the cyber and infrastructure protection. We have not talked nearly as much about cyber terrorism as we have about other kinds of terrorism. And yet we are attacked every single day in this country in all sorts of different ways. An integrated seamless effort to prevent cyber terrorism is essential.

The third pillar to me is emergency preparedness and response. Every one of us recognizes how important it is for those people on the ground, the policemen, the firemen, the first responders to have the resources they need. And building upon FEMA's existing structure with 10 regional offices, the FEMA relationships it has with state and local governments, the new Department of Homeland Security would be the key entity to help administer grants so they could buy new equipment, to help provide training so they can get the things they need there, to help plan for emergencies. And, maybe most importantly to be the channel of communication between the federal government and the state and local governments. Let me give you an example.

Suppose the intelligence part of this new agency gets information that shopping malls are about to be attacked. Well, this part of the Department of Homeland Security will get that information out to the people who need to know it. They're the communication that says watch out at your shopping malls. Now, on the other hand, maybe policemen around the country see suspicious activity at shopping malls. They feed that information back into the Department of Homeland Security and it goes back up the chain.

This communication with state and local first responders is a critical part to empower them to do their job and that has to be, I think, a part of this department. The President, -- so those are the three pillars, I believe. Intelligence analysis is also important. The technology piece is very critical across all of these areas. Let me make just one final point. We all know that any time you move money and power around in Washington, you're going to meet resistance and you're going to step on some toes. And we -- to get this passed on the floor, we have a delicate job, there's no question about that.

But I just suggest that we've got to focus on trying to get it right. I mean, we -- if we -- we cannot cut this in half. We cannot take an incremental approach. There is simply too much at stake. And so not only as the Select Committee, but as our leaders, I know and trust that you will help lift us all to meet the challenge of doing this job right. Because there is so much at stake. Thank you.

ARMEY: Thank you. Miss Harman.

JANE HARMAN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am fond of saying that terrorists won't check our party registration before they blow us up. And in that spirit, I am really pleased to see a group of friends sitting before you. Friends who have worked together before and will work together after and sitting before a truly bipartisan committee to talk about a subject that is not partisan. I feel very strongly that what process we use -- and this is the beginning of a good process -- will determine what margin this bill will pass by.

HARMAN: I am hopeful that we'll have at least 350 votes for this bill the end product that you report after it's debated on the floor, at least 350 out of 435. We will have far more than 218, the bare margin to pass a bill in this House. We must have far more than 218. This is about America. And this is about our biggest threat and we have to step up together. So, I would just urge this committee to continue in this fashion talking to bipartisan groups in this House and to structure a process that is open so that those in this House of both parties who have a lot to contribute will be able to do that, either in committee or on the floor. And the product that we pass will be worthy of the best talent that we can marshal in the House. That's the biggest point I'd like to make.

Secondly, some of us, including you, were at the White House this morning as the President released his strategy for homeland defense. I think it's a very good product and I think it calls for a major reorganization, which is what we're talking about. I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of this bill. I support this bill as introduced. However, I think it could use a little improving. And in the spirit of bipartisanship, I'd just like to offer a few things.

First of all, I'm a member of the House Intelligence Committee which on a virtually unanimous basis only one dissenter reported some amendments to the bill that I think are excellent. What they do is clarify what the analytical function is in the bill, make clear that it is an important function and also make clear how it can work to get accurate threat information down to first responders. That's a very big deal. Information sharing with first responders so they know what to look for is one of the key aspects of this legislation and a key reason why those who will protect us when the next terrorist act occurs on somebody's real estate will be effective. So that's one thing that I think is very important.

Another thing that I think is important is what thousands of businesses are telling us around the country. These are the folks who are inventing or have invented the cutting edge technologies which are key to making any homeland security strategy successful. Any strategy depends on leveraging the technologies of the private sector. And they need a front door to enter at this Homeland Security Department. And that front door is not as clear as it should be. And that is why some amendments offered on a bipartisan basis by the House Commerce Committee of which I'm a member and the House Government Reform Committee are very important. And they will help us build that front door for our private sector so that their talent really can be leveraged in protecting both public and private infrastructure and American citizens in this huge undertaking that we must embark on.

Final point is this. Eighty percent, at minimum 80 percent of the federal government will be left outside of this new department. And maybe if Miss Pelosi prevails 90 percent of the federal government will be left outside of this department. But regardless of what percent is in and what is out, most will be out. And we need to coordinate the entire federal government in order to implement the strategy that the President recommended this morning. How do we do that?

My answer is that we must provide a statutory office in the White House to coordinate or to be the architect of the strategy across the federal government. We will have a new department. I support a big department. We will have a confirmed secretary of that department who will be the person testifying before Congress. But we have to have the capability in the White House for homeland security that we have in the White House for national security. We need a sister or brother for Conde Rice in the White House. We need to do in this legislation what we did in 1947 when we passed the National Security Act. And that is to create by statute a Homeland Security Council.

The White House is concerned about this because they don't want someone in the White House to be confirmed. Conde Rice isn't confirmed. They don't want the President's hand to be tied. I think the President's helped by having Conde Rice in the White House. And I particularly commend her for extraordinary service and talent. But I think what we need is the mirror image of the National Security Council in a Homeland Security Council. And I think to do less would compromise our ability to coordinate the whole federal government. In conclusion, I'm pleased to see how we're doing. I think we all ought to be proud of this.

I hope that this room will not be large enough to hold all the members of the House who vote for the bill by September 11. But this would be a good start if we filled this with those who vote for this bill and we celebrate and we put a cornerstone on your service in this House because you're leading this effort. I would be very proud to be here and very proud of what I as just one member of this very talented body have been able to contribute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ARMEY: Thank you. Thank the gentle lady. I might mention to the committee and to the panel we have just managed to roll some votes on the floor of the House so we have at least a comfortable hour before we would be interrupted. And ask with that note, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.

GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And hopefully my testimony won't last an hour. What I'd like to do is summarize three very important points that I want to make. The first important that I think needs to be made is I'm honored to be sitting here at a table with my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican. This has been a bipartisan effort since its inception. Ten and a half months ago, Jane Harman and I joined together in an effort to do exactly what we're attempting to do here. And it's a privilege to watch the process go forward in such a bipartisan -- in fact, as Mac Thornberry said, nonpartisan fashion.

It is important in fact, if it's not critical to America that during the time intervening since September the 11th that we come together as a unified body to produce something that is far more important to the American people than anything we could do. And that's the protection of their security. The point I want to make in addition to that is the points about the bill. And we have heard over the last several months about the inability of our government to be prepared, to be able to work in a fashion that would allow it to understand the information that it had and to be able to connect the dots as we speak.

And Mr. Chairman, I have seen as a member of the Intelligence Committee with Jane Harman agencies come in and tell us that they had certain parts of the information but were unable to communicate, unable to share the information. The important thing about this bill is it allows for information sharing. What we had prior to this was a large box full of puzzle parts, shaken up and mixed up. And each agency came in and reached in the box and grabbed a handful of those parts and went off to their own department and tried to put the puzzle together without talking or looking into what the other agency was doing. This whole part about trying to put a puzzle together having parts in one and many areas certainly was reflective of our inability to handle the information that we had.

I think the legislation -- and in fact, the legislation and the amendment that the Intelligence Committee has put together will allow us to share information better, creating an analytical center which will take the information generated by our collectors. And this agency is not a collector. But it will take the information generated by our collectors and put them together under a microscope with a focus and the intention of being the protection of America's homeland. This will give a new perspective to that information.

It will also allow for this agency to communicate this information both horizontally between federal agencies and vertically between federal, state, local agencies as well, which is very important. And it creates the two way highway where information that's generated by our state and local responders can flow seamlessly up into our Homeland Defense Department. And this will be critical in terms of analyzing and sharing this information to produce warnings that are going to be meaningful and effective if we are going to protect the American defense.

And the second issue that I want to talk about was touched on by Miss Harman of course, is the fact that you need someone in there who has the oversight ability and the ability to control and direct some of our secretaries. As she said, 20 agencies will be brought together in the Department of Homeland Security, leaving approximately 80 agencies outside of that that'll have some representative issue with regard to homeland security. The President will need someone that will help organize and share and coordinate that information sharing among those agencies.

And it's commonly known in the Washington area that the greatest parlor game here is Trip War. And all of these agencies are very protective of their part of this important operation that we've got going in this country to protect our nation's and its people. If we don't have somebody who can oversee, statutory authority to oversee and control the budgets and make recommendations, then we have not given the President the authority he will need to regulate and determine what's important among those various agencies and to set priorities as was established in his vision and strategy that was released today.

So Mr. Chairman, I think this bill, among all other things is probably the highest priority bill that we could do in this Congress for the American people as directed by our constitution. And that's to provide for the common defense of this nation. Thank you.

ARMEY: Thank you, Mr. Gibbons. And Miss Tauscher.

TAUSCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Pelosi, friends and colleagues on the Select Committee. I'd like to take a moment of personal privilege to tell you how honored I am and humbled I am to sit with my colleagues, especially Mac Thornberry who had the presence to take the Hart/Rudman report March of 2001 and turn it into a bill well before September 11th that we could all rally around. And let me also tell you how impressed I am to sit here before all of you. I've been in Congress now for six years. I consider this to be an American moment where all of you, the leaders of the two great parties in the Congress have come together in a totally nonpartisan way to help lead our ability to protect the American people. And I really thank you for your service. I know that you have many things that you have to do every day and constituents and families that need your attention.

But the work that you will do over the next few weeks to take us to, I hope, a good conclusion in early September as Speaker, as Leader Gephardt has asked I think is going to talk more to our adversaries about who we are as Americans than virtually anything else we have done in a non-military way. So thank you very much for your service.

I'd also like to just talk for a few minutes about the two areas that I have specific expertise in or committee assignments on. And I just want to just make one thing very clear. I don't think this is about making more bureaucracy. I think this is about making bureaucracy work. And I think that is the challenge that we have as Americans in a government that is sometimes a little leaner, not as lean as we'd like and certainly a little meaner than we'd like. But I think this is a truly historic opportunity for us. But unless we do this, we're not going to have a government that is going to truly focus on homeland security.

And that's why I'm a huge supporter of the chance to do this. We know none of this is going to be easy. And we know you've got a tough situation ahead of you. But as the ranking member of the Armed Services Panel to oversee the National Nuclear Security Administration and as a member of the Transportation Committee, I'm just going to focus on two critical issues, one in the aspect of a science and technology to protect our homeland. And the second, the Transportation Security Administration.

As you know, the NNSA's three national laboratories, Los Alamos and the two in my district, Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia Laboratory have longed worked to develop technical capabilities to detect, counter, mitigate the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the threat of terrorism. The Administration's logic for giving the Department of Homeland Security responsibility for essential management and research facility at one of these labs and having satellite centers of excellence at all of the national labs is very sad.

An appropriate degree of central coordination will be necessary to ensure that the counter terrorism expertise at all three labs is tapped into the most efficient and least bureaucratic way possible. I support the language reported out of the House Armed Services Committee. And I want to thank Mrs. Pelosi for speaking so eloquently today about my constituents in California. Actually I'm sure some of them live in your district, at the Lawrence Livermore Lab and the Sandia lab. The White House has designated the Livermore National Laboratory, but I'm not confused. I want this to work.

We have three great laboratories, two in California, two in New Mexico. I'm not interested in planting a flag in my district if it's going to create the Donner party and have everybody not focus on what the mission is. So what I believe we need to do is to report the House Armed Services language that effectively says that the President wants to appoint one of these labs and that he will have the discretion to do that. I think that Livermore can compete.

I think there's lots of logistic reasons because we do have two labs literally across the street from each other. And we could be the site. But I think it's much more important for us not to get into parochial issues and to allow the President the flexibility he has asked for.

TAUSCHER: I do hope he picks Livermore. But once again, I think we need to do this right. And I certainly don't want to go into a conferencing situation with the Senate where perhaps we are dealing with parochial issues of New Mexico versus California. That's the wrong thing for us to do. My constituents don't want that and I hope that you will support the opportunity to do what the House Armed Services Committee recommended. In report language we do say that the President has designed Livermore. But we really want this decision to go forward. The second issue is the Transportation Security Administration. Many of us are on the committee. We understand that we had a necessity when we were doing transportation security and during the debate I had hoped that we could create a Transportation Security Administration that could have gone into a Homeland Security Department.

But we didn't have a Homeland Security Department then. And frankly, we needed to move. And we did. Now our opportunity is to do it right. And since we couldn't do it right from the beginning, I'm concerned that moving the TSA into the Department of Homeland Security now before the Department of Transportation and the TSA can meet their deadlines that we mandated, whether they were achievable or arbitrary or not. Those are the deadlines. And they need to set -- they're set to hire and train federal workers. They have to deploy explosive detection devices. I'm afraid this would create too many problems if they all of a sudden had to move at the same time.

That's why regardless of the deadlines and the underlying legislation to create the Homeland Security Agency, I support the recommendation of the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee to delay the TSA's transfer until certain milestones are met. This is not going to create a big problem for us because I'm only asking for about 60 days. But they are 60 crucial days where we need to have the Department of Transportation finish their work which has been difficult and perhaps unachievable in the end. But they need that time to bridge forward a Transportation Security Administration that has at least met some metrics in its infancy, has a sense of momentum going forward.

Otherwise, my concern is that we will hobble the new Homeland Security Administration with a bunch of deadlines and a bunch of things that they haven't done with an agency that is growing very, very rapidly. So I think that it's important that we think about what T&I has said. I think we can find some accommodations. I think that there's an issue between November and -- the November deadlines for hiring federal screeners and the January deadline for putting the EDS machines in the airport. And I think that we're talking about January anyhow. So I think that there's a narrow window there.

But as we look at the Aviation Subcommittee of which I'm a member, we're going to be holding hearings next week to find out if the TSA actually is going to meet these deadlines or not. We may be able to come forward with some help on how they can assure -- we can ensure that they will. But I think it's going to take this historic opportunity for us to try to get some of the things that we couldn't do well because of time constraints back in September much better off for the American people. I'm just very pleased to be here. I appreciate the fact that you've made time for us to come. Once again, it has been a very heartwarming experience, a reaffirmation of America to work with my colleagues. And I thank you for the chance to be here.

ARMEY: Thank you. I want to thank all the panel. It is our custom in this committee then, to proceed under the five minute rule and for me to ask full cooperation on the part of everybody on the committee and panels alike to try to conform to that rule. We'll begin with Mr. Delay from Texas.

DELAY: First let me say I really appreciate the work that you have done even before 9-11. You had the foresight to understand the importance of protecting and defending the American people. And you've been very persistent, every one of you, in pushing your ideas and certainly participated in this process. And I commend every one of you, not only in the work that you've done, but also commend you for working together. Because of the five minute rule, I have learned that if you ask one question, that's all you get. And so I'm going to ask two that maybe you can -- the entire panel can speak to. One is the jurisdiction issues that this Select Committee is going to have to deal with. And Miss Tauscher has already touched on one of them, the TSA.

But there's also in your committee recommended that we don't move the Coast Guard into the Department of Homeland Security. And there's some other issues out there. I would ask you to comment on what your recommendations to this Select Committee would be in dealing with those issues, most importantly the Coast Guard and TSA and any others that you may -- I mean, there is the INS problem of whether we split INS, what we do with the State Department. And the second issue is one that came up at the Government Reform Committee. And that was an amendment by Miss Morella that changed how the President can operate when it comes to collective bargaining.

In fact, the amendment as I read it changes what is presently under current law. And that is that the President has the authority to restrict collective bargaining at governmental units that are critical to national security. And Democrat and Republican Presidents have used that and have used it judiciously or ever since the 1970's. What the Morella Amendment does is basically says for the Department of Homeland Security you will treat the employees differently than any other department in our, in our government. In other words, it restricts the President's ability to waive collective bargaining for those that are -- for those employees that may be involved in direct national security issues. So if you could speak to those two issues I'd appreciate it.

THORNBERRY: I'll try to start very briefly. The Coast Guard has got to be a part of this department. If we are to have effective border security and port security, they have to be part of this. They cannot be out there by themselves. And I don't think it works to split the Coast Guard in half. They have to be part of it. Transportation Security Administration, I think, does too. And I don't know of much controversy about that.

I think INS is a tougher question. Frankly, I can see a variety of arguments. What you have to have is the border patrol. They have to be part of this. Now, whether the service part of INS -- we did not include in our legislation in the Department of Homeland Security. I think that's one of those issues in my mind that is important but it is not as critical as the others to making this work.

And so, on the other point, I think that it would be a mistake to give the President less flexibility than he has now. I think to get this new organization going, he has to have some added flexibility. Now maybe we -- I'll just throw out maybe we can restrict that added flexibility in terms of time or in particular ways so that people are reassured. But I think to make this work, the things like the reprogramming and the other things, that flexibility has to be there.

HARMAN: I have been saying that the war on terrorism has expanded to the war on turf. That may be the tougher war. But we have to win that one, too. And I think that Congress will be measured by whether we win that war or not. And I predict that over time we will have to change our own structure in order to be more effective in authorizing and appropriating funds for the homeland security effort for the country. I think all of us were together on a bill before the Administration proposed its bill that would have had a smaller department and a more robust White House function. I'm prepared to go with this version.

But I do think many in Congress have valid concerns about how big it should be. And it would be a terrible mistake if we spent all of our time transitioning to this big structure and forgot about focusing on the threat. That obviously is not the point. And Norman Orenstein (ph) wrote an interesting piece in the Washington Post on Sunday making the point that we might get lost here. So my comment is just that I think you ought to be a little bit open to some of the concerns expressed. But I do agree that, at a minimum, we have to have one integrated digital border system. And everything that goes into protecting our borders has to be linked together or we will not be able to keep the evildoers out and make certain we know who is in.

ARMEY: I'm afraid I have to call time on this question. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. We can come back to it maybe later. Miss Pelosi.

PELOSI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For that colleague's -- we'll just go back to the regular order. Thank you all very much for being here and for your leadership and your early leadership on this very important issue and your bipartisan -- excuse me. Did you hear the wonderful things I said about you? I keep forgetting that button. I always begin my comments reverting to the families affected by September 11th. And I know we all carry them in our hearts.

When we met with the families as part of other responsibilities here, they have told us that when a plane flies over or any -- if they hear of a warning or a threat, just the horror for them is revisited. Not that it ever leaves, but it is intensified. So we owe them to act in a very bipartisan way. We're walking on hallowed ground here. And we want to do the right thing.

My concerns are about the size of this new department. I would prefer your suggestion, your early suggestion of something very strong in the White House and leaner in terms of the bureaucracy outside the White House. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we could make the suggestion that several of our colleagues here and including Congresswoman Harman about the strengthening the Office of Homeland Security in the White House by making it statutory, not just its existence springing from executive order.

I don't know if we have that authority in our bill. But I hope that we could consider that. Because I think that's very important. I've had conversations with Mr. Gibbons about the need as has been mentioned here, of having our entire government responsible for homeland security. And that coordination could happen at the White House. I don't want us to have any more or less bureaucracy than we need within the new department. There's some costs involved in this transition as well as time.

Secretary O'Neil was here the other day and he didn't think -- he, in questions that Mr. Frost asked of the costs involved in transitioning, he said it shouldn't cost much. There's no reason I can't still be the landlord for the Customs Service, just change the sign on the door. Maybe that's the way the Administration intends to go. I don't know.

But I mentioned this morning, the President, after we had our public meeting, there are 125 municipalities in the country only that have populations bigger than this new department will have. A hundred fifty, 160, 70,000 and below is where most people live in this country. So I would hope that we could have something much leaner than that full -- those demographics -- that population so that the secretary can be coordinating and dealing with the threat and the risk and the response that, God forbid, that is needed, rather than with the management of this gigantic new department.

So make no mistake, if we need it be that big, OK. But let's suggest those suggestions to the Congressional scrutiny that is necessary. Tell me what you think now in light of the -- I heard what you said, Miss Harman, Congresswoman Harman, about your original proposal. And now you wholeheartedly support the President's proposal. It's a new experience to each of the other members of the committee. I'd like to know what your preference would be. To be closer to a leaner model, technologically based, with coordination, with a very strong element in the White House or this larger entity?

GIBBONS: Perhaps I'll start with that since we finished over here. My preference would be to have one that is very efficient, very flexible, almost an expeditionary model, if you will, of our government where we can be mobile enough to react to situations that arise that we don't predict, that we don't foresee in this point in time. I agree that having a department with 170,000 people in it seems unwieldy, almost bureaucratically burdensome. I think this is the one reason why when you look at the difficulty of all of the responsibilities. You either strip responsibilities from agencies to put them into a smaller one or you bring the responsibility with a department to a common leadership role.

This is the justification for having an advisor to the President over top of all of the secretaries that could advise the President and make recommendations to the President on giving directions to these secretaries of various departments that will have a responsibility for homeland defense. One of the other challenges, for example, would be take the analysis or the intelligence part. Will the Homeland Defense Department be able to task our CIA or our FBI once it has information in its hands that says that we need to be focusing some of our research collection on a specific item or a specific person? And in order to do that, someone outside of the chain of equal power, in other words, secretary to secretary, is going to have to make a decision on where resources will be spent.

And this is why I believe that if you have an agency, even if it has certain departments, certain responsibilities within its own domain, that you have somebody who is making recommendations in the process to give direction for coordination.

GIBBONS: Without the coordination, without the information sharing, you'll be reaching back into that box of puzzle parts and taking your part, your handful and running off to your room and trying to put the puzzle together. You need somebody to coordinate it and somebody to give direction to it. And how they work that out, I think, is something that this Congress and future Congress' will be doing in the future.

ARMEY: The gentle lady's time is expired. The gentleman from Oklahoma.

PELOSI: Thank you very much.

WATTS: Well, I surely appreciate you all's time as well. And I appreciate very much the work that you guys have done on this. And I have, I have -- it's spooky for politicians to hear those kind of noises behind them. I heard -- I saw the -- I have seen much of the work that each of you have done. Some of the comments that you all have made over the last or post September 11th on this issue. And I -- in the President's legislation he's asking for some flexibility for the new Homeland Defense Department in trying to manage this thing.

Two things I'd like to ask. One, there's a transition period of about a year. We had Tom Ridge here yesterday and I questioned deeply whether or not a year's going to be adequate time to make the transition. I would like to get your thoughts on that. And secondly, last week in the Government Reform Committee, as you all know, Congresswoman Morella offered an amendment which was adopted by one vote limiting the President's to restrict collective bargaining rights at the Homeland Security Department on national security grounds. I know that each of you served with me on the Armed Services Committee. I would like to get your thoughts on that as well. TAUSCHER: Mr. Watts, I strongly support the Morella Amendment that provides the agency's employees the right to collective bargaining. But when we were creating -- if you think back a couple of years ago, Max Lembry (ph) and I were the parents of the National Nuclear Security Administration. We took the nuclear weapons components of the Department of Energy and we moved them into a semi-autonomous agency. Specifically to get them out of a kudzu laden bureaucracy where, you know, the Department of Energy regulates refrigerator coolant and it has the nuclear weapons. And unfortunately, not a lot of people were paying attention to the nuclear weapons.

So we decided it was important to move them into this new semi- autonomous agency. And we can probably get you some of the language that was used at the time. But it gave the Administrator of the NNSA some opportunity to work with the Civil Service employee unions to provide what I think we all agree is some necessary flexibility, but not to bend the collective bargaining pieces into a pretzel. I think that the people that are coming into this new agency are going to be tremendously energized. They are the front-line defense in a new war with tremendous vulnerabilities in this country. They want to preserve our civil rights. We should preserve their ability to have the kind of rights in their job that they've had before. But I think we have to be thoughtful about what we term as flexibility versus what we take as an opportunity to change what I think are fundamental rights of these employees.

THORNBERRY: And, if I might, just -- I think a year is certainly enough to move things around for budget purposes and for the lines of authority. Of course the -- and my colleagues know better than I, but the intelligence analysis piece is not going to be all done and up and running as it should be in a year. And I'd suggest, just as we have continued to make refinements on the nuclear weapons that Ellen was just talking about, we're going to have to make some refinements as we go along. We won't get it perfect. We'll have to watch how this transition process goes and try to make improvements as we feel like they need to be. If I could just take a second and get back to one point, Miss Pelosi, that you have -- because I've listened carefully on television to all you all's comments.

PELOSI: And I hope that heard me compliment you on your (inaudible).

THORNBERRY: I did. And thank you very much. But I have just a slight concern about your talk about the size of this department. Ninety percent of the people in this department are border and homeland -- and border and transportation security. I don't think many people want to do with fewer border patrol agents or fewer screeners at the airports. And I know you're not for that. But my point just is 90 percent of these people are in those two functions. And so we -- I think we have to be -- we want them together. We want them working together. And hopefully, that's an outcome. Thank you for letting me get that in.

PELOSI: Thank you.

HARMAN: Well, the clock is ticking. So in 15 seconds or less -- I think a year may be too long. I think the goal is to protect the American people and we need to frontload the most critical tasks. The strategy that the President released is a good document. And I suggest that we visit it and make certain that whatever we create, however big or small it is, it has the capacity quickly to prevent terrorist attacks, to shore up our infrastructure and to help us respond quickly. If we can't do those things, tomorrow I think we're vulnerable. So I would just urge us to frontload the most critical tasks.

ARMEY: Thank the gentleman. I believe we're getting the hang of this. Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Frost.

FROST: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too was at the White House this morning. And I think the -- Mrs. Harman's comments were very important which she made directly to the President urging that we have a procedure that would permit the final result to be a large vote in favor of the final passage. And I concur with that. And I hope that we can get 350 members on final passage, at least. My question is to Mrs. Harman. Hypothetically, if this committee and ultimately the Rules Committee were to adopt a procedure that did not permit votes on individual amendments on the floor on some of the matters that have been strongly supported by the committees of original jurisdiction, what do you think the result of that would be in terms of our ability to get a large vote for final passage?

HARMAN: Well, it's a hypothetical question. And I think it depends in large part on what this committee reports.

FROST: Assume for the sake of argument that the committee reports something that is substantially similar to the President's original proposal.

HARMAN: Well, if the impression in the House is that -- and I don't assume you would do this. In fact, I assume you will not do this. But if the impression in the House were that you ignored the work of the committees and ignored the good suggestions from a large number of members on a bipartisan basis and then closed the rule, I don't think that would be very good for a big vote on passage or even for passage.

I hope this committee will not only listen to us. We're just four people. But will take the good ideas from the committees, will be open to refining the bill, not throwing the bill out, but refining the bill in good ways, will think about this issue of how fast will this be up and running because we're vulnerable this hour, this day. And will report something that reflects a lot of the good ideas in the House. If that's the case, then I can imagine a rule that at least gets us to consider the whole thing in a reasonable period time open to some amendments. I don't think it has to be a totally open rule. But it really depends, Mr. Frost, on what the reported bill looks like.

FROST: All right. I ...

HARMAN: And I would urge inclusion of the good ideas brought forward in this House.

FROST: Thank you. I do have one other matter I would like to discuss with you and other members of the committee. And I don't think my friend from Texas, Mr. Delay was intentionally trying to misstate what had been done in the Government Reform Committee. But I'd like to clarify one point. And then, and then ask your comments. Under current statutory law passed in the late 1970's, only the President may exempt employees from Civil Service requirements. He must -- he can do so by executive order.

Under the bill introduced -- under the President's bill 5005 introduced by you and other members, a number of members, there is a provision, Section 730 which vastly expands the authority of the government to exempt Civil Service employees from Civil Service protections. It cedes this authority to the secretary of the new department and the Office of Personnel Management without any action of the President, gives them the right and does not set any particular standard for exempting employees from Civil Service protection.

The Government Reform Committee then adopted as its base text language written by Mr. Burton, the Chairman, a Republican which basically wiped out the provision, Section 730, that is that provision ceding the authority that the President previously had giving that authority to the new secretary and the, and the OPM Director. And then that text was adopted. And then the Morella Amendment was added on top of that which would further refine the President's authority to issue an executive order.

Now I guess the first question is what's wrong with the -- with Mr. Burton's amendment? Forget about the Morella Amendment for a minute. What's wrong with what Mr. Burton did in just saying we're not going to give the secretary and the Director of OPM the authority to exempt people. We're going to put it back so that only the President could do it? Is there anything wrong with that?

GIBBONS: Well, let me say -- and I think the issue here is time. Does the President have to micromanage each and every individual? There's nothing wrong with collective bargaining or the rights that our Civil Service employees have negotiated. Let me say that my issue with this would be that if it's currently in the opinion of Congress that the standard that we meet today by having the President be the person responsible for waiving any rights of a negotiated agreement is satisfactory. And if Congress feels that that waiver can be done in a timely fashion in the face of a national crisis, then I would say there's nothing wrong with Mr. Burton's language.

FROST (?): And I would hope that the committee ...

ARMEY: I'm sorry. The gentleman's time is expired.

FROST (?): ... seriously considers Mr. Burton's language and gives him the opportunity to offer it on the floor if it's not made known.

ARMEY: Gentle lady from Ohio.

PRYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would any of you care to discuss the risks involved to industry and how we can encourage industry to be open and above board and completely honest about what the risks may be? Of course, it involves the Freedom of Information Act and that is a balancing act that we must do. And there is a lot of controversy surrounding that. And I'm sure that you all have given that a lot of thought. And I would just like to hear each of your expression of what this committee should do. So I will stop now and allow you to address it.

TAUSCHER: Well, Mrs. Pryce, I think that what's important -- I know in my district where I have the Headquarters of Chevron, Texaco and Peoplesoft and Safeway Stores, soon after September 11th, they went on to their very public, very used Web sites and began to scrub them of just gratuitous information that was on there, just nice stuff that was up there kind of like friendly information that was very dangerous on second view in the context of September 11th. And they have aggressively gone about taking some of that information down. A lot of it was gratuitous. It was stuff they volunteered to tell people.

But I think that we have once again a balancing act. The right to know, certainly in Northern California, George Miller's district, my district, we have a Dow Chemical Plant. Is there a right to know of my constituents of what kind of chemicals are there? Absolutely. But the way we do that and the context we do that, the partnership among the local governments, certainly the first responders. The EPA has a lot of that information. You know, how do we make sure that the right people have information so that they can act appropriately at the right time to protect in the case of either an attack or an accident. So these are difficult situations. I know Mrs. Harman and Mr. Gibbons have worked hard on this issue. Let me, let me turn it over to them.

GIBBONS: Well, I'll just say briefly, on the FOIA issue, it seems to me if a company has to produce information now that is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, we ought to leave that alone. If they are going to produce new information about their vulnerabilities that is not now required, maybe we ought to look at protecting that. Or because otherwise, they're simply not going to tell us their problems. And so I know you all put a lot of talk into this -- a lot of discussion into this. You may want to consult with the lawyers more and certainly they'll know more than me. But it just seems to me this is not that hard to get what we want on both sides.

HARMAN: I think the goal here is to get companies to come forward voluntarily with new information that could be helpful in the homeland security effort and new products. And that we are going to have to consider how to protect their trade information against competition and how to indemnify some of their products if they're offered in good faith and there's no reckless conduct. And those are hard issues, but I think this committee should grapple with them.

I just wanted to say to Mr. Frost, I've been thinking about Mr. Burton's amendment, which I was not aware of. We don't want to derogate existing law, I don't believe. I think there's a careful balance struck. Nor do we want to weaken -- nor do we want to offer different treatment of employees in this Administration from other Administrations. So I think you have a very interesting idea. And I would just point out that the President this morning said to us in the group he's not trying to fiddle with collective bargaining. He thinks that those processes should be left in place.

GIBBONS: Let me go back to your question. I think the greatest tool that we have in our inventory is good intelligence. First of all warnings are created by the fact that we are supposedly gathering the information. I have created in my district, in the state of Nevada a Homeland Security Committee which is made up of both first responders and industry officials bringing them together to talk about their weaknesses or talk about their needs and where one can benefit the other. And I think if we all went out and created the same within our own districts and looked internally, then Congress doesn't have to be the one who sifts out in an enormous process of trying to manage and trying to protect each and every individual agency.

This is going to be one where first responders, police, fire departments, National Guards are going to be there first. They should be working closely with private sector agencies. Our worst enemy is the Web. It has the information of all kinds of notorious information on there that could be used against in a whole panoply of contrived and thought up terrorist acts. We just have to be able to react to it. And that's where good intelligence, warning and preparation come into hand.

PRYCE: Thank you.

ARMEY: Gentle lady's time is expired.

PRYCE: Thank you.

ARMEY: The gentleman from New Jersey.

MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend all of you for the work that you have been doing collectively and individually. And I think it's remarkable. And it has in part led to some of my questions over the last several days. And I'd like to take this opportunity to, especially to Mrs. Harman and Miss Tauscher who serve in the Democratic Caucus' Task Force on Homeland Security and are chairs of the working, several different working groups for all of the work that they've done in that regard as well. And I'd like to pick your brain a little bit about some of the issues we've been raising and to see where you're at.

Mr. Gibbons described that this department as proposed provides the opportunity, allows, I think were your words, for information sharing. My concern is that there are no mechanisms to guarantee information sharing in the legislation. So I'd like to know do you believe that language that provides for mechanisms for information sharing to actually take place is worthy of being considered, one.

Two, are there mechanisms to protect non-security missions transferred into this department which presently do not exist in the legislation? That was a good part of my questioning today. Do you believe that providing for mechanisms to protect non-security missions within the department would be appropriate?

Thirdly, I think I heard the discussion on FOIA and I basically agree. I just want to make sure that as I read the legislation right now, chemical company in my district in New Jersey gives all their chemical ingredients to Homeland Security and avoids the right to know law. I don't think that's the Administration's intent. But the language could be used that way. And I think we should firm that up.

And lastly, because I want to lay out all the questions and let you take up the time in that regard. And lastly, I am concerned on this whole question of separating public health research. And I raised this today with Secretary Thompson. And whether you look at Margaret Hamburg, the Vice President of Biological Programs for the Nuclear Threat Initiative who believes, in her words, that we will weaken and fragment our nation's capacity to respond to infectious disease, whether occurring naturally or caused intentionally.

Or Dr. Tara O'Toole, the Center for Civilian Biodefense at John Hopkins who believes that the country would be forced to create parallel work forces, one in Homeland Security for bioterrorism preparedness and then another in HHS for normal public health functions. Or whether you listen to the GAO report that found that the structure proposed for research and preparedness program at another department does not ensure that both the goals of homeland security and public health will be met.

Is that an area that we should reconsider in the context of achieving the synergies, the cost savings, the benefits that we want to achieve? Those are my four major areas of questions. And I allow any one of you to take whatever parts of it you want.

GIBBONS: Let me just start, Mr. Menendez, with the intelligence part. I believe that the amendment that was passed in the Intelligence Committee allows for and, in fact, does permit sharing of information between agencies, both horizontally and vertically. Again, it goes back to my thought in addition to how do you task various agencies who are collecting that information with pointing out weaknesses or areas that they should be interested in. This is why we need, I believe, either a director or an advisor to the President who can direct these various agencies in a task (inaudible).

MENENDEZ: Just to note that is not in the President' bill as is, now?

GIBBONS: No. It is not.

TAUSCHER (?): No.

MENENDEZ: All right. It's important to note that that is something for the committee to consider.

HARMAN: If I could just add to that point one thing, which is that I believe in the Government Reform Committee, Mr. Shays added the text of an amendment of a bill this House passed 422 to two that was co-authored by a number of us here that would require the government to implement a program to share information across the federal government on potential threats. And then vertically down to first responders stripping out the sources and methods so that people without clearance can receive the information and know what to do. I think that that is a very good roadmap. And it is certainly in the material before you. And I would urge you to adopt what the Intelligence Committee did on this point plus the bill that I think all of you probably voted for on the House floor a couple weeks ago.

TAUSCHER: One of the issues on intelligence, I think, that has concerned me and others for a long time is you cannot just view this Homeland Security Agency as a customer. It is a permeable barrier from top to bottom. Literally the dots are connected of the 87,000 different jurisdictions in this country of which everyone is now basically a combatant. And we are now -- so this agency, it will be -- the ability to do the four A's. They have to analyze. They have to archive. They have to advise. They have to alert.

So they're not just going to be a customer, per se, of intelligence. So it's important that you have a procurement strategy that decides how you make sure people get the right kind of ability to have interoperability to talk to each other. So I think this is very, very complicated. And I think your questions are good questions. But I also think that there is a necessity and an urgency to create this department so you do have a cabinet secretary that could begin to do the work that subsequently answers many of your questions. Congress is just beginning its job.

ARMEY: Thank you. Time is expired. The gentleman from Ohio.

PORTMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to start by commending the four of you. First, because of you are ahead of the curve along with Bob Menendez and J.C. Watts and a few others, only a handful here in Congress. You were talking about this and pushing some of us on this long before C-Span was covering your comments. And we appreciate that.

Second is because you have worked just as we want this agency to work. You have worked seamlessly, with agility, sometimes flexibility because you've come together, I know, with some differences and worked them out. And finally you've left your partisanship behind as you've worked on this project. So it's been impressive to watch it. And I've enjoyed working with you. I want to ask you some questions. And I don't have much time. And the chairman may not give me a second round, so if you could just give me a quick yes or no. If you could just answer in unison. First do you all think that the Transportation Security Agency ought to be part of this new Homeland Security Agency? Yes or no.

TAUSCHER: Yes.

HARMAN: Yes.

GIBBONS: Yes.

PORTMAN: Do you all think that the Department of Immigration as it relates to the border patrol ought to be part of this new agency? Yes or no.

TAUSCHER: Yes.

GIBBONS: Yes.

PORTMAN: Do you all think that the Customs Service ought to be part of this new agency?

TAUSCHER: Yes.

GIBBONS: Yes.

HARMAN: Yes.

PORTMAN: Do you all think that the Animal Plant and Inspection Services, so-called AFIS over at the Department of Agriculture, which is inspections, ought to be part of this new agency?

THORNBERRY: As the Ag Committee has changed it, I think that's one example where the committees have done great work. They took out the border piece, left what we didn't need for this department. That's the right answer.

PORTMAN: OK. Do you all think that the Coast Guard ought to be a part of this new agency?

TAUSCHER: Yes.

HARMAN: Yes.

GIBBONS: Yes.

PORTMAN: OK. Right there, you're over 90 percent. How about the Immigration processing function? Immigration Service, the processing function?

THORNBERRY: I mentioned that I can see all sorts of arguments there. I would probably say yes because I don't know where else it fits better. But it is, it is one of those things that could be argued in a variety of ways.

HARMAN: I would argue that whatever we do with it, we have to totally reform it. I mean, one of the huge ...

PORTMAN (?): Absolutely.

HARMAN: ... vulnerabilities is ...

PORTMAN (?): And the House has passed legislation to do that.

HARMAN: ... the inability of our agencies to keep out people who should be kept out or to monitor student visas when they lapse.

GIBBONS (?): And I would add that in addition to reform, we must make sure that the information collected through the INS is coordinated with our other intelligence agencies so that we can determine whether or not the individuals we're admitting ...

PORTMAN (?): Absolutely.

GIBBONS (?): ... to this country ...

PORTMAN (?): Who's coming in and going out.

GIBBONS (?): ... aren't on any watchlist.

PORTMAN (?): Absolutely. It needs to part of it. Ellen.

TAUSCHER: I also think that it's a tremendous asset for intelligence. The good news is that there's a lot of things we can learn from that function and that we have to know. And these are people that are also going to be providing, I think, maybe high level security information. But it needs to be able to go in the bin.

PORTMAN: Do you think FEMA should be part of this new agency?

TAUSCHER: Yes.

HARMAN: Yes.

GIBBONS: Yes.

THORNBERRY: Absolutely.

PORTMAN: (inaudible) All yeses?

HARMAN: I think it should be the basis of the new agency.

TAUSCHER: Right.

PORTMAN: OK. How about the Federal Protective Services which protects its federal buildings? Federal Protective Services? Even some of the smaller ones, but ...

THORNBERRY: Yes. I think it makes sense.

TAUSCHER: Yes.

HARMAN: Yes.

PORTMAN: How about the Secret Service?

THORNBERRY: Yes. It was not in our original bill. But given the role they have taken at Super Bowls and Olympics and that sort of thing, I think it makes sense.

GIBBONS: Right.

TAUSCHER: Right.

PORTMAN: They handled Salt Lake. They handled the Super Bowl.

TAUSCHER: That's right.

PORTMAN: I just -- I would just -- I, and again, I agree with everything that Mrs. Pelosi has been saying about leaner and meaner. I really do. And this needs to be a 21st century agency. We need to rely on technology and we need to rely on coordination, and so on. But 170,000 people is just what you all have said that is necessary. And I just -- don't get hung up on the numbers. I mean, being leaner and meaner means that we work better with what we have. The alternatives are not good, which is to leave out agencies that have a direct impact, not just on homeland security.

As Miss Harman has said, there's another 80 percent of the government that directs, has something to do with that. But these are agencies that have a direct impact on our borders and a direct impact on the security of our country in a way that if you would not have a part of it, it would not work as well. I would also say that they're still going to be there in the bureaucracy. And to the extent you can consolidate and get some savings out of that, not just in terms of people, but in terms of effectiveness, I think it's worth it. And the synergies, hopefully, you can get out of that we do need to do is be sure that we have management flexibility and personnel flexibility.

And I just quickly comment on Mr. Frost's question because I think he said that maybe Tom Delay didn't state it quite right. I'm not sure that we stated it quite right the second time around in terms of the general issue. Section 730 does not exempt employees from all Civil Service protection. What it does say either you're going to follow the basic principles of merit and that the agency would come back to us with a recommendation on a new system. But it would not take people out of Civil Service protection.

Second, this whole issue of the national security waiver -- and you all have answered this well, I think. But as I understand it, and again, I may be missing something here. What we would be saying is that this agency is not like the FBI. Or it's not like any other agencies, the DEA, the Secret Service, the agencies of the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy defense programs, AID, parts of AID, parts of FEMA where the President does have this ability to go in on a selected basis and deal with collective bargaining rights, exempt people from collective bargaining rights for national security reasons.

The alternative is to come in with a big club and just say the whole agency is exempt, which I think is not as good for the employees and not as surgical and doesn't make for a leaner and meaner agency. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time that I have.

ARMEY: Thank the gentleman. Gentle lady from Connecticut.

DELAURO: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say thank you to my colleagues. I will just say to you that of -- we've heard a lot of testimony in the last two days. And I think it's always true very much for members in listening to other members who have spent a very, very long time pursuing these issues and these areas and the four of you and the folks who are running our committees. I think you get a certain sense of reassurance or understanding of the, of the issues from another member's perspective, especially people who are recognized in your particular areas. So we -- I just say to you thank you very, very much. And this commentary (ph) is very, very much appreciated.

I want to just say two things quickly here and then I would like to get back to the public health issue because as Congressman Menendez focused on that today, I focused on that yesterday. And I think that there's some important pieces here. If you would just take a look at -- and for no real comment today because we're talking about the FOIA issue. There is exemption for FOIA which some believe already protects from disclosures certain confidential trade secret information that private entities may supply to the government.

That was reinforced by the commentary of an FBI official of a director of a national infrastructure protection center where he said we believe that there are sufficient provisions in the FOIA not to protect information that's provided to us. I would just ask you to take a look at that. And also to consider the proposal, the current proposal and what surrounds the issue of the inspector general with regard to this agency as to how it regards the Defense Department and Justice.

DELAURO: And to see -- because I would love to get your views at another time soon on what you think of that area. Let me move to the public health issue because I think it is critical about seeing whether or not we are going to bifurcate agencies that that are doing an unbelievable job already and they're tried and true. Dr. Hamburger's remarks, Dr. O'Toole, the GAO, I might comment to you was concerned. They concluded that giving the Secretary of Homeland Security control over programs to be carried out by other departments will create confusion about roles and responsibilities for certain health functions, could lead to difficulties in balancing priorities, with regard to transfer of dual purpose programs, concerns for priority setting, concerns with transfer of control. It goes from academics to government agencies.

And I got a letter from Bob Ingram, Health Director, Dr. Ingram from the (inaudible) Health Department who -- and I'd like to put this letter in the record -- who says if someone was transferred away from public health systems, away from professionals who already know how to contain outbreaks, spread of disease but are rarely given adequate tools to do so, the result will be less adequate level of bioterrorism preparedness and continued performance in every day disease control. There is real concern out there about this issue across the line. I don't know amongst you who has focused their time and attention on this particular issue. I just would love to get your comments and be further enlightened about this from your perspective.

THORNBERRY: Well, if I might start, Miss Delauro. The short answer is this provision was not in our bill that we introduced originally. So none of us, I think, have focused on it in the in depth that you all have talked about it over the past few days. But let me say this, clearly defenses, prevention of bioterrorism is a critical part of what this agency needs to do and what our government needs to do. Now it just -- it's easier said than done, I realize. But it seems to me we could have the necessary assurances that the important public health functions continue. These people, as I understand it, are not going to really move. It's one source of their funding comes from a different place. And we're going to have to make it all fit together. And now I realize that's you all's job. It's easier for me to say it than to do it. I just don't see why it should be an insurmountable obstacle.

HARMAN: I think it's a hard issue. I think if I had to make the call, I would not move it in here. But what I would have in here is all the technology to create a syndromic surveillance so we know what's showing up in our hospitals and to make sure that electronically we can make sure we have surge capacity and move people around in the event of a terrorist attack. But I don't really care whether the small pox epidemic was caused by a terrorist or by some random bug. And I don't think we need to take three nanoseconds to analyze that. We need the capacity, period. And we need to robustly fund it.

DELAURO: Thank you.

ARMEY: I am the final questioner in this round. I might advise the panel that we will have a second round. And further advise the panel to -- if you have a burning notion that you want to share with the panel, jot it down and I will surrender my last five minutes to this panel for your final thoughts for this committee. In the meantime, let me also ask you if you would for the benefit of this committee take the time in the next day or so to find the Burton language, study it if you will. It is my understanding, it has been worked out with the Office of Personnel Management (inaudible) with the White House and very likely might serve us well. We would value your opinion on it.

Now then, on this question of FOIA, I'm fascinated because one of my favorite songs is Nobody's Business. I think first done well by Ertha Kitt, most recently done by Hank Williams, Jr. Nobody's Business But My Own. Fundamental American right, I believe, to proclaim it's nobody's business but my own. FOIA, I believe, is designed to protect America from a government that operates in secret. The idea that we might apply FOIA to private business enterprise and compel them to divulge information that might put them at risk for reckless lawyers or put their own security of their operation at risk for villainous deed-doers does not strike me as a very wise extension of FOIA, nor one that is consistent with foundation rights in America, which is to wit as I have said, the right to say to you it's none of your business what I am doing. I wonder if you would comment on that.

THORNBERRY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that -- as I say, to me, we should leave FOIA as it is for existing requirements. And in general, I think with this law, what we should try to do is do the organizational part without changing more substantive law than we need to change. That makes all of our job easier. So we ought to leave it where it is. But to the extent we need private businesses to tell us, the federal government, about their vulnerabilities, to work with us to reduce their vulnerabilities, to the extent we're asking them to volunteer information that they do not now have to give us, I think they have to be protected from that.

HARMAN: I agree with Mr. Thornberry. But I also think that our language has to be very careful so that we don't create what Mr. Frost called a loophole. We don't want to give the opportunity for those who could not shield their information otherwise to dump it in here and say, Oh, sorry. Now the public can't know. So there is a valid public policy purpose to getting businesses to come forth and help us. There is also a valid public policy purpose to protect and preserve the goals of FOIA.

GIBBONS: I would join with Mr. Thornberry and Miss Harman in their comments on this and only to remind the panel that in the law we do protect companies who, in terms of lawsuits make a remedial correction to a deficiency. Now if they put out on -- into the public information which allows the terrorists to attack and injure people, then they themselves can be held liable for that information which they put out there. And so we have got ourselves into a very difficult position on this issue. But I do believe that we should allow FOIA to remain unaltered.

TAUSCHER: I agree.

ARMEY: We talked a little bit about our concern that the Transportation Safety Agency may not fulfill all of the Congressional mandates by the time this new department might be created in law. And your suggestion, Miss Tauscher, is that we might want to leave this agency out until such time as it fulfill that. Is it conceivable, though, that another alternative might be for us to look at those deadlines that this Congress set some time at an earlier time in this process, perhaps deadlines that may have been overly optimistic and naive and seize the opportunity of this legislation to perhaps correct those deadlines so that we can move the agency as we move everything else? What do you think of that offer (ph)?

TAUSCHER: Well, I think that, you know, we could be like all good American women and multi-task. I think it would be smart for us to think about looking at those deadlines. Because I believe that they were arbitrary and unachievable. That's why the Aviation Subcommittee at my request last week is going to have hearings, both open and closed with the Transportation Security Administration and ask them point blank whether they can deliver on those deadlines. The mid-November deadline for hiring federal screeners and the January 1st deadline for the EDS machines. And I think, you know, frankly, last week we had a 435 member frequent flyer focus group when we, when we dealt with the arming of pilots.

And I don't think anybody flies more than members of Congress. And I think what my constituents tell me at home is they perceive that the pilots were talking about very serious vulnerabilities, that the cockpit doors have not been armorized. They've been reinforced by Home Depot. And that we need to do the right thing. That is an April 9th deadline. We should look to move that up and we should look to do it in a very responsible way. Because that is what people believe will protect them.

ARMEY: Well, thank you. Do you all agree with this position?

HARMAN: I strongly agree. I would point out that I represent LAX which is where there was a shooting and three deaths at the El Al ticket counter a couple of weeks ago. And I'm very worried about the security of that airport. And I was yesterday with the new TSA Director, his first day on the job at LAX talking about the deadlines. I think that Miss Tauscher is right and that we should accelerate doing a few things well like installing sensors and fortifying cockpit doors. And then we should delay a few things that we know are going to be disasters like the installation of outmoded equipment that weighs too much to be supported on the floors of our current airports and wait until it miniaturizes and put in leaner and more efficient machines next year.

ARMEY: Thank you. Round two. The gentleman from Oklahoma.

WATTS: Mr. Chairman, I will -- Mr. Chairman, I will yield my time or forego my time.

ARMEY: You yield your time?

WATTS: I'll forego my time. Yes, sir.

ARMEY: Gentle lady from California.

PELOSI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to get back to my lean, unflabby department for the future. And I want to respond to what Mr. Thornberry said earlier as well as my distinguished colleague on the panel. And that is I'm not saying that we should have any fewer than the number of people we need to be doing our protecting of the American people and reduction of risk. What I'm saying is do they all have to be managed and administered by this one secretary?

The point is is that we want that he or she to have the ability to coordinate, to be thinking in a very forethinking way about our collecting the intelligence, analyzing -- well, they won't be collecting it. They'll be receiving it. Perhaps they will task back. When they present our proposal tomorrow from the Intelligence Committee, I think that you will see that it is a constructive improvement on the President's bill and one that I hope this committee will accept. And so it's not a question of whether we had the same number of people protecting the American people. It's a question of who is responsible for the general administrative management of these people, rather than the coordination of their activity.

That's why I think your original suggestion of a strong Office of Homeland Security in the White House was brilliant because that is where the coordination would take place, rather than (inaudible) and then have this leaner department. I also think, as I said again, in my opening remarks last week, as in real estate, the three most important points are location, location, location. In this case, I think it is localities, localities, localities. Across our country, we have -- that's where the risk is. That's where the great ideas are. And that's where the need is also for resources from the federal level.

So I would like to see this department being a place that is a grant maker to exploit the opportunity possibilities and the needs that are out in the localities. And they are not universally (inaudible). Mr. Gibbons talked about what he has done in his area. We who live in earthquake country, the Californians know that we have our office of emergency services well matured in this regard. We can always do better in light of terrorism.

But some of our colleagues have come to us and said in rural areas we have volunteer fire departments and we have needs that are quite different from what you have. So we need this department to be thinking about how do we use the resources that we have to exploit the opportunities that are there in the localities where as I say, the fear, the needs and the good ideas are. So it's not about having anything less to protect the American people. It's about having a secretary whose focus is on that and not on the management responsibilities which can be burdensome and their additional bureaucracy.

THORNBERRY: Thank you, Miss Pelosi. And I appreciate the chance to discuss this a little more. The second part of what your statement I agree completely. I think that's why it is so essential that you have this FEMA like structure that can help this communication with the state and local folks. If we empower those emergency responders on the ground, we will have done a tremendous benefit in this bill. It is one of the highest goals, I think, of us, of this proposal. On the administrative part, let me, let me give you this concern.

For all of the different agencies on the borders, they have approximately 11 different databases. Many of them have different systems of communication, some of which do not even operate with one another. And my concern is that Tom Ridge and 100 people in the White House cannot go down to that level of detail and coordinate to make sure they buy the same radios, that their databases are compatible. Only somebody in a -- with a direct chain of command and the budget authority, i.e., a department secretary with a, with a direct chain of command can make those things happen on the ground. That's why they have to be brought together.

PELOSI: I understand that. And I think we should subject every suggestion to the scrutiny and to the analysis that you just gave. And I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a department. I certainly think there should be a department. But that we should select with care what must absolutely be there. Because some of these departments, these agencies do so much other than terrorism (ph). And you know that. We've been down that path before.

THORNBERRY: Sure. I would just say if you're going to take ...

PELOSI: That's not that there shouldn't be one.

THORNBERRY: If you're going to take part of border security, you'd better go ahead and take the Coast Guard, the Customs Service and the Border Patrol if it's going to work.

PELOSI: Yes. Let me just say because much has been said about FEMA. Great genius of FEMA is that there are no -- it's not a permanent workforce. It's something that's drawn upon in time of emergency to call upon people with experience to come in and do this. FEMA will now have an enhanced role and maybe a permanent workforce. I don't know how it will play out. But it is going to need more resources.

PELOSI: So we cannot really say that this is budget neutral. And I think we have to be careful about establishing as the President said in his strategy that we have to assess, we have to reduce risks and we have to be judicious in the use of our resources as we give them priority in fighting the war on terrorism.

ARMEY: The lady's time is expired.

PELOSI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ARMEY: Gentle lady from Ohio.

PELOSI: I thank my colleagues.

PRYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You truly are experts among us. And I didn't take an opportunity to thank you for doing the hard work that advanced us to the point where we could actually make some sense in it when our work started. So I do want to let you know how grateful we are to all of you. Since we touched on TSA and the first time we've been brave enough to consider reconsidering some of it, are there other parts of that bill, for lack of another word I might use, but are there other parts that we should reconsider at this point? Did we do any of it wrong? Is there, is there room to improve upon it while we are looking at some parts to perhaps reconsider, at least in terms of deadlines? Would anybody care to touch that one?

HARMAN: Well, I'll say a few more things. And I don't serve on the T&I committee so maybe I'm a little immune. But I think we intended to move quickly to make our airports safer. That was absolutely critical to do in order to get the American people flying again. As one who represents an airport, the economy around my airport is absolutely devastated and hasn't rebounded because of the decrease in flying. But I do think we could do better.

I've been saying TSA is an analogue agency in a digital age and we need to be creating a more technology based, smarter agency that manages risks better. Throwing a lot of people and a lot of money at the problem, I don't think, will fix it. The recent poll, I think that was a poll or survey that TSA did or someone did of our airports was devastating and shows that we have enormous gaps. And so I think this is the right time to reinvent TSA a bit to accelerate those things we can do well this minute before the deadlines that we've set and to push back deadlines that we can't meet effectively. I think the American people will understand and I would urge that in this bill we make some of those changes.

TAUSCHER: I will tell you the citizenship requirements that we put in are very onerous for many of our airports to meet. I think that we have to find a balance between Mrs. Pelosi's airport in San Francisco, you know, that isn't my area. Eighty percent of the screeners are legal aliens but are not citizens. And many of them have applications to become citizens and it is a train wreck for us to figure out how to meet these deadlines. Which is one of the reasons why SFO is one of the five top airports to opt out.

And I think, I think that we all believe that we need to have background checks. It's difficult to do a background check on someone if they're not a citizen. But there are many people in this country that are working through the ability of getting their citizenship papers who are hardworking Americans that have worked in these airports that deserve a chance to keep their job. They are trained. They're going to get more training. So I think the citizenship issues that we put in the bill are honorable, but perhaps unachievable. And I'm not sure that they actually deal with what we were afraid of at the time. And I think we should relook at those.

GIBBONS: Let me add just in the brief time we have left that I believe that the original bill, HR 5005 was merely a framework within which we could add our ideas and improve upon the bill to make it work. There are those people in Congress here who have many, many more years in federal government and experience than I have and are able to look at these issues and say, well, this will or will not work. Therefore, we should do it this way. I think those are taken in good faith, both by the Administration and by us, by everybody on this committee.

We will, of course, be working on this bill for a considerable time in the future. This Congress, the next Congress and perhaps Congresses to come will be making additions, changes, deletions as we go. So I don't think that we have the infinite wisdom today to sit down and say that everything we're doing today is cutting concrete, will work and should never be changed. But I think we've started down this road with the right idea. And we've got to make it work.

THORNBERRY: I agree. I'd just say that in general I would not want to refight all of those battles on this bill. Maybe there's some things that we can agree with and maybe some deadline flexibility is appropriate. But let's not take on more than we need to here.

PRYCE: Thank you. I yield back.

ARMEY: Thank you. Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Frost.

FROST: Several things. I agree with my colleague from Texas, Mr. Thornberry, that we should resist the temptation to make this a Christmas tree. That while I have great sympathy for changing those deadlines, I do not think it's appropriate to put it in this bill because we will then cause great opposition for this bill on the floor that would not otherwise be there. Secondly, I know that my friend, Mr. Portman, did not mean to misstate what's in Section 730 of the bill as submitted. And so I'll read the section into the record. I'll read the section into the record. Because Mr. Portman said there was provision in the section that would have the secretary's work come back for further consideration by Congress. And of course, that is not in this section.

The section reads as follows, notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the Secretary of Homeland Security may in regulations prescribed jointly with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management establish and from time to time, adjust the human resources management system for some or all of the organizational units of the Department of Homeland Security, which shall be flexible, contemporary and grounded in the public employment principles of merit and fitness.

Now the provision that Mr. Portman may have been thinking about actually is in Mr. Burton's amendment, the committee amendment, which provides that not later than five years after the effective date of this act, the secretary shall submit to Congress a proposal for a demonstration project, the purposes of which shall be to help obtain the human resources management system. Which in the judgment of the secretary is necessary in order to enable the department to best carry out its mission.

So there is, there is authority in the committee version, the provision written by Mr. Burton for the secretary to come back to Congress. And I think that's appropriate. But it is not in the underlying bill as 5005 as submitted to this committee. I would ask that members -- do you, do you have a view on this? I know a couple of you stated a view briefly because it was at the end of my last exchange as to -- about the underlying provision drafted by the committee by Mr. Burton which basically puts us back in the status quo, basically returns us to current law. And then provides for a demonstration project. Do you have any views on that.

TAUSCHER: I support the Burton -- putting it back the way it was.

GIBBONS: I think I answered your question (inaudible).

FROST: Yes, you did. You did, Mr. Gibbons.

HARMAN: And I think the Thornberry rule of not taking on fights we don't need might apply here, too.

THORNBERRY: Well, and the chairman has tasked us to go review the Burton language again, which I think we all intend to do and see.

FROST: I thank you because this is in the spirit, Mr. Chairman, of bipartisanship in trying to narrow the differences that may exist between the two sides. And trying to provide something from this Select Committee that will have broad agreement. I have no further questions. Yield back my time.

ARMEY: Thank you. Gentleman from Ohio.

PORTMAN: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, appreciate everything this panel has done to help us get to this point. And as important as it will be to get this bill passed and I think you're going to be key to that. I really do. And I think, you know, as we get to the floor, we're going to be relying on these four individuals and others who have been involved. But I think what's even more important is what happens next. And I would love to have your thinking today about how this gets implemented. Because I think it does relate to what we're doing today in two respects.

One, I think we can put in language which provides some important flexibility, particularly on the management side to be able to get this up and going in a way that does protect our citizens. And second, I think it relates to Congressional oversight and the need for ongoing oversight to be sure that some of these issues, which frankly, we cannot iron out through legislation. But will only be discovered once we begin the process of consolidating and hopefully finding those synergies and those more efficient ways to do things. But there will be issues, I think, that will come up that we cannot predict today. Could you all comment on that? What happens next? And particularly, what you think about flexibility?

THORNBERRY: Well, just to start briefly, I do think flexibility is important, particularly in the transition phase. But let me give you one other example. And Miss Tauscher and I dealt with this in the -- dealing with nuclear weapons. Part of the Department of Homeland Security has is going to try to fight cyber terrorists. In other words, we've got to go hire people who are computer expert, take them away from Silicon Valley salaries to come work for the government. Some sort of flexibility on pay so that you can get the kind of people you need to do that kind of work is essential.

We had to do the same thing in nuclear weapons. We had to find people who were going to supervise these nuclear physicists who are among the smartest of anybody in the world. So there has to be some flexibility, I think, to make this work right. And that needs to be taken into account as you all move along.

HARMAN: Well, applying the Thornberry rule, there is learning in other departments like the CIA and the Defense Department about hiring some of these whiz kids to run the computers and invent the new technologies. And so maybe we just need to borrow that and apply that in spare amounts to those functions of the new department rather than scare a lot of folks about the fact that we're going to take away their Civil Service protections. That would be one comment.

But two other points. First of all, leadership. Whatever is in this department, it will require a strong leader as secretary, somebody very skilled at merging cultures, reaching for the private sector, doing the politics of Washington, which is no easy feat. And there aren't that many people around who can do that. And I hope that the President chooses wisely. I'd like to commend Tom Ridge for the service he's given. I assume he's at the top of any list. But I hope that the President picks somebody with all of those skills. So that'd be my second point.

Last point and it relates to something Mrs. Pelosi said. Every act of terrorism is local. It happens on somebody's real estate. It could happen again in Washington, but it could as easily happen in Los Angeles or Cleveland or pick one. And we will be measured, not by how we move the boxes around. That's an arcane exercise that Washington loves. But by what tools and resources and information and interoperable communications we get to those who will be on that piece of real estate to prevent something or protect something or respond to something.

And if our exercise in remodeling doesn't give them the tools, we will have failed no matter what we put in this. So I hope we will keep our eye on what the goal is. And I think the President's strategy this morning laid out that goal very well. And that's what this committee should be about, achieving the goal.

GIBBONS: This is the largest reorganization of any government we've seen since 1947. I think the collective wisdom of this panel putting it together, getting the bipartisan contributions, looking at all of the agencies and committees that have had some input into this and taking a serious look at that and not merely going with blinders on and saying this is the only way we can approach this will be the answer to how we get this bill moved through Congress with a bipartisan and large vote.

TAUSCHER: I'll tell you why this has to be a vote of 350 plus. Because we're going to have to spend a lot of time looking through the rearview mirror and a lot of time deciding that this law of unintended (ph) consequences which will grip us the moment that the President signs it and we say, oops, we forgot that or not enough this or not enough that. This is spaghetti sauce. We're going to have to keep testing it and adding. And we're going to have to make sure, you know, I'd rather have it be spaghetti sauce than sausage making. But I think that we have to have everybody in the boat otherwise we're going to be pointing at each other and picking it apart, not moving forward together to fix it. And that's what we're going to have to do for a long time.

PORTMAN: Excellent point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ARMEY: Gentleman from New Jersey.

MENENDEZ: Well, thank you. I enjoy spaghetti sauce so I ...

TAUSCHER: And I make a good one.

MENENDEZ: But I -- do you? OK. Well, hopefully we can make a good one at this department without too many tries. I want to go back to my original line of questioning because I only got really one answer of the four. And I know I laid out a lot. So, question. Should there be mechanisms to protect non security missions in this legislation? I think that's one of the concerns that people have on the floor.

I think you'll have a lot more willingness to get to that 350, maybe far beyond it if non security missions are protected by language that ensures that we have, for example, for argument's sake, is the budgetary provisions of non security elements of an agency being transferred in are protected as a baseline and for which you can transfer but not to deplete for security purposes. You have a lot maybe less resistance to the Coast Guard going in so that it can still have environment and navigational issues and search and rescue. If you're representing some fishing community, you're going to care about your spouse coming back alive.

MENENDEZ: So you want that search and rescue mission to be a reality. Don't you think we can create language here that will give us a sense of security and not strap the Administration beyond the necessary (ph)? Because if you're arguing that in the first instance we're going to preserve all of those non security missions, then why not have language that deals with that? And secondly, what about this whole research and development issue on the question of health -- in the health related field and the public health field?

I think we're going to lose some of the synergies that this committee's talked about, some of the savings that this committee's talked about, some of the goals that this committee's talked about. And I'm worried about all of these (inaudible) that have raised questions. The GAO has raised questions. Is there not a better way in that respect? So those are my two major -- and I'd like each of you if you can to respond to them.

THORNBERRY: Mr. Menendez, I'd say on the non security missions a couple points. One is I think moving, beefing up FEMA, giving it more resources, having more regular communication with the state and local folks is going to put FEMA in a better position to deal with hurricanes. In other words, what we're doing really is elevating some of these agencies, FEMA to take this example, so that they are in a better position.

Coast Guard. We have to -- you know, I'm a long way from the ocean in my district. But I believe we have to put more resources into the Coast Guard. I think it will get more resources as a Department of Homeland Security whose primary mission is to keep us safe than left in a Department of Transportation which has missions, other missions associated with it. I think it's better.

Second point I'd make is that's part of our job in Congress. We appropriate the money. We do the oversight. It's part of our job to make sure that they do the -- they take care of the fisheries and the other things that the Coast Guard's responsible for. Having said all that, if there's a way to put some guidelines in to give people other reassurance, I'd like to look at them. Because I'd rather have constraints than to not have the Coast Guard as part of it because I believe it falls apart if we leave out a major element like that.

HARMAN: I've been involved over 10 years in a lot of efforts by Congress to micromanage things and set ceilings and put caps and the rest of it. And I would generalize and say that most of the time we've been wrong. And I would much prefer, Mr. Menendez, to have good leadership of this department and good oversight over this department and watch carefully to be sure that other missions are fulfilled. There may be more efficient ways to fulfill them. I wouldn't like to freeze resources in place, especially in a budget deficit environment.

On the public health piece, I think you were out of the room and I answered Miss Delauro by saying my call would be to leave it out, but to have in this department the capability to do syndromic surveillance so we know if strange things are turning up at our hospitals all over the country and to manage surge capacity of our hospitals. Those are two contributions we could make through this legislation. But I would keep our public health effort intact because it doesn't matter to me whether the small pox epidemic was started by a terrorist or started by accident.

GIBBONS: Fifteen seconds. Let me see if I can answer your question. The question would be whether or not you weaken the agency from which the agency departs to go to Homeland Security to the point that that agency can't conduct the remaining balance of its mission. Here it is its mission versus transferring agency. And very briefly let me say that, for example, the Treasury Department has a responsibility to ensure that protection and the security of our currency. That office also transfers that authority to enforce that to the Secret Service. If you transfer the Secret Service protective function to Homeland Security, can the Treasury still enforce monetary security? In other words, making sure that our money system is safe. I think they can. But the question would be if you transfer one, do you weaken the other so that it's ineffective. And we wouldn't want to do that. We don't want to micromanage that decision.

ARMEY: Let the chair observe that the chair expects votes to be called on the floor within the next 10 to 15 minutes. That being the case and in light of the fact that Chairman Sensennbrenner has agreed to come back after the votes are taken, I would suggest that we proceed in this matter. That we now have two members of the committee remaining who would have their second round. The chair would reserve his final place in the second round as we said for the panel to make their final observations for the committee.

By that time, my expectation is we will be into the vote. I would recess the committee following your comments and then reconvene the committee five minutes after the last vote in this series is taken to hear Chairman Sensennbrenner and his ranking, and his ranking member. That being the case, let me now then go to the gentleman of Texas, Mr. Delay.

DELAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for having stepped out and I missed some of your answers. I'm going to revisit since we ran out of time an issue that is our -- is a -- will be a problem for this committee. And that is a human resource issue. And I just want to give you the benefit of testimony by the Administration who has over and over again said we do not want to undermine the benefits and rights of federal employees, that we want to protect their Civil Service rights, their veterans' preference rights, their Whistleblower rights, all of those rights.

The problem is that in Government Reform an amendment was passed that actually puts the President -- or gives the President less authority over the Department of Homeland Security than he has in any of the other departments. And it all focuses on security. And that is the right to waive collective bargaining rights when it has -- when it affects the national security. I don't think, Miss Harman, you spoke to that in your answer. And I give you the opportunity to answer that and as Mr. Thornberry already has and the other three

HARMAN: Well, I think I did, Mr. Delay. While you were gone, we were talking about the Burton language which was offered in Government Reform and which ...

DELAY: No. The Burton language isn't what we're talking about. If I may, ...

HARMAN: Well, I understand. But when we together have been coming to the view that that might be the preferred language, the Burton language, not the other language that I think you're now referring to. The goal would be to continue present law and have it apply to this department, not to change present law. There's now operating here the Thornberry rule, which is not to open issues if you don't have to.

GIBBONS: I would agree, Mr. Delay, with my colleagues, that we've looked at this issue and believe that flexibility should remain as it is written in the laws today allowing the President to make those decisions. And should Congress feel that that is inadequate at a time of national security, to come back at some point and discuss that as a single issue, an issue which all can be part of rather than incorporating it into a bill which is an either yes or no against the bill on one single issue. I think if you want to incorporate the ideas of the full committee that perhaps Mr. Burton's language best accommodates that issue.

TAUSCHER: I agree, Mr. Delay. Existing law is the way we should go and we shouldn't try to encourage the kind of problem we might have if we, if we went a little further than that.

DELAY: Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

ARMEY: The gentle lady from Connecticut.

DELAURO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me, if I can, just go back on the issue of the inspector general, if I can. The Section 710 of the proposal subjects the inspector general of this new effort from doing work in areas that involve certain information. Let me just fast forward that we have at Defense, we have at Justice, there isn't any question about sensitivity and sensitive information, and so forth. Everyone is onboard in terms of the effort of national security and threats to national security.

But at Defense and at Justice, as I understand this, they have similar limitations on access. But in those areas, the IG's are directed to report to Congress if the relevant secretary impedes their access to necessary information. In the case of the inspector general for the new department, this check, if you will, on secretarial interference has been eliminated. Instead the proposal gives the responsibility of reporting interference with the -- with an IG investigation to the secretary. It gives it -- so go -- a federal -- you go -- come to the Congress if you've got a problem as the IG, you go to the secretary. If the problem is with the secretary, you're building in here, you've got a conflict of interest.

So what I wanted to just probe with you is it -- should we follow the model, again, of agencies that in fact, are dealing with absolutely sensitive issues? We know. I mean, we've got a Department of Defense. We have a Department of Justice that's serious and sensitive material all of the time. I've asked my question. I don't want to belabor it. Let me -- you know, should we just use the model that we have?

TAUSCHER: Yes, I agree. I think we should use the Department of Defense and is used now and DOJ model, which I think -- once again, I think we're going to be fine tuning this legislation for a very long time. We should be open to doing that. We should be trying to improve on a constant basis. But at the minimum, I think we should do what they do. And then if we have to fix it later, we can.

GIBBONS: I would agree the Department of Defense model would be my preference in all of this versus having an IG that reports directly to the secretary who has authority to respond and react to an incident or a situation within his own division. So I think the report should bypass and go to an independent oversight authority.

DELAURO: Thank you.

HARMAN: I see no reason to change present practice either.

THORNBERRY: The only question I would have is how does the CIA work, maybe some of those other entities? And my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee might know the answer to that. I would be curious as far as the Administration reason why they think it should be different from the Department of Defense. And maybe check on some of these other precedents as well. It seems to me it's an issue we can work out.

DELAURO: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

ARMEY: If I may advise the committee on further reflection for the sake of the committee. We will adjourn after our final statements with the anticipation of reengaging our panel from the Judiciary Committee. Should that be impossible, we would adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. The chairman of the committee will advise members of this committee, perhaps by an announcement between votes if we are indeed coming back. So I've been assured that we can reengage that panel. But schedules being what they are, we should leave ourselves with the flexibility to dance to the right or dance to the left. And we will certainly dance in either case.

So with those observations, with a concurrence of the committee, we would object -- we would adjourn with the anticipation of coming back five minutes after the next vote or until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. I would like to now give the panel your five minutes, one minute, 15 seconds a piece to give us your last bit of advice. We'll start -- let's start with Miss Tauscher.

TAUSCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Pelosi and members of the committee. I'm just very thankful that I was able to come and to provide, you know, my limited experience on what we can do. I'm certainly available to help in any way I can. What I think is the most impressive thing is how you are working together, the tone that you're all using, the professionalism.

And that I think this is not only are the American people watching and our allies, but our adversaries are watching. This is another point of vulnerability for us, whether we can manage to do this so that we can respond and protect ourselves. And I think that the Congress is well up to the task. I'm very, very proud of this institution. I'm proud of all of you. And I thank you for your hard work.

ARMEY: Thank you.

GIBBONS: Mr. Chairman and Miss Pelosi, I too want to thank this committee for its diligence and its work and its commitment to this issue. Ten and a half months ago this nation underwent a significant change. Change is not easy. The thing my mother used to tell me, the hardest thing about change is not accepting the new, but letting go of the old. I believe that what we have before us is an opportunity to create something new. But the hand is going to require letting go of the old.

Highway 50 is a two way street into Washington, D.C. It is both coming into Washington and it leaves Washington. Not all good ideas emanate out of Washington, D.C. We ought to be able to understand that this is going to be felt mostly in our districts, in our localities. And we ought to be at least aware and cognizant of the fact that ideas are going to come and we're going to have to make changes in the future. This is the most important focus on any piece of legislation that we have before Congress today. And that is to ensure the protection of America's citizens and its homeland. And to do that, we must all commit ourselves to the very job that we've been doing. I'm very proud of my colleagues for their effort in all of this. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here.

HARMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. I have held a lot of events recently on homeland security in my district. And I think it is still true that first responders don't understand this bill. They just ask how much money do we get. And while I think money matters, it is not what will secure the homeland. We have to have a strategy. And we have to implement it wisely. And I think we'll be measured by whether first responders and citizens have all the tools, not just money, but training and information and interoperable communications to know what to do and whether or not we achieve the goals of the President's strategy to prevent attacks, to protect our infrastructure and to respond effectively. So that's what we have to keep our eye on, not which box goes where.

I would just urge again that we look for a huge vote in the House. And we have a process that lets our House members who know a lot about this since everyone of us represents the same amount of real estate lets our House members buy into this bill. There are a lot of good ideas in this House and the product will be better if all of us have a chance to speak.

THORNBERRY: Mr. Chairman, there were a couple issues we did not have a chance to get to. One is cost. I would recommend that your staffs actually read the CBO cost estimates. Two thirds of their $3 billion cost estimate is new things, things the government does not do now, the new intelligence analysis center and so forth. Their estimate on the costs, even under CBO's counting no savings is $1 billion over five years. I'm just saying we need to look down into it. We are going to spend more money on Homeland Security. The question is are we going to spend it as effectively as we can. That's what our, that's what our goal is.

Second point we didn't have a chance to talk about is technology. It is boring and complicated to set up, to talk about how you identify and develop and field the technologies that are going to save lives. But again, you have some good people working for you. Getting those details right is important. We cannot stand a 20 year procurement cycle like the Department of Defense has to get technology out there for the policemen and firemen to use. We've got to do better.

Last point I'd say is this. It's hard to talk about this topic without being melodramatic because so much is at stake. And yet, I do believe that as Miss Tauscher said, people are watching us, even our adversaries. It is true that the safety of our children depends on how we act in the next few weeks. And I trust and know that this Select Committee will lift us up to the challenge, not just here, but on the floor and beyond. Thank you for what you do.

ARMEY: And let me thank the panel. And let me just say freedom deserves service like yours.

TAUSCHER: Well, thank you.

ARMEY: And with that, the committee stands adjourned until whatever.

END

NOTES:
[????] - Indicates Speaker Unknown
   [--] - Indicates could not make out what was being said.[off mike] - Indicates could not make out what was being said.

PERSON:  TOM DELAY (72%); DEBORAH D PRYCE (71%); DICK ARMEY (60%); ROB PORTMAN (56%); NANCY PELOSI (56%); MARTIN FROST (56%); ROBERT MENENDEZ (55%); ROSA L DELAURO (55%); 

LOAD-DATE: July 21, 2002