| Home | Information Sharing & Analysis | Prevention & Protection | Preparedness & Response | Research | Commerce & Trade | Travel Security | Immigration |
The threat level in the airline sector is High or Orange. Read more.
Release Date: 02/03/03 00:00:00
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Office of the Press Secretary
February 3, 2003
For Immediate Release
SECRETARY RIDGE: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I know it's late in the day, and you normally prefer to have this kind of briefing earlier, because of filing deadlines and the like. But I apologize. The schedule today was such that we had to host it this late in the afternoon.
Before I begin discussing the President's budget, as it relates to the Department of Homeland Security, I just want to say a few words about the Shuttle Columbia tragedy, particularly about the work that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has done since about one-half hour after the tragedy occurred.
To Mike Brown and his team, I want to thank you for responding as quickly and as completely as possible. FEMA got the word at about 9:30 a.m. to set up the operations center in Washington. They were set up by 10:15 a.m., and from that moment on, began to coordinate various kinds of activity with NASA, with the FBI, with the EPA, with state and local governments.
As we speak, multiple agencies at multiple levels of government are dealing with the very, very sensitive issue of appropriately handling the remains of our astronauts, at the same time dealing with a debris field that's about 200 miles long, and in some places, 50 miles wide.
So we have literally thousands of people engaged. We also say, thanks, to our state and local government partners. They have deployed a lot of civilian assets. I think Governor Perry in Texas has deployed about 500 Guardsmen. So we continue to work with our colleagues in response to that horrible disaster. But I think it's appropriate to congratulate and identify the good work that FEMA has done. Mike.
In just a week since this department was created, we have begun to lay the foundation from which we can mobilize the nation in the mission to protect the homeland. Everything we have done is an effort to organize to work more efficiently and more effectively as a department.
We are building our partnerships with states and localities, working with private industry, and looking at ways to streamline and to share information. Last week I announced a plan to restructure the way in which the department will more efficiently secure our borders. This will facilitate our Border and Transportation Security directorate's ability to meet the multiple strategic goals of improving border security while at the same time facilitating the unimpeded and reliable flow of commerce and people across our borders and through our ports.
Now, today, the President has requested a budget which reflects his continuing and his very clear commitment to standing behind the priorities and the mission of the new Department of Homeland Security.
As you probably know from your review of documents provided to you earlier, the President's fiscal '04 budget provides $41.3 billion to support domestic efforts against terrorism. That's across the entire government. That includes Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, Energy, and other departments that play a role in defending our way of life and our citizens.
For this department, to continue to build on the dollars that the President requested in the fiscal year 2003 budget that will accompany the departments and the units to the new department on March 1st, the President has requested a budget of $36.2 billion, an increase of 7.4 percent.
I think it's very important to put that in perspective. Not only is the 7.4 percent a significant increase, but you couple that with the near doubling of support for the homeland security agencies that are moving into the department, you can see that the President has that continuing and clear commitment, through his budget, to the new department and to protecting our citizens and our way of life.
I just want to highlight for you, if I might, a couple of individual pieces of the budget that I think are very important and reflect the ongoing work we have at several levels of interaction, not only within the federal government, but with our friends and allies, and then take some questions. And then subsequent to our Q&A, members of the management team are here to respond to questions involving their respective operations, as well.
For example, as you know, the Office of Homeland Security began building on smart border agreements with our friends in Canada and Mexico, working with Deputy Prime Minister Manley and Secretary Creel, the former in Canada and Secretary Creel in Mexico. We've got a 21st century look at the kinds of things we need to do to facilitate goods and commerce, while at the same time, enhancing our protection at our borders.
And there's over $350 million in here for infrastructure developments and technology architecture that can help us achieve that mission. Many of you know Rob Bonner, Judge Bonner from Customs, began a very important initiative, called the Cargo Security Initiative, which went out and identified 20 mega-ports, that generate 65 to 70 percent of the container and cargo traffic into the United States.
Building on that initiative in Customs, the President has asked for $62 million so that we can not only place Customs officials in these respective ports, not only can we put non-intrusive technology in these 20 mega-ports, but also for us to expand that program during fiscal year 2004.
As you know, one of the most important new units in the department is the Science and Technology component. There wasn't a line item in last year's budget. There was, if you cobble together some of the line items that will be transferred with some of the smaller units that are moving into the new department.
But in balance, there is $800 million for us to set up a unit to help, one, provide a clearing house for the extraordinary technology that presently exists out there that so many vendors, so many companies, so many entrepreneurs feel strongly that will enable us to better secure our homeland; detection equipment, protection equipment, computer hardware and software, clothing. You name it, there are a lot of good ideas out there that have translated into prototypes. And we need a place to begin assessing those, and we'll be able to do that through the Science and Technology Unit.
We also know that we'll be responsible, within the S&T component, to develop and to enlarge the national communications system, as we prepare ourselves, make ourselves even better prepared to deal with matters that may help prevent a terrorist attack or reduce our vulnerability or respond to a terrorist attack.
So I thought you ought to note that this clearing house also -- the dollars will go to a potential clearing house. But the government, we may need to make some rather quick acquisition of some of the prototypes to deploy them. And we'll have the capacity and the wherewithal to do that.
A great deal of concern over the past year expressed by so many loyal supporters of Congress, with regard to the mission -- the traditional mission of the Coast Guard. This budget recognizes not only the traditional mission of the Coast Guard, it realizes the need to accelerate the acquisition of some equipment that is, frankly, dual used or multiple used, whether it's for port security or other -- the many responsibilities that the Coast Guard has. And they see a 10 percent increase in their budget.
And I think you know that we're standing up in this new unit an Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Unit. We do need to work with both the state and local governments, but particularly, particularly the private sector, to map these vulnerabilities, to model -- to do some consequence mapping, as well, basically play the what if tabletop exercise, if this particular piece of infrastructure is attacked by a certain kind of weapon, what are the consequences. We need to know that. Substantial dollars in here for us to do these kinds of assessments.
But again, I think of the Transportation Security Administration and Admiral Loy, where there's been a lot of focus, and appropriately so, on airports. This gives us a little flexibility as we do our assessments of our ports and other forms of transportation, to determine vulnerabilities and then recommend or actually take protective measures with some of these dollars.
So I share this information and highlight these particular elements of the President's budget agreement. They may not be the most important ones to you, but they clearly reflect the President's continuing commitment to the new department and the 170,000 men and women that serve it.
So I'd be pleased to respond to any question you might have.
Q: Some people, including Senator Lieberman, have criticized the budget as not being big enough to adequately secure the nation. And I noticed that part of this says that it seems that -- only $24 billion of this is actually homeland security, and about $12 billion is non-homeland security. Is that -- I mean, which doesn't seem to be such an increase over the year before.
SECRETARY RIDGE: First of all, I do think, and we all recognize, the distinction between homeland security and non-homeland security functions and missions. Just about every agency and unit that is moving into the new department has both traditional missions and some enhanced homeland security missions. So that is -- and I think those priorities are appropriately reflected in the proportion you gave. You said $24 million is homeland security and -- $24 billion is homeland security, $12 billion is non-homeland security. And I think that evidence of the President's commitment and the priority that the country places on it.
And to those who would say it's not enough money, I have a couple thoughts coming to my mind, and I'll share with you a few of them. (Laughter.) One of the disappointments that I thought should be a precursor to the disappointment that this budget doesn't have enough money is the fact that the President submitted last year's budget in February of '03, and the first responders and the state and locals and Customs and the Coast Guard and everybody else has been operating under continuing resolutions. So I think it's very appropriate for us to argue about the amounts for the 2004 budget, but to those who lament that this isn't enough, I would hope -- at least for the next week or two -- they focus in on getting the budget the President presented a year ago passed, and then we can talk about the amount this year.
Seven point four percent increase on top of almost a doubling since 2002 is an extraordinary commitment. And, I might also say, everybody is talking about amounts and dollars and inputs. We have to be very, very focused on outcomes. So it's fashionable in this town to say, how much money are you going to spend. And our job is, obviously, to advocate for as much money as we think we can need and appropriately spend in a given fiscal year.
But what are the outcomes when we spend it? Some people in this town might think you construct a 10 story building by starting on the 10th floor. This is a long, difficult, challenging process. We're building a foundation and this budget gives us a chance to move up, and we'll do just that with these dollars.
Q: What amount of this overall budget do you expect to go into the start-up costs that obviously are necessary in getting the department itself going?
SECRETARY RIDGE: We have been able to draw down from unobligated funds from the fiscal year 2002. Congress authorized us to draw down about $125 million. I can't tell you today that will be enough, but it's our hope to keep the start-up cost really constrained, really tight. We're not going to build a large new headquarters staff. We're going to bring in people from the other departments and agencies. So our job is to keep the development of the headquarters and the start-up to a minimum, so the dollars can be expended elsewhere, to enhance homeland security.
Q: Can you tell us what the information technology budget is for '04, as compared to '03?
SECRETARY RIDGE: Let me -- I think the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection budget went up about 370 percent. It is, obviously, a huge increase. But the baseline, basically, is comprised of the dollars that were allocated to the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office in Commerce. Remember, we're pulling in four or five smaller units into the infrastructure piece. And so I think aggregate there was about $175 million, and we've got about a 370 percent increase on top of that.
So, again, as we build a unit, as we build up our capacity and work on outcomes, that is a very substantial increase and we're grateful for it.
Q: How do you see coordinating the expenditure on research and development between DARPA and your ARPA, and do you see yourselves coming in competition for money for programs that you both want to work on?
SECRETARY RIDGE: Well, it's a wonderful question because, first of all, we recognize the good work that DARPA has done and we also know that the Department of Defense in their advanced projects research agency historically have had many multiple uses. And when it comes to combatting weapons of mass destruction and developing countermeasures, clearly, when the Department of Defense has engaged in that research much, if not all of it, in some for or another has an application on the civilian side, an application here in this country.
So one of the advantages of having our own, much smaller homeland security advanced project research agency within our science and technology component is we want do an inventory as best we can both within government and outside of government of all the homeland security related projects as we possibly can, to make sure that there is no replication or we avoid redundancy, unless it's the agreement of the scientists that this is an area where we may want to build and own a repetition, a little redundancy in the system.
So, again, it's a start-up with $350 million and we believe we can put it to good use to start up.
Q: Do you have any fees on businesses in this project, number one. And, two, can you do some of these things without slowing down the commerce of the nation? There's been concern about the Customs proposal on advance container cargo notice, not just on ships, but on planes and trucks. I see they have some money in here for the worker identification system and transportation. Can you do all this without really affecting the commerce, particularly international commerce?
SECRETARY RIDGE: We have to do it that way. And I say -- I believe we can. And, again, here's where you've got to give credits to some forward-leaning people and agencies that had the notion that you needed to develop an international support for this kind of initiative before the new department was stood up.
I remember Admiral Loy and now Commandant Collins had been working with the International Maritime Organization on port related security standards, and talking to them about how we not only better secure the ports, but obviously work in conjunction with Customs so we could develop, hopefully, international standards to see to it that the cargo and the containers were inspected away from our shores.
And so I think that work, and you take a look at the work we've been doing with our friends in Canada and Mexico, with regarding getting advance passenger information lists so we can check passengers on international flights into both countries, as Customs has said to the shippers, because they need it and the Coast Guard needs it and others, that we need 24 hour notice of -- 96-hour notice of what's in those containers and what you're shipping.
So there have been a variety of initiatives that have been undertaken by a lot of these individuals who now become part of this department, that shows you how forward-leaning they have been and their agencies have been before they're integrated into the new department. And I believe we can do that. That is obviously our task, our challenge. But with the collaboration with our partners, not only Mexico and Canada, but around the world, we believe we can effect that in a positive way.
Q: What sort of time frame are you looking at some of these initiatives? Because some of them, like CSI or CT PAD or maybe even some TSA are longer-term things. I'm wondering how long until some of these get into full gear and where you think they are, at what stage they are now or with this budget?
SECRETARY RIDGE: Well, let me just first talk about the CSI initiative. We're up to -- we've got agreements with 18 of the 20 mega-ports. And shortly Mr. Bonner believes he's going to wrap up the other two and then work with the EU and some of our multilateral organizations to expand a little bit further. I think he can give you more specific information as to when he thinks personnel and the technology can be deployed.
A lot of it will be a function of dollars. Hopefully, we will not have to wait a year, again, for homeland security dollars to be used both in Washington and around the rest of the country to secure our homeland.
Q: Have you identified any areas where you can eliminate duplicative computer systems --
SECRETARY RIDGE: Oh, yes.
Q: -- that could to be merged? And is there a dollar figure associated, perhaps, with these economies?
SECRETARY RIDGE: We do not have a dollar figure, but as you know, there has been a transition team that has been working for several months in anticipation of congressional approval of a new department at some time. And they have, first of all, several months ago frozen any additional IT acquisitions through action of OMB. So we put everybody on a hold position where it was appropriate and legal to do so.
And then that inventory is being undertaken now with the hope that not only do we have a new department and flexibility and develop a new human resource management system, but that we have a 21st century federal agency that takes advantage of the hardware and software out there that we think we need to protect our country.
So, yes, we believe there are great efficiencies. Can't give you a dollar amount yet. Stay tuned. Remember, we don't have the agency up and running yet.
Q: Have you named somebody in your office who is to serve as the liaison with the private sector?
SECRETARY RIDGE: Yes.
Q: Who is that person?
SECRETARY RIDGE: Al Martinez Fontz will get you -- is Al here? All right. We introduced him when we were down in Miami, Florida the other day. He will be the point person on our interaction with the private sector. But we will also -- there will be other undersecretaries, who by virtue of their work, will be interacting. Undersecretary Hutchinson with the borders will be interacting with Rob Bonner. So I think it's just -- look at Commandant Collins, security with the ports.
Your question raises a -- contains within it I think a very important character of this new department: we need partners. In order for us to secure the homeland, we need partners not only in other levels of government, with the states and locals, but within the private sector. And I just go back to the day that the President issued an executive order creating the Office of Homeland Security and I think of the President's vision way back then, on October 8th, he tasked our office to develop a national strategy to protect our country, not a federal one. Because as well-intentioned as we are, with the leadership we hope to provide, with the resources that we provide, you can't protect the homeland out of Washington, D.C. You've got to make sure you've got the whole country in one manner or another.
Q: Can you explain the apparent decline in the TSA budget?
SECRETARY RIDGE: I beg your pardon?
Q: Can you explain the decline in the TSA budget?
SECRETARY RIDGE: Yes, I can. And Admiral Loy will -- if my response isn't satisfactory, the man that's working with Michael Jackson and Norm Mineta I think performed virtually an administrative miracle getting an agency of 45,000 up and running and deploying the technology that they were dictated to deploy according to mandates that they were told to meet, could answer it more specifically.
But there were about $685 million, I believe, identified by TSA as being one-time start-up cost, a lot of initial costs associated with that extraordinary undertaking. And, therefore, you see if you deduct that you've got about $160 million, $200 million increase. But that is the reason for that reduction in the aggregate number.
Q: Will you be instituting any staff cuts as you centralize all of these functions Especially in border security?
SECRETARY RIDGE: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the --
Q: Staff cuts.
SECRETARY RIDGE: Staff cuts?
Q: Yes.
SECRETARY RIDGE: Well, first of all, as you know, the legislation requires that we preserve all positions that exist within the department for a year once the department has been set up. I happen to think that that is a good idea. That was a congressional add-on.
And the reason I think it's a good idea is that right now we want all -- every single man and woman that's working in one of these departments to be working on homeland security and not be that concerned about job security, so they know they've got the job security for a year. They also know that we can begin the process from day one of building a new personnel system, a new pay system, human resource system. And so we're really pleased to have the opportunity to do that.
And the other thing that it does, the year gives to us is the opportunity -- in the event there's dislocation or some loss of employment because of some of the redundancies that people were talking about -- that if we do have either dislocation, people can't move when we ask them to move or there are jobs eliminated -- and I think it would be foolish to suggest to you that there might not be some -- we do hope to bring greater efficiencies to this operation.
But, frankly, if at the end of the day we ended up with the same or similar amount, but more people were on the borders, more people in the airports, more people in the labs -- I mean, we're not going into this to do anything other than to make ourselves more efficient.
But I do think you're going to see some dislocations and a good possibility there may be some job loss here. The extra year gives us a chance to also set up a mechanism where some of these good people who may be losing their jobs may have other opportunities within the federal government and we can match their skills and their experience with other needs the federal government has.
I happen to like it. You're talking to a man whose father worked 28 years for a company, got two weeks' notice and shown the door. I just don't think that's the way you treat people, never have. And I can't think of a time you could justify that kind of treatment.
So I think Congress and the President agree, the year gives us a chance to put all our people together -- most of them are going to continue to work for the Department of Homeland Security. But I can envision a time when we ask a man or a woman to leave this area and take those skills and move to another one, they may say, well, you know, my kids are in school, or, my spouse just got a job and it's difficult for us to leave this community. Well, then we've got a chance to see if we can take that person who's given dedicated service to the federal government, see if there's other opportunity in the federal government.
Q: Sir, I have two questions about the $3.5 billion for first responders. The first question may appear to be shockingly stupid. But if Congress suddenly passed that $3.5 billion from '03, would that mean that there would be $7 billion for first responders?
SECRETARY RIDGE: Yes. I would be pleasantly shocked, happily shocked, particularly if they would pass it the way we requested it, and that's with no earmarkings. Which I think is probably pretty unlikely, given the environment of the budget process normally. But so, yes, it would be $3.5, $3.5, which would be a $7 billion commitment to first responders.
Q: My second question reflects the concerns -- some concerns expressed by some of the trade associations representing localities and states. They think that the either one of these $3.5 billion sums in essence reflect previous funding, annual funding of approximately the same amount -- pre-9/11 funding -- for basically non-terrorism related federal support for localities -- things like emergency management or programs for violence against women and other things.
Is this just the same funds repackaged?
SECRETARY RIDGE: Well, some of it is clearly the aggregate of dollars from other programs that were supported pre-9/11 and reflect an administration priority to aggregate them and move them into homeland security mission. There are new additional funds, as well. It's a combination of both.
Remember, a lot of this -- and you appropriately referred to it in the first part of your question -- the $3.5 billion figure, for example, did include a COPS program that existed before, that the law enforcement community and many of the local municipalities embraced. I've had some very good discussions with some of those mayors and they know that we believe at this time that there is a shared responsibility for public safety, whether pre- or post-9/11. Pre-9/11, there was an opportunity for the federal government -- for one occasion only -- to create a program that allowed them to hire some police officers, pay their salary for the first year. Then, as you know, there was a gradual diminution of the salary until the community was to absorb it all. That was the deal. That was the arrangement. That was the program.
If I recall correctly, I maybe even voted against it because I didn't think -- it sounded like a classic bait-and-switch, we'll give you something today and then slowly, but surely, we're going to take it away from you. The post-9/11 reality is, is that take the dollars that were distributed and, listen, I'm telling you, you know, a lot of mayors like that program. And we just have a difference of opinion. But the post-9/11 reality says that the federal government share of public safety now has to be focused in on training and exercises and equipment for the law enforcement community that has to deal strictly with combatting terrorism.
So that's a shift in priorities, a shift of some dollars and new dollars, as well.
Okay? Thank you very much.
END: 4:30 P.M. EST
This page was last reviewed/modified on 02/03/03 00:00:00.