Thank you Madam Chairman. Secretary Ridge, it is a pleasure to have you before us once again. There was never any doubt as to how hard it would be to create a new agency, but I saw you as the right person for this job.
Today you may hear me focus on the problems of this new department, on my perception that the glass is less than half full, but I want you to know that I still believe that you are the right man for this difficult task.
When the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created, we knew it would take time to meld so many previously independent or otherwise affiliated agencies, bureaus, and offices into a single unit. But, all of us were also aware of the importance of quickly ensuring that these newly merged component parts operate as one cohesive and effective system to protect our country.
The urgency of achieving that end-state has not diminished and, in fact, becomes more acute with each passing day. And yet, Mr. Secretary, the Committee hears that DHS coordination and operation efficiency is hampered by functional and cultural differences, and it appears to me that the Administration's budget proposal fails to provide sufficient funds to implement critical functions of the department.
The President's budget calls for $47.4 billion for the Department, of which 32 percent is for non-homeland security activities. While the main mission of the Department is to fight and deter attacks against the nation, the legacy agencies transferred to DHS have many non-homeland security missions that Americans rely upon and which remain integral to the agencies' functional capabilities. We must make sure that these non-homeland security missions and functions are not short-changed.
For example, items identified as non-homeland security programs include first responder grants, disaster mitigation, firefighter grants, the disaster assistance direct loan program, mitigation grants, flood map modernization, the radiological emergency preparedness program, and emergency management performance grants.
From the President's budget, it appears that the designation of a program as either homeland security or non-homeland security is critical to the amount of funding a program receives. Yet, it is unclear why or how the Department designated some as security-related and others not.
I am also concerned about the level of support being provided to the states. For example, states are facing critical challenges in making communications interoperable, yet SAFECOM, which provides public safety agencies the guidance to achieve interoperable communications, does not have a specific funding level in the budget. States face funding shortfalls to secure seaports, yet the budget does not include funding for port security grants.
The proposed budget cuts funding for non-intrusive detection technology, technical assistance with emergency response planning, and first responder training.
In addition, in some areas, budget reductions seem to be responsible for delaying critical preparedness programs. For example, there are a series of goals under Emergency Preparedness and Response that list FY 2009 as their target completion date. These include requiring that all state, tribal, and county jurisdictions complete self-assessments of their ability to recover from terrorist attacks or other disasters. These assessments should not take so long to complete, but the National Emergency Management Baseline Capability Assessment Program has been cut by $227 million.
The President's budget request falls short of protecting homeland security for all states. Formula grant funding, which protects smaller states, has been reduced in the budget request by 59 percent. The President's request eliminates minimum funding levels established by Congress to protect smaller states. Instead, the budget request requires that formula based grants be allocated according to population, critical infrastructure, and other factors determined by the Secretary. This proposal threatens to harm all states by structurally changing homeland security grant funding according to a yet to be determined formula.
Critical to the integration and smooth functioning of the Department is the new human resources system, which is currently being developed. DHS, along with the Department of Defense, is part of the most massive transformation of government since 1947. I am concerned that this is occurring without sufficient funding to maintain these new personnel systems and without rationalizing agency missions to personnel needs. In the 1990s, agency staffing was cut without giving sufficient consideration to what employees do. The present administration is cutting agency budgets without knowing what agencies do, forcing these agencies to do more with less, and imposing rigid performance rules without credible transparent and accountable systems in place.
We must ensure that agencies have the funding necessary to manage their workforce effectively - including funding for overall management training, bonuses, and other recruitment and retention programs, such as student loan repayment programs.
As I review the President's budget submission, I am disturbed by what appears to be a trend in cuts to human capital and management functions. The Department is requesting $133.5 million for a new human resource system, declaring it to be an investment in human capital, while at the same time making cuts in human capital areas that are essential to the long term security of our nation. For example, the Science and Technology Directorate has cut its FY05 funding for university and fellowship programs by $38.8 million. This could lead to a less prepared future work force if fewer new people are being trained and recruited through these programs.
It is important that DHS remain committed to developing and maintaining the most innovative and skilled technical staff possible. The United States should lead the world in the development of technology and science applications to thwart terrorism both domestically and internationally. I am concerned that budget cuts to a program, like the university and fellowship programs, may undermine our ability to recruit and train new Federal workers in these critical areas.
The Department may be robbing Peter to pay Paul. An example is in the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate where a net increase in the number of intelligence analysts has been accomplished by reducing the number of policy and program professional staff by eleven. Perhaps this is a change in name only, but my concern is that a large reduction in policy and program analysts could lead to the development of technical programs that are not well-coordinated or well-thought out.
DHS should be mindful of the effect of cutting a disproportionate number of policy and program professional staff. I am concerned that these actions could lead to the development of technical programs that are not well-coordinated or to the failure to develop needed programs.
Steps should be taken to ensure that the loss of these positions in the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate does not interfere with the very important mission of assessing threats and providing coordinated recommendations for a response.
There also needs to be significant funding for some of the critical management functions, including the internal oversight mechanisms, such as the Inspector General, the Privacy Officer, and the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office, that were put in place by the Congress to ensure that we do not erode our liberties and freedoms when fighting terrorism. Moreover, the Secretary's office contains the responsibility under the Chief Information Officer to develop a comprehensive data management plan essential for first responders. But, to date, the Department has been unable to acquire the geospatial data, such as critical infrastructure, street mapping, first responder locations, and government facilities, necessary to build a repository of information which could be shared throughout the Department and with state and local governments. Failure to achieve this common information database hampers prevention and planning for emergency response and recovery operations.
Last week the Senate had to close its offices because of a poison attack. Fortunately no one was injured. However, the attack illustrated the continuing vulnerability of our society to such dangers and should be a wake-up call to all of us that time is not on our side. It sometimes appears to me that more attention and more money is being devoted to developing a new personnel system in the Department of Homeland Security than to providing grants to states and developing the technologies that first responders will soon need against threats they cannot anticipate.
Madam Chairman thank you again for holding this hearing and thank you Mr. Secretary for being here. I look forward to your testimony and responses to our questions.
