Thank you Chairman Collins. I join you in welcoming the new members to our Committee, now the Senate's lead panel on the oversight of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I say this with pride because over the 15 years that I have served on our Committee, we have considered, and Congress has enacted, such landmark bills as the Chief Financial Officers Act, the Government Performance and Results Act, and the Clinger-Cohen Act, all of which I was proud to support. Our Committee enjoys a strong history of bipartisanship, inclusiveness, and cooperation, which I know will continue under the leadership of Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Lieberman.
Today we will review how well the Department of Homeland Security has defined and carried out its mission to protect the nation. We must ask how well DHS has integrated the disparate cultures and management priorities of the 22 legacy agencies that were brought together under the most massive reorganization of the federal government since World War II. Before I go any further, I would be remiss if I did not thank Secretary Ridge, the outgoing secretary of the Department, for his leadership during the agency's infancy. He undertook an enormous and historic task, and I thank him for his service. I think we can all agree there have been many successes under his leadership. There is, however, still much room for growth, which is the focus of today's hearing.
Throughout the debate over the creation of DHS, I had four primary concerns. The first was the erosion of our constitutional freedoms through the collection, coordination, and storage of personal data. I am pleased that the Department has a strong privacy office in place and has replaced the proposed CAPPS II, a computer-assisted passenger pre-screening system which was widely criticized for a lack of privacy protection, with Secure Flight, which has more built in privacy safeguards.
Our Committee has also taken steps to improve coordination of activities between the Privacy Officer and the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. However, the fact that the Department is reportedly operating, or planning to operate, 11 data mining activities that use personal information, troubles me. What are the safeguards in place to protect an individual's privacy rights? How is the Department ensuring the quality and accuracy of the information mined from the private sector? We must guarantee that the privacy of all Americans is protected as these activities are implemented.
The second issue was ensuring funding and support for the critical non-homeland security missions of those agencies merged into DHS, such as search and rescue, invasive species protection, and natural disaster emergency response. The unique multi-mission nature of these entities, such as the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, requires that special attention be paid to their non-homeland security functions. The hurricanes that slammed into Florida and surrounding states last year underscore the importance of FEMA's assistance to states and localities. To make certain that non-homeland security functions were not diminished, I introduced S. 910, the Non-Homeland Security Mission Performance Act, in April 2003. My bill required the Department of Homeland Security to identify and report to Congress on the resources, personnel, and capabilities used to perform non-homeland security functions, as well as the management strategy needed to carry out these missions. I will continue to monitor the critical non-homeland security responsibilities within the Department to ensure they are not shortchanged. My third concern was how to protect the rights of the men and women who would staff the new Department because I feared that the new personnel authorities granted to DHS could erode worker protections. My initial fears were confirmed last year when DHS and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued proposed regulations on the Department's new human resources system. This morning, DHS and OPM announced the final personnel regulations. While I am pleased that some of my recommendations to strengthen employee rights were included in the final regulations, I am afraid that changes to the proposed rules do not go far enough. The final regulations make dramatic changes in the way DHS hires, fires, classifies, and pays employees. The regulations call for the creation of an internal appeals panel for certain offenses, severely restrict the labor rights of employees, and tie the hands of the Merit Systems Protection Board to ensure that penalties for misconduct are just.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee and DHS to increase employee input, to provide opportunities for meaningful and independent oversight of labor and employee appeals, and to increase bargaining opportunities for employees. Together we can improve agency efficiency while protecting employee rights.
And lastly, I was concerned that the collective failure to respond to intelligence reports suggesting threats against America prior to September 11, 2001 was not being addressed.
Madam Chairman, I believe my fourth concern was addressed through the hard work of this Committee which successfully guided last year's intelligence reform bill through Congress. However, I do remain concerned about whether the true intent of our legislation will be realized in the execution phase. There are a number of other management challenges that must be remedied for the Department to execute its many missions. For example, I remain deeply concerned about the budgetary and morale issues that plague Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel have expressed their concerns to me regarding the seemingly arbitrary manner in which the Immigration and Naturalization Service was split between ICE and CBP. The result has been mismanaged budgets, which prompted a hiring freeze for ICE and CBP in the spring of 2004; an ongoing overall budget freeze for ICE; and low staff morale.
The ICE agents also consider themselves disadvantaged because they have been separated from their former colleagues at CBP with whom they developed collaboration. The Center for Strategic and International Studies-Heritage Foundation Report, "DHS 2.0," recommends merging the two entities. I will review this proposal carefully because the Border and Transportation Security Directorate must eliminate the existing barriers to be an effective guardian of our nation's borders.
Attention must also be given to the disjointed manner in which international affairs is handled in DHS. The Office of International Affairs (OIA), which was created and placed in the Office of the Secretary by the Homeland Security Act, failed to live up to its intended vision for a number of reasons, not the least of which is funding. The OIA has an annual budget of approximately $1million and a staff of 10, the majority of whom are detailees. These resources are inadequate for an office expected to promote information sharing, organize training exercises, plan conferences, and manage the international activities of DHS. As a result, much of the international coordination has been left to the individual directorates which sends a disjointed message to the international community.
International cooperation, whether it is in the area of cargo security or the prevention of illegal immigration, is crucial to the security of the United States. Having the appropriate structure in place in the Department to facilitate and foster that cooperation should not be overlooked.
We in the Congress often speak of an agency's success in terms of funding levels and overarching policy. These issues are important. But I submit that internal structural, financial management, and personnel concerns matter just as much, if not more, in the effectiveness of an entity as mammoth as DHS. I hope we can use today's hearing as an opportunity to explore how to improve DHS in these critical areas. I thank our witnesses for being here with us today, and I look forward to your testimony.
