Homeland Security Jurisidiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders

HOMELAND SECURITY JURISIDICTION: THE
PERSPECTIVES OF COMMITTEE LEADERS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES
OF THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MARCH 24, 2004
Serial No. 10842

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Homeland Security
(
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
95980 PDF
WASHINGTON
2004
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 204020001
SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

Christopher Cox, California, Chairman
Jennifer Dunn, Washington
Jim Turner, Texas, Ranking Member
C.W. Bill Young, Florida
Bennie G. Thompson, MississPpi
Don Young, Alaska
Loretta Sanchez, California
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Wisconsin
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. (Billy) Tauzin, Louisiana
Norman D. Dicks, Washington
David Dreier, California
Barney Frank, Massachusetts
Duncan Hunter, California
Jane Harman, California
Harold Rogers, Kentucky
Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland
Sherwood Boehlert, New York
Louise McIntosh Slaughter, New York
Lamar S. Smith, Texas
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania
Nita M. Lowey, New York
Christopher Shays, Connecticut
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Porter J. Goss, Florida
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia
Dave Camp, Michigan
Zoe Lofgren, California
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Florida
Karen McCarthy, Missouri
Bob Goodlatte, Virginia
Sheila JacksonLee, Texas
Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Oklahoma
Bill Pascrell, Jr., North Carolina
Peter T. King, New York
Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin Islands
John Linder, Georgia
Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
John B. Shadegg, Arizona
Ken Lucas, Kentucky
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Mac Thornberry, Texas
Kendrick B. Meek, Florida
Jim Gibbons, Nevada
Ben Chandler, Kentucky
Kay Granger, Texas
Pete Sessions, Texas
John E. Sweeney, New York
JOHN GANNON, Chief of Staff
STEPHEN DEVINE, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
THOMAS DILENGE, Chief Counsel and Policy Director
DAVID H. SCHANZER, Democrat, Staff Director
MARK T. MAGEE, Democrat, Deputy Staff Director
MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk
SUBCOMMITTEE
ON
RULES
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Florida, Chairman

Jennifer Dunn, Washington
Louise McIntosh Slaughter, New York
F. James Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
David Dreier, California
Loretta Sanchez, California
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania
Zoe Lofgren, California
Porter Goss, Florida
Karen McCarthy, Missouri
John Linder, Georgia
Ben Chandler, Kentucky
Pete Sessions, Texas
Jim Turner, Texas, ex officio
Christopher Cox, California, ex officio
(II)
CONTENTS
MEMBER STATEMENTS
The Honorable Christopher Cox, Chairman
Oral Statement .....................................................................................................
Prepared Statement .............................................................................................
The Honorable Diaz-Balart, a Representative in Congress, From the State
of Florida, and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules
Oral Statement .....................................................................................................
The Honorable Louise M. Slaughter, a Representative in Congress, From
the States of New York ........................................................................................
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Mississippi .......................................................................................
The Honorable Jim Turner, a Representative in Congress, From the State
of Texas .................................................................................................................
The Honorable Curt Weldon, a Representative in Congress, From the State
of Pennsylvania ....................................................................................................
4
6
1
3
20
10
9
7
WITNESSES
Committee on Agriculture
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress From the State
of Virginia, and Chairman
Oral Statement .....................................................................................................
The Honorable Charles W. Stenholm, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Texas, and Ranking Member
Oral Statement .....................................................................................................
Committee on Appropriations
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Florida, and Chairman
Oral Statement .....................................................................................................
Committee on Energy and Commerce
The Honorable Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress From the State
of Texas, and Chairman
Oral Statement .....................................................................................................
The Honorable John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Michigan, and Ranking Member
Oral Statement .....................................................................................................
Committee on Financial Services
The Honorable Michael G. Oxley, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Ohio, and Chairman
The Honorable Barney Frank, a Representative in Congress From the State
of Massachusetts, and Ranking Member
Committee on Government Reform
The Honorable Tom Davis, a Representative in Congress From the State
of Virginia, and Chairman
Oral Statement .....................................................................................................
(III)
29
32
34
36
133
44
48
50
123
123
64
66
IV
Page
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress From the

State of California, and Ranking Member
Oral Statement .....................................................................................................
Committee on International Relations
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress From the State
of Illinois, and Chairman
The Honorable Tom Lantos, a Representative in Congress From the State
of California, and Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., A Representative in Congress
From the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman
Oral Statement .....................................................................................................
Committee on Science
The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert, a Representative in Congress From the
State of New York, and Chairman
The Honorable Bart Gordon, a Representative in Congress From the State
of Texas, and Ranking Member
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
The Honorable Don Young, a Representative in Congress From the State
of Alaska, and Chairman
The Honorable James L. Oberstar, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Minnesota, and Ranking Member
Oral Statement .....................................................................................................
The Honorable John Mica, a Representative in Congress From the State
of Florida, and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation
Oral Statement .....................................................................................................
Committee on Ways and Means
The Honorable William M. Thomas, a Representative in Congress From the
State of California, and Chairman
Oral Statement .....................................................................................................
The Honorable Charles B. Rangel, a Representative in Congress From the
State of New York, and Ranking Member
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
The Honorable Porter Goss, a Representative in Congress From the State
of Florida, and Chairman
Oral Statement .....................................................................................................
The Honorables Jane Harman, a Representative in Congress From the State
of California, and Ranking Member
Oral Statement .....................................................................................................
68
121
121
92
95
118
119
77
80
81
76
114
115
131
12
14
15
17
HOMELAND SECURITY JURISDICTION: THE

PERSPECTIVES OF COMMITTEE LEADERS
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES,
SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:59 p.m., in Room
2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lincoln Diaz-Balart,
the chairman of the subcommittee presiding.
Present: Representatives Dunn, Weldon, Goss, Cox (ex officio),
Sensenbrenner, Slaughter, Lofgren, McCarthy and Turner (ex officio).
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. We would like to welcome Members of the subcommittee and the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee as well
as Chairman Cox who is here from the full committee today with
us.
While this is our first hearing of this year, our staff has been
working very hard to continue the important work of this subcommittee. As you all know, we have been authorized and directed
to conduct a thorough and complete study of the operation and implementation of the Rules of the House, including Rule X, with respect to the issue of Homeland Security. And we will submit our
recommendations to the House Rules Committee by September
30th.
Todays hearing will serve as an additional step in that process.
In the summer and fall of 2003, we heard testimony from some the
foremost experts on Congress. These witnesses included five academics from various institutions, two former committee chairmen
with superior knowledge of the House rules, two former Speakers
of the House, and the very first Secretary of Energy. This was a
very distinguished bipartisan group of witnesses.
These witnesses have very different experiences to qualify them
as experts on the Congress, yet they all share a common belief.
And that belief is that the Select Committee on Homeland Security
should be made permanent. Speakers Gingrich and Foley have
both endorsed a permanent standing committee with primary legislative jurisdiction, and both have called for a joint statement from
Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi announcing their intent to make the committee permanent as soon as possible.
Speaker Gingrich explained, in part, his rationale for a permanent committee with the following words, Congress cannot meet
its Constitutional responsibilities unless it shows the same courage
as the President in forcing through a real reorganization that does
(1)
2
not entangle the Department of Homeland Security in a web five
times more complex than the Department of Energy deals with. It
is urgent that Congress also reorganizes its own structure now.
Former Speaker Gingrich went on to say, In fact, being effective
at homeland security could prove to be, literally, a matter of life
and death in terms of the security and freedom we have grown accustomed to as Americans. Life and death is not a rhetorical term.
It is conceivable some of the threats of the 21st century could kill
many times the 3,000 who were killed on September 11, 2001.
Both former members, Lee Hamilton and Bob Walker also supported the creation of a permanent standing committee. Mr. Hamilton explained his rationale with the following statement, The
issue of Homeland Security is not temporary. The threat of terrorism is long term, as are the related challenges that will confront
our government. Thus, necessary oversight cannot be supplied on
an interim basis nor can it be effectively and efficiently disbursed
among the current 13 full committees and 60 subcommittees in the
House.
While some may give less weight to the opinions of academics as
not practical, these four men served in this institution with distinction and honor. They have a unique perspective having served in
Congress but are no longer caught up in the day-to-day struggles
of committee jurisdictions.
Secretary Schlesinger also gave a very poignant testimony before
our committee. As the Director of Central Intelligence, Secretary of
Defense and the first Secretary of Energy, Secretary Schlesinger
has a very clear understanding of what a department or agency
needs from Congress in the form of oversight and resources to be
successful, especially a newly created department.
Here are just a few of Secretary Schlesingers words from when
he testified, A new Government department does not spring like
Athena from the brow of Zeus, full blown and ready for action. Organizing the department is not instantaneous. It takes time. There
are many organizational challenges and organizational gaps, especially in the early days of a new department. The Department of
Homeland Security is in a sense a start-up organization. Contrary
to the expectations of too many, there will be unavoidable growing
pains as the overall organization gradually comes together. Anything that the House can do to help the new Department rather
than promote additional perches from which the Department can
be criticized would serve the national interest.
These five men, all of whom were very clear, and all of our other
witnesses made compelling cases for the permanency of the Committee on Homeland Security.
However, our study, obviously, is not complete. Today, we will
hear testimony from committee leaders, each with a very unique
understanding of their committee jurisdictions.
I am openand, I am sure, all Members of this committeeto
any option as long as it will help the fledgling Department of
Homeland Security succeed in its mission of protecting American
lives.
I am open to any suggestion, as long as it will help the House
of Representatives to be as prepared as possible to act in the case
3
of a future terrorist event. The effectiveness of this House and the
Department of Homeland Security must be our primary goal.
I would like to thank you, Chairman Goss, Ranking Member
Harman, as well as all of the witnesses who will honor us with
their testimony today.
When Ms. Slaughter arrives I will ask if, at the appropriate time,
if she has an opening statement. And I would, at this point, yield
to any members who may wish to make an opening statement.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART,
CHAIRMAN
I would like to welcome the members of the Subcommittee and the Chairmen and
Ranking Members that will be testifying before us today. While this is our first
hearing of the year, our staff has been working behind the scenes to continue the
important work of our subcommittee.
As you all know, we have been authorized and directed to conduct a thorough
and complete study of the operation and implementation of the rules of the House,
including rule X, with respect to the issue of homeland security, and we will submit
our recommendations to the House Rules Committee by September 30, 2004. Todays hearing will serve as an additional step in that process.
In the Summer and Fall of 2003, we heard testimony from some of the foremost
experts on Congress. These witnesses included five academics from various institutions, two former committee chairmen with superior knowledge of the House Rules,
two former Speakers of the House, and the very first Secretary of Energy. This was
a very distinguished bipartisan group of witnesses.
These witnesses have very different experiences that qualify them as experts on
the Congress, yet they all share a common belief. They all believe that the Select
Committee on Homeland Security should be made permanent.Speakers Gingrich
and Foley have both endorsed a permanent standing committee with primary legislative jurisdiction, and both have called for a joint statement from Speaker Hastert
and Minority Leader Pelosi announcing their intent to make the committee permanent as soon as possible.
Speaker Gingrich explained, in part, his rational for a permanent committee with
the following words:
Congress cannot meet its constitutional responsibilities unless it shows the same
courage as the President in forcing through a real reorganization that does not entangle the Department of Homeland Security in a web five times more complex than
the Department of Energy deals with. It is urgent that Congress also reorganizes
its own structure now.
Speaker Gingrich went on to say:
In fact being effective at Homeland Security could prove to be literally a matter
of life and death in terms of the security and freedom we have grown accustomed
to as Americans. Life and death is not a rhetorical term. It is conceivable some of
the threats of the 21st century could kill many times the 3,000 who were killed on
September 11, 2001.
Both former Members Lee Hamilton and Bob Walker supported the creation of
a permanent standing committee.
Mr. Hamilton explained his rational with the following statement:The issue of
homeland security is not temporary. The threat of terrorism is long-term, as are the
related challenges that will confront our government. Thus necessary oversight cannot be supplied on an interim basis, nor can it be effectively and efficiently disbursed among the current 13 full committees and 60 subcommittees in the House.
While some may give less weight to the opinions of academics as not practical,
these four men served in this institution with distinction and honor. They have a
unique prospective of having served in Congress, but are no longer caught up in the
day to day struggles of committee jurisdictions.
Secretary Schlesinger also gave very poignant testimony before our Subcommittee.
As the Director of Central Intelligence, Secretary of Defense, and the first Secretary
of Energy, Secretary Schlesinger has a very clear understanding of what a department or agency needs from Congress, in the form of oversight and resources, to be
successful, especially a newly created department. Here are a few of Secretary
Schlesingers words from when he testified before us:
A new government department does not spring, like Athena from the brow of
Zeus, full blown and ready for action. Organizing the department is not instantaneous; it takes time. There are many organizational challenges and organizational
4
gaps, especially in the early days of a new department. The Department of Homeland Security is, in a sense, a start-up organization. Contrary to the expectations
of too many, there will be unavoidable growing painsas the overall organization
gradually comes together.
He went on to say that,
Anything that the House can do to help the new department, rather than provide
additional perches from which the department can be criticized would serve the national interest.
These five men, and all of our other witnesses, have made compelling cases for
the permanency of Select Committee on Homeland Security. However, our study is
not complete. Today we will hear testimony from Committee Leaders, each with a
very unique understanding of their committees jurisdictions.
I am open to any option as long as it will help the fledgling Department of Homeland Security succeed in its mission of protecting American lives. I am open to any
suggestion as long as it will help the House of Representatives to be as prepared
as possible to act in the case of a future terrorist event. The effectiveness of this
House and of the Department of Homeland Security must be our primary goal.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses for testifying today, but before we begin,
I would ask Ms. Slaughter, my distinguished Ranking Member if she would like to
make an opening statement.
Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, first, for holding this hearing today and, second, for your sustained work in this area, which
is an important portion of the charter of the Select Committee on
Homeland Security.
We are to report to the Rules Committee and to the House this
September on our recommendations for going forward with both
authorization and oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and the House of Representatives.
I agree with you that we need to hear directly from the other
chairmen of House committees as to how they think the issue of
Homeland Security should be handled from a congressional, legislative and oversight perspective. And I thank all the chairmen and
ranking members who have agreed to testify today, beginning with
Porter Goss and Jane Harman, who will be our first witnesses. And
I thank those who have submitted written testimony as well.
This is our fourth hearing on this topic. Previously, we have received testimony from former House leaders, as you point out Mr.
Chairman, including speakers from both parties, as well as outside
experts on congressional accountability, on the subject of how Congress should best organize itself, and on the subject of the terrific
barriers to sensible oversight and authorization of the new Department because of turf jealousy in the Congress.
And we have heard from Executive Branch officials, such as
James Schlesinger, the first Secretary of Energy and a former CIA
Director and Secretary of Defense, about the difficulties of creating
a new cabinet department with national security responsibility and
the risks to the country of balkanized and diffused authorization
and oversight in Congress. All of these witnesseswithout exception, Republicans and Democratssupported reforming the current
House rules to create a permanent Committee on Homeland Security with primary legislative and oversight responsibility for the
new Department of Homeland Security.
Today, I am certain we will hear some on the other side. It is
important to strike the right balance between the jurisdictional responsibility of a new Homeland Security Committee and the very
legitimate jurisdictional interests of more than a dozen committees
that have historically had jurisdiction over the 22 legacy agencies
transferred to Homeland Security.
5
There is in place a good congressionally-created road map to jurisdictional reform. It is the Homeland Security Act. That act, focused as it is on the structure, organization, capabilities and mission of the Department, itself offers a blueprint. Just as important
as ensuring accountability by having one committee responsible for
authorization and oversight of Homeland Security is ensuring that
both the Department and the committee overseeing it are strictly
limited in their mission to prevent terrorist attacks, reduce our vulnerability to terrorist attacks, and prepare for and respond effectively to such attacks.
By reconsidering the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Department, we can best rationalize the jurisdiction and responsibility of committees in the Congress. For example, we dont need
a Homeland Security Committee looking at how FEMA responds to
floods and tornados.
We dont need a Homeland Security Committee looking at how
the Coast Guard clears ice from waterways or supports recreational
boating. And we dont need a Homeland Security Act looking at immigration quotas or citizenship rules.
This is true despite the fact that all of these functions were
transferred into the Department of Homeland Security. Considerable expertise with respect to those issues resides in the current
standing committees of the Congress, and there is no reason to
recreate it elsewhere.
But we do need a Homeland Security Committee looking at the
fusion of foreign intelligence, domestic intelligence, domestic and
foreign watch lists and the Federal and State and local law enforcement response to this information.
We do need a Homeland Security looking at the integration of
several border security entities that were transferred into the Department last year from multiple Federal departments. We do need
a Homeland Security Committee looking at the effectiveness of information-sharing on infrastructure threats and vulnerabilities
both within the Department and between the Department of Homeland Security and other Federal, local and State governmental entities, as well as within the private sector.
We do need a Homeland Security Committee looking at the integration of the myriad of terrorist and other law enforcement and
intelligence databases within DHS and across the Federal Government. We do need a Homeland Security Committee looking at how
best to fund, prepare, train and re-equip our first responders in the
battle against terrorism, and we do need a Homeland Security committee to ensure that the sum of the various parts of the Department of Homeland Security adds up to something much greater,
much more focused than a collection of legacy agencies, doing what
they have always done.
Most important, we need a Homeland Security Committee looking at the development of a comprehensive and dynamic threat and
vulnerability analysis to guide strategic Homeland Security planning, resource allocation and infrastructure protection. The Congress must look at the Department as a unified whole in order to
set congressional priorities and give congressional direction
through a regular annual appropriations process and authorization
process.
6
But currently, in each of these areas, jurisdiction is scattered
among many House committees, and in some cases, it is nonexistent.
Imagine if the Department of Defense did not have a primary authorization and oversight committee?
If we are talking about the security of the United States of America, the most essential function of our national Government, to give
Homeland Security the attention it demands from us as a separate
Department in the Executive Branch of Government and an entirely new discipline, Congress, too, must be restructured.
Chairman Bill Young of the Appropriations Committee noted in
his written testimony today that when he created a single Homeland Security Appropriation Subcommittee, quote, The imperative
for the committee and the Department presumably from the outset
was to provide a structure for the legacy agencies to coalesce into
a single department with a coordinated unified mission.
He also states that his committee, quote, Would find it equally
difficult to provide consistent oversight and appropriate funding
levels if the myriad of the departments, programs and activities
were scattered across seven subcommittees.
It was obvious to me early that we needed to reorganize to provide structure to ourselves and for the new Department that we
were to oversee and fund. If this makes eminent sense, Mr. Chairman, for the appropriations side, which I believe it does, then it
makes equally good sense for the authorization and oversight side.
I look forward to exploring these issues today with our witnesses
and to working with them as this year progresses. Thank you Mr.
Chairman.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER COX
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. I, too, think that we
need to hear directly from the other chairmen of House committees as to how they
think the issue of homeland security should be handled from a congressional legislative and oversight perspective. And I thank all of the chairmen that have agreed
to testify today and those that have submitted written testimony as well.
This is our 4th hearing on this topic. Previously, we have received testimony from
former House leaders, including Speakers from both parties, as well as outside experts in Congressional accountability, on the subject of how Congress should best
organize itself. . .and the terrific BARRIERS to sensible oversight and authorization
of the new department because of turf jealousy. And, we heard from Executive
Branch officials, such as James Schlesinger, the first Secretary of Energy, and a
former CIA, Sec. Def. about the difficulties of creating a new cabinet department
with national security responsibility, and the risks to country of Balkanized and diffused authorization and oversight in Congress. All of these witnesses, without exception, Republicans and Democrats, supported reforming the current House rules to
create a permanent Committee on Homeland Security with primary legislative and
oversight responsibility for the new Department of Homeland Security. Today, we
will hear from the other side.
Crafting the right balance between the jurisdictional responsibility of a new
Homeland Security Committee and the very legitimate interests of the > dozen committees that have historically had jurisdiction over the 22 LEGACY agencies transferred to Homeland Security. But, the congressionally created road map to jurisdictional reformthe Homeland Security Actthat focuses on the structure, organization, capabilities, and mission of the Department itself, offers a blueprint.
Just as IMPORTANT as insuring accountability by having ONE committee responsible for AUTHORIZATION AND OVERSIGHT of Homeland Security, is insuring that BOTH the department and the Committee overseeing it, are STRICTLY
LIMITED in their mission to prevent terrorist attacks, reduce our vulnerability to
terrorist attacks, and prepare for and respond effectively to such attacks.
7
By reconsidering the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Department, we can
best rationalize the jurisdiction and responsibility of Committees in the Congress.
For example, we dont need a homeland security committee looking at how FEMA
responds to floods or tornados We dont need a homeland security committee looking
at how the Coast Guard clears ice from waterways or supports recreational boating.
And we dont need a homeland security committee looking at immigration QUOTAS
or citizenship procedures. at backlogs in the processing of legal immigrants or other
immigration services. This is true, despite the fact that all of these functions were
transferred into DHS. Considerable expertise with respect to those issues resides in
the current standing committees of the Congress, and there is NO REASON to recreate it ELSEWHERE.
But we do need a homeland security committee looking at the fusion of foreign
intelligence, domestic intelligence, domestic and foreign watch lists, and Federal,
state and local law enforcement response to this information. Integration of the several border security entities that were transferred into the Department last year
from multiple Federal departments. We do need a homeland security committee
looking at the effectiveness of information sharing on infrastructure threats and
vulnerabilities, both within the Department and between DHS and other Federal,
state, and local government entities, as well as with the private sector. We do need
a homeland security committee looking at the integration of the myriad terrorist
and other law enforcement and intelligence databases within DHS and across the
Federal Government. We do need a homeland security committee looking at how
best to fund, prepare, train and equip our first responders in the battle against terrorism. And, we need a homeland security committee to ensure that the sum of the
various parts of DHS adds up to something much greater, much more focused, than
a collection of legacy agencies, doing what they always have done.
Most important, we need a homeland security committee looking at the development of a (comprehensive and dynamic) threat and vulnerability analysis to guide
1. strategic homeland security planning, 2. resource allocation, and 3. infrastructure
protection. The Congress must look at the Department as a unified whole, in order
to set congressional priorities, and give congressional direction through a regular
ANNUAL authorization process.
Currently, in each of these areas, jurisdiction is scattered among MANY House
committees, and in some cases it is non-existent. Imagine if the Department of Defense did not have a primary authorization and oversight committee. Yet we are
talking about the security of the USA, the most essential function of our National
Government. To give homeland security the attention it demands from us as a separate DEPARTMENT in the Executive branch of Government, and an ENTIRELY
NEW DISCIPLINE, Congress must be structured so as to give it sustained and expert attention.
Chairman Bill Young of the Appropriations Committee noted in his written testimony today that, when he created a single homeland security appropriations subcommittee:
The imperative for the Committee (and the Department presumably) from the
outset was to provide a structure for the legacy agencies to coalesce into a single
department with a coordinated, unified mission. . .
He also states that his committee: would find it equally difficult to provide consistent oversight and appropriate funding levels if the myriad of the departments
programs and activities were scattered across seven subcommittees. It was obvious
to me early that we needed to reorganizeto provide structure to ourselves and for
the new agency that we were to oversee and fund.
If this makes eminent sense for the appropriations sidewhich I believe it does
then it must also make good sense for the authorization side.
I look forward to exploring these issues today with our witnesses and to working
with them as this year progresses to rationalize and improve this Houses homeland
security oversight and legislative activity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Weldon?
Mr. WELDON. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I dont have a prepared
statement, but I would like to make a few comments.
I think this is the most important task that we will undertake
this year. And I am overwhelmingly in favor of creating a full permanent committee, as I said before the Rules Committee last year
when I testified or, actually, last session when I testified before the
8
Rules Committee on the House Republican Policy Committee on
the need to have an individual authorization and appropriation
committee in both the House and the Senate. We have taken the
first step with the select committee, but it hasnt solved the problem.
As my colleagues and as you have pointed out Mr. Chairman, it
is impossible, it is unthinkable to have one agency report toand
if my staff will put the chart up on the easel88 committees and
subcommittees in the House and the Senate.
If you add up all of the membership of these 88 committees and
subcommittees, you will find out that there are 505 Members of
Congress who can claim jurisdiction over Homeland Security.
How in the world can one agency answer the phone calls, the
staff inquiries and the other efforts to inquire with 505 Members
of Congress claiming they have jurisdiction over this or that issue
in Homeland Security?
It is absolutely unthinkable we would have this kind of arrangement, and we wonder why the Homeland Security Department
spends the bulk of their time answering questions for the Congress
as opposed to doing their number one problem and priority, which
is protecting the homeland.
And there are some very specific things that have happened over
the past 2 years, Mr. Chairman, I would like to focus on as examples of what we are talking about. We had the Homeland Security
Technology Transfer Bill. When it was introduced, it was referred
to four to six committees and the Select Committee with expertise
on the matter.
Four to six of the five different House committees that this bill
was referred to, each one of them refused to act on it because they
know collectively that none of them will be able toor all of them
wont be able to act on it before the end of the session, so therefore,
none of them act on it.
Meanwhile, the Senate, with one committee, has already passed
the bill. We will not act on that bill this year. We look at the Select
Committee not being given important jurisdiction.
And I see my good friend Jane Harman is here. And a good example is the bill that she and I introduced on Homeland Emergency Response and Operations or the HERO bill. She knows full
well that one of our distinguished authorizing committees will not
allow this committee to have any say on that very important subject, which is the number one priority for our first responders and
that is public safety frequency spectrum allocation. Another example of where we will not act this year, yet we have this jurisdiction.
A third is the first-responder bill, which the Chairman has done
a fantastic job on in a bipartisan way with Congressman Turner,
we have marked up the bill. It is referred to three other committees, and there will probably not be enough time to pass the bill
this year.
So we have to be very careful not to offend other committees
when we draft it, and some of the provisions still will be removed
before the bill finally moves to the House floor.
Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that I have worked closely for the
past 18 years with the first-responder community. I have been to
9
all 50 states. I have spoken to all of their groups. They consider
me one of them because I used to be one of them.
Every first-responder group in America, every one, supports one
committee for authorization. Now, I would think the people who we
task to protect the homeland know best. The International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Fire Fighters,
the National Volunteer Fire Council, the State Fire Marshals,
International Arson Investigators, the National Fire Service Instructors, all of the other myriad of groups who represent the 1.2
million men and women who respond to our homeland security situations, all have gone on record and have said we need one authorization committee.
Well, then why then cant we move it? Perhaps, we will hear in
this hearing today the reasons. But I would argue and I would
make the point, Mr. Chairman, that I am going to be listening to
the people who want the Homeland Security Department to respond to their needs. And they unequivocally and overwhelmingly
say we should do on the authorization side what Bill did on the appropriations side and have one committee of jurisdiction. And I
hope that our hearings will, in the end, be able to allow us to make
that recommendation. Thank you.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Weldon.
I ask unanimous consent that all written statements of our witnesses today as well as those chairmen and ranking members who
could not be here to testify, be included as part of the hearing
record.
Being no objection, so ordered.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM TURNER
I have said previously and will repeat again today: If you take homeland security
seriously, you must reach the conclusion that there needs to be one Committee in
the House of Representatives with oversight and legislative jurisdiction over the
functions of the Department of Homeland Security.There are a number of reasons
I have reached this conclusion.
First, we need to do whatever we can in the Congress to help the Department
of Homeland Security to be successful. Right now, we have dozens of full committees
and scores of subcommittees overseeing the Department. We call senior Department
officials to duplicative hearings. And we push the Department in multiple, sometimes conflicting policy directions.
Congress is making the Departments substantial challenges more difficult.
Secretary Ridge agrees. At a hearing before our Committee he said, I think it
goes without saying that a streamlined process of oversight and accountability, in
my judgment, would do both the executive branch and the legislative branch a world
of good.
Let me provide one example. The Department launched an initiative called One
Face At the Border, which attempts to merge the functions of the former customs
and former immigration inspectors at our ports of entry. Without a Homeland Security Committee, the Ways and Means Committee and Judiciary Committee would
both have jurisdiction over that small program, as would the Appropriations Committee and possibly the Government Reform Committee as well. The people who run
One Face At the Border have to deal with many faces here in Congress.
My second main reason for advocating for a permanent Homeland Security Committee is that I do not believe effective oversight over the Department can be accomplished with multiple Committees having responsibility for different sections of the
Department. To illuminate this, let me describe the effort of the Select Committee,
under Chairman Coxs leadership, to do a thorough review and authorization of the
Department of Homeland Securitys budget. This is a very important task, especially
for a new Department.
Who would do this if we dont have a single homeland security committee? Who
would look at the tradeoffs that every Department must make when developing a
10
budget? Who would look at the cross-cutting issues that affect the Department at
large rather than individual componentsissues such as developing a comprehensive threat and vulnerability assessment? Who would focus on the serious management challenges facing the Department, such as those pointed out by the Departments Inspector General today? The answer is, frankly, no one.
It appears to me that the witnesses today who argue that a new Committee is
not necessary are disregarding the decision made by Congress and the President to
create a Department of Homeland Security. This decision reflected a determination
that it was critically important to bring diverse agencies under the direction of a
Secretary whose focus24/7would be on security. Even though the Attorney General had tremendous expertise in immigration, and the Treasury Department had
tremendous experience with customs, and the Transportation Department had tremendous knowledge of aviation securitythese functions were placed in the Department of Homeland Security. For Congress to approve this reorganization, and the
philosophy behind it, but fail to reorganize itself to deal effectively with the new
reality, would be, to put it bluntly, the height of hypocrisy.
Does this mean that committees with years of experience and expertise in areas
such as bioterrorism or aviation security should be stripped of any influence over
these subjects? No. There are ways to have shared jurisdiction over issues where
more than one committee has something to contribute. This is accomplished in
many other areas. Jurisdictional arrangements can also be made for how Congress
should handle non-homeland security responsibilities of the new Department.
Finally, I would like to deal head on with the idea that has been put forward that
homeland security could be handled through a subcommittee on the Government Reform Committee. I served on the Government Reform Committee so I am familiar
with the tremendous work it does on oversight and issues that affect government
operations across the board. But I see no reason why we should consolidate jurisdiction over homeland security in the Government Reform Committee any more than
we should provide it jurisdiction over health care, highway construction, or education.
Such a consolidation has not occurred in the Governmental Affairs Committee in
the Senate and we have no way to predict whether it will. Rather than trying to
mimic an illogical approach that may or may not happen in the Senate, I believe
it would be far better to lead the way with the right approach. I also believe that
if we create a strong Committee on Homeland Security in the House, the Senate
will have no choice but to follow suit. This is exactly what happened with respect
to the Appropriations Committee. The House took the right step of creating a separate appropriations subcommittee for the Department of Homeland Security. The
Senate soon did the same thing.
I also want to express some skepticism about another ideacontinuing the Select
Committee in its current form for another Congress. While I believe we have made
a positive contribution this year in a number of ways, this structure is not a permanent solution. In some ways, by creating yet another committee to which the new
Department must report, we are part of the problem this year rather than the cure.
And without meaningful authority and jurisdiction, the Select Committee is hamstrung in its efforts to legislate and conduct oversight.
I am certain that the right thing to do for the national security of our country
is to create a permanent Homeland Security Committee. That Committee should
have oversight with respect to all homeland security activities of the Federal Government. It should also have legislative jurisdiction over the full range of the Department of Homeland Securitys operations. While I will not be serving in the next
Congress, I do fear that if the Congress fails to take decisive action on this topic,
and we suffer additional terrorist attacks in the United States, Congress will be
held accountable for this failure.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BENNIE THOMPSON
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to express my views on the future of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. It has been said time and time again that
we now live a new age. . .an age of uncertainty. We have come face-to-face with
terrorism and must prepare our homeland for future engagements. There is no
doubt that this is a challenge of the greatest magnitude. In fact, the argument can
be made that this is one of the greatest and most unique challenges that faces our
great nation. We face an enemy that is unquestionably dedicated to the destruction
of this free nation. Given this fact, we continue to be unquestionably dedicated to
protecting freedoms and principles on which this nation was founded.
On September 11, 2001, people around the world wept and grieved deeply over
the lives lost on that tragic day. On that same day our nation and many of our allies
11
vowed to go the distance in bringing those who carried out the horrible attacks on
September 11th. As our military continues to carry out our nations campaign
against terrorism it is incumbent upon the house to do its part to ensure that such
ferocious attacks never again take place.
After the attacks of September 11, and after considerable pressure, President
Bush finally understood the need for a unified national homeland security effort.
After understanding the wisdom of this course of action, the president approved the
consolidation of 22 domestic agencies into the Department of Homeland Security.
The idea behind the consolidation of nearly two dozen domestic agencies would
breath life into the national goal of fighting terrorism, foreign and domestic, create
a greater harmony between the agencies, and reduce the chances of future attacks.
The decision to create the Select Committee on Homeland Security was a solid first
step towards better preparing the country to defend against terrorism.
We, as a deliberative body, must resist the temptation to continue in a pre-9/ll
mind set that creates unfathomable scenarios that could severely limit our effectiveness to combat terrorism in the legislative arena. As representatives of the people,
it is our responsibility to contribute to the war on terrorism through effective legislation and oversight. Unfortunately, some in this body and on this panel have failed
to see the benefits to consolidating the legislative and oversight responsibilities into
one committee. A number of congressman and congresswomen have voiced strong
concerns stating that the Select Committee on Homeland Security has done its job
and should be dissolved. Some have even suggested that the committee be allowed
to continue its existence without the needed legislative and oversight authority.
They contend that myriad committees would be better suited to deal with the special needs of Homeland Security. They site legislative and institutional experience
as the reason other committees would be more effective in the realm of homeland
security oversight and legislation. Given these claims, one must ask the question,
Where were the legislative and institutional experience and the preventative accomplishments on and leading up to 9/11
It is possible to make the argument that the many committees and subcommittees
that have legislative and oversight jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland
Security lacked the vision and foresight to effectively legislate against a terrorist attack.
The same committees that claim that they should be gifted with this incredible
responsibility have not produced for the American people. How can so many different committees and subcommittees promise the American people that they will
commit effective resources and time to the issues of homeland security when their
committees have other important responsibilities. It is irresponsible to allow this decentralized legislative and oversight responsibility. Anything less than a centralized
legislative and oversight body with authority has the potential to indirectly assist
terrorist and make preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. A single legislative
committee must exist, not only to provide effective oversight and legislative action,
but also to ensure accountability. The authority must not ebb and flow between
committees and subcommittees with the changing of the political wind. The American people deserve better than that. They deserve greater protection from terrorists, political opportunism, and turf battles. Responsibility and accountability must
come from concrete, not liquid, authority. Decentralized authority means decentralized accountability.
It is crucial that Members of Congress understand what the nation already understands and that is how real and how imminent these threats are. In the eyes of the
terrorist, September 11th was just an example of their hatred.
Creating a single legislative body to deal with horrible events is consistent with
congressional responses. I strongly endorse making the current Select Committee on
Homeland Security a permanent committee with clear legislative and oversight jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security. The ability of the House to
engineer comprehensive legislation in advance and in response to crisis, over see the
administration of laws and carry out our constitutional responsibility to represent
the people of the United States people depends a great deal upon the organization
and management of the committee system. The only way to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is effectively addressing the nations needs with respect
to terrorist threats is to make the committee permanent and give it all of the legislative and oversight authority as traditional standing committees.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LOUISE M. SLAUGHTER
I thank the many Members who are taking the time out of their full schedules
to speak with us today. There are many demands on everyones time, not the least
12
of which this week is the Federal budget for FY05. Your time and insights are
greatly appreciated.
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security has raised many issues.
Congress has a responsibility over the new department itself, and Congress has a
heightened responsibility to respond to the threat of terrorism. The question that
this subcommittee continues to consider today is what structure is best for the
House and best for the nascent department.
Some structural changes have already been made. The Appropriations Committee
created a homeland security appropriations subcommittee. The Senate has incorporated its homeland security duties into its Government Affairs Committee, instead of creating a separate homeland security committee.
Last year this subcommittee heard from a series of distinguished scholars, former
Members, former Speakers, and others. consensus seemed to emerge from those
hearings that the House should have a A committee on homeland security. These
recommendations are helpful, but not conclusive. Parliamentary and practical
issues, such as committee jurisdiction, referral, oversight, legislative authority, and
subject-matter expertise, are important parts of the equation in determining the
utility, necessity, and desirability of a homeland security. This is where your experience and expertise is invaluable to the subcommittees deliberations.
The big questions continue to be debated. Should the House have a homeland security committee? Should it be permanent, select, or permanent select? Should it
have oversight jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security? Should it
also have legislative authority for the Department? Should the committee have jurisdiction over homeland security programs or jurisdiction over all of the entities
that have been moved into the Department?
I look forward to hearing from the distinguished panelists today. The Chairmen
and Ranking Members of the committees with jurisdiction over programs and entities within the Department of Homeland Security will be able to provide special insight into the daily workings of the House and our collective response to terrorism
and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Chairman Goss and Ms. Harman, thank you

so much for being here today. I would ask that you proceed with
a summary of your written statements, and we will stick to the 5minute rule.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. We will begin with Chairman Goss. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PORTER GOSS, AND CHAIRMAN PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
Mr. GOSS. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I have A formal
statement for the record which I would ask be included, and I
would summarize very briefly.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Without objection.
Mr. GOSS. First of all, the issue before us: Is the House organized
efficiently to handle Homeland Security oversight including the department of Homeland Security? Should there be a Homeland Security committee?
I believe the answer is, of course, yes. We are going to have
Homeland Security, and we have to have oversight and authorization, and we have to have knowledgeable people doing the advocacy
for that. So there is no question that in my view that decision has
been made.
What it is going to look like is really what the issue is about, I
believe. And I can argue that, under Rule 10, there are advantages
to proceeding to set up a regular standing committee or I could say
a permanent select committee patterned on the template that we
use in our Intelligence Committee might work as well. I think
there are pluses and minuses to both. I am not going to dwell on
the how to. It is just that it needs to be done.
With regard to some observations I would make and coming at
it from the perspective of the intelligence aspect, which is, as you
13
noted in your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, a small part of the
Homeland Security but, in my view, a necessary part. I believe intelligence is the nerve center. I believe it is the trigger. I believe
it is the thing without which the rest becomes basically a huge burden on the people that Mr. Weldon has just spoken to, the responders.
I would like to put the responders out of business. I want them
all to become Maytag people. I love them. I just dont want to use
them. I would like to have good information so we stop the bomb
before it goes off. We stop the incident before it goes off. And that
is where intelligence comes into Homeland Security, goes into some
type of a process, gets turned around and goes out to action, agents
who are properly authorized to go out and forestall, preempt, prevent any kind of mischief happening. That, to me, would be a successful Department of Homeland Security.
I do believe that the present committee, the acting committee
that we have is too large a committee. I say that because there are
many interests that need to be considered and it is entirely appropriate to have a large committee at this point. I would hope that
it could be more focused when the organizational aspects are refined down.
With regard to jurisdiction and overlapping areas, I know there
has been a lot of discussion about that, and everybody wants to
guard their turf. And it will come as no surprise to you that I believe that intelligence, the way we have it set up in our oversight,
both in the Senate and the House, under the present conditions has
gone through an evolutionary process that has finally brought us
a result that is actually working quite well.
There are some who suggest that, perhaps, we should combine
the Senate and the House, and there are some other sort of proposals on the table. But I can assure you that we now have a system that is working and providing both the advocacy and the oversight of our intelligence communities.
We act as the 1800-number for keeping the intelligence community in all its aspects in, bounds and we act also as the advocacy
by doing the authorization for all activities by statute. We may not
indulge in intelligence activities in this country, even with appropriated funds, unless they are authorized by the oversight committee. That is a special and unique role for the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and for a good cause.
I believe that nevertheless HPSI takes onIntelligence Committee takes on the understood responsibility we do have to reach
out to the other chairmen where there are combined interests. And
we have 15 agencies that are in other Cabinet areas and secretary
areas that fall under other oversight areas. And we do reach out
to Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Hyde, Chairman Duncan
Hunter of the Armed Services, the appropriate committee.
We also try and have membership on our committees through
the leadership appointment process where we bridge to some of
those committees so that we are efficient. So these things are resolvable, I believe, without having open turf wars. And I would
suggest that there is plenty of history on the books of how we can
proceed on that.
14
I do believe that the relationship we have with the intelligence
community is built on a clear understanding of how we handle classified information for the intelligence community and our portfolio.
And I would not like to change that because I do believe it does
work well and serve our objectives extremely well.
I would also point out, we work with different appropriations
people and will have no trouble working with the different appropriations committees as authorizers whether it is the defense appropriations committee or some other one in the various manifestations that might come through Homeland Security that nevertheless have an intelligence component, which we would expect to be
in our portfolio.
And finally, the last thing I was going to say, goes back to Pearl
Harbor. Interestingly enough, as horrible as Pearl Harbor was, that
6 years after Pearl Harbor when we set up a national intelligence
program in our countryit was a national foreign intelligence program. We do not have a domestic intelligence agency. Americans do
not spy on Americans.
That gets us to the question of how do we integrate or fuse information that comes from our local law enforcement people in a way
that does not confound that objective of free and fair democratic
open society, all the hallmarks of being an American in a way that
we do not impose a domestic intelligence agency on the people of
the United States of America.
And I suggest that the way we are doing it now is working quite
well, using the foreign intelligence program manifest through
TTIC. Happy to answer any questions on TTIC.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PORTER J. GOSS
In the year since the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and
the three and half years since September 11th, the Federal Government has moved
substantial resources to break down stovepipes and better protect the nation. The
House has undertaken, in this Committee, an exercise in reviewing our own capabilities to conduct oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and related
areas.
As Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI),
I have a unique perspective because the Committee is a unique Committee. HPSCI
has been the only standing select Committee in Congress for many years now, and
I would like to provide my insights into the authorization and oversight process we
undertake to fulfill Congress responsibility to provide vigorous oversight of the Intelligence Community in the most responsible manner possible. HPSCIs creation
was intended to provide Congress with the ability to oversee disparate departments
and organizations throughout the Federal Government.
As you are aware, HPSCI has sole jurisdiction over US intelligence and intelligence related activities. This means that we oversee the national intelligence agencies and the military intelligence entitiesyet we also oversee the intelligence components of many other agencies, such as the State Department, Treasury, and the
FBI. We are very focused on intelligence and we are able to do our oversight in a
thorough and constructive manner without redundancy or the interference of other
House oversight committees.
HPSCIs exclusive jurisdiction over the intelligence and intelligence-related activities is a critical element of our ability to conduct complete, across-the-board, nonpartisan oversight. The unique nature of HPSCI protects sensitive intelligence
sources and methods associated with intelligence collection and analysis. Congress,
as a whole, can review and benefit from finished analytic product, but the discussion
of where and how that information was acquired is reserved for the closed-door sessions with HPSCI. This is the balance that was struck with the Executive Branch
when the committee was created, and I believe it continues to serve us well today.
HPSCI has conducted vigorous oversight of the Intelligence Community including
the intelligence elements of counterterrorism and homeland security. In fact, prior
15
to the events of September 11th, the HPSCI in January 2001 created a working
group to examine the terrorist threat and the US homeland. After September 11th,
2001 this working group was elevated to a subcommittee. Today, that subcommittee
continues to examine many of the issues that the newly established Select Homeland Security Committee has sought to clarify with respect to intelligence.
HPSCI will continue to advocate for its proper jurisdiction to oversee and authorize intelligence community elements including the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) and the Department of Homeland Securitys Information Analysis (IA)
Division in the same way it oversees and authorizes other Intelligence Community
elements such as the FBIs Office of Intelligence and the Counterintelligence Division, the Department of States Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the Department of Treasurys Office of Intelligence, and the Department of Energys Counterintelligence Office and Office of Intelligence.
I believe the best defense is a good offense and that the role intelligence plays
in protecting the nation is vital, but there is more to homeland security than intelligence. I would note that the Homeland Security Committee has spent considerable
time examining the intelligence portion of homeland security and in questioning the
intelligence communitys ability to function and communicate with other governmental departments, specifically the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and the
CIA. I welcome the questioning of the Intelligence Community and the dialogue between our Committees, and believe that collectively we can better protect and prepare the nation to defend itself from the terrorist threat.
The greatest capability that the Select Committee on Homeland Security can and
should provide to Congress is its focus on a singlealbeit enormousDepartment
within the Government and the integration of that Departments many, many functions. It can pass its findings on to the relevant Committee, or Committees that will
be charged with the long-term task of DHS.
The Select Committee also has the opportunity to define, for House purposes, the
term homeland security, and I hope we will make the most of this opportunity.
While there appears to be an ever-increasing number of intelligence experts these
days, the definition of intelligence is generally understood. I think, however, Congress and the country as a whole, are still working on an answer to What is homeland security?
To conclude my remarks, I would highlight the important role intelligence plays
in the protection of our nation and the strong relationship that must develop between the Intelligence Community and the Department of Homeland Security. We
must work to bolster the resources of both, this is not an either or proposition.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you. And we will have questions. Thank

you so much for your testimony.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mrs. Harman?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JANE HARMAN, RANKING
MEMBER, PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
Ms. HARMAN. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

It is good to see you and to see several members of the select
Permanent Select Committee on Homeland Security here as well.
And I do agree with my colleague, Congressman Weldon, that it
has been enormously frustrating trying to get one interoperable
communications system adopted for our country, which is a critical
building block to an effective Homeland Security system. And a
problem is the way Congress is organized. Let me submit my comments for the record, too, and just hit a few high points.
Ms. HARMAN. I do agree with much that chairman Goss has said.
I would only add that the intelligence committees in Congress, our
jurisdiction and our focus could use A little tune up, too. We should
be more mission-based.
The mission is, at this point, counter-terrorism and more effective efforts to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Those are the big threats, and I hope that our committee will tack-
16
le them on a mission-based program, rather than the kind of analog way we have dealt with them in the past. But that is something
he and I have discussed.
Turning to this subject, in 2000, I was a member of the National
Commission on Terrorism, chaired by Ambassador L. Paul Bremer,
also known as Jerry Bremer, now the civil administrator in Iraq.
Our charter was international terrorism, not specifically homeland
security. But we did recommend that Congress develop mechanisms for coordinated review of the Presidents terrorism policies
and budgets.
Similarly, I supported the establishment. In fact, I called myself
one of its godmothers, of the Department of Homeland Security, to
bring greater focus to the Governments efforts to protect the homeland. As I have often said, this effort was not to rearrange the deck
chairs, but to build one deck.
If we were serious about the Department of Homeland Security
and if we are serious about Congress developing better mechanisms
for coordinated review of terrorism, then we need to establish an
effective committee of homeland security. I think it should be permanent. I dont know what its size should be. But it should be certainly a streamlined version of what we presently have. And it
should have some clear jurisdiction to act.
I can see at least three reasons why doing this makes sense.
First, having at least two sets of eyes can strengthen congressional
oversight. I agree with Chairman Goss that there are areas where
the intelligence committees should have primary and possibly exclusive jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the eyes that this committee can
put on things, like the integration of watch lists and the intelligence function, inside the Department of Homeland Security, help
augment the role of the House and Senate intelligence committees.
Second of all, this committee can ease the burden on the Department of Homeland Security, which already is having some organizationalearly organizational struggles in terms of testifying before Congress and dealing with Congress. It is unreasonable to expect Secretary Ridge and his top folks to testify before 88 committees and subcommittees. It makes a lot more sense to have the
focal point be here.
Third, this committee, as reorganized and streamlined, can, I
think, best deliver some important messages to the Department of
Homeland Security. One of them that Chairman Cox and I strongly
agree on is that we urgently need one nationally-integrated threat
and vulnerability assessment to drive our resources. We have to
harden the right targets, put the resources against those targets
and stop the squeaky wheel theory of homeland security funding.
And if we have one effective streamlined committee, we can deliver
that message better.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, since I have 48 seconds left, I
would just like to say that many people in Congress have worked
very hard on this problem and care very much about it. That is the
message we want to send to Curt Weldons first responders. We
care very much. We do hear them. We want to do better.
But that chart, that congressional organization chart is a nightmare. And in order to do better for the people we represent, we
have to overcome our own internal turf battles, organize ourselves
17
more efficiently and then really add value to dealing with the
toughest targets in the world, terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JANE HARMAN
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Slaughter, and my colleagues on the
Select Committee on Homeland Security, for the invitation to appear before you
today.
I am a Member of the full Committee on Homeland Security, so am speaking both
from the Intelligence Committee perspective, but also as someone who has paid
close attention to the way this committee has worked. I understand that Chairman
Goss is not only a member of this full committee as well, but is even a Member
of the Subcommittee that he is now testifying before. Im not sure if that constitutes
a conflict of interest, but we can be sure that at least one member of this Subcommittee will agree with his testimony.
We have been asked to speak about how the House should conduct oversight over
the Department of Homeland Security and handle legislation concerning homeland
security in future Congresses. My recommendation is that the House create a permanent committee with primary oversight and legislative authorities over the homeland security activities of the Department of Homeland Security.
The intelligence reports that I receive tell me the same thing that your witnesses
in past hearings have told you: the threat of terrorism will be with us for the foreseeable future, and Congress needs to make permanent structural changes to account for it. Homeland security is not only a hot button issue in the aftermath of
September 11, 2001, and something on the nations mind following terrorist attacks
overseas, like the recent tragic bombings in Spain. Homeland security is a new way
for our government, our private sector, and our citizenry to live.
I believe, and the past years experience has shown, that a dozen House committees cannot effectively oversee or legislate on homeland security. Like every other
witness that will appear before you today, I believe that my committee, the House
Intelligence Committee, has done excellent work this Congress and in the last, to
address homeland security challenges.
The Intelligence Committee Members and staff have held hearings and authorized
activities of the Department of Homeland Securitys Directorate for Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, which is a statutory member of the National
Intelligence Community. We have worked closely with DCI Tenet, Secretary Ridge,
Director Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft, and others on the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and the Terrorist Screening Center.
Moreover, the Intelligence Committee will continue to include part of DHS budget
in our annual intelligence authorization bill, and will oversee the intelligence products and processes of IAIP.
However, the excellent work of the Intelligence Committee, even if matched by
every other committee, does not translate to effective, comprehensive Congressional
action over homeland security. For example, a Homeland Security Committee has
an important role to play to determine how intelligence from IAIP is used by the
rest of DHS. That, while potentially within the purview of the Intelligence Committee, could not be adequately studied in the absence of a dedicated committee.
The work of the Select Committee on overseeing the functions of the Department
also demonstrate the Committees value. Reports produced by the Democratic Members and staff on smallpox preparedness, terrorist watch lists, and the anniversary
report of the Department, all of which I have been proud to sign, are valuable contributions.
Mr. Chairman, your subcommittee is clearly facing the ugliest four letter word
turf. Id like to speak briefly about the interactions that we, at least on the Democratic side, have had between Intelligence and Homeland Security.
As mentioned before, the Intelligence Committee has jurisdiction over all intelligence programs in the federal government, including those within DHS. We have
been able to work with the Homeland Security Committee to claim single jurisdiction over certain issues, for example, the inner workings of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center within the Intelligence Committee. We have collaborated closely in
other areas, such as information sharing, the quality and access of intelligence sent
to the IAIP Directorate, and the integration and use of terrorist watch lists.
This interaction among committees is standard practice for Intel Committee members. By House Rules, we have formal ties and shared membership with the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, International Relations and Judiciary.
18
This practice is longstanding and effective, and I would hope to have a similar relationship in future Congresses with the Homeland Security Committee.
Finally, I know this Subcommittee has heard views on whether a permanent
Homeland Security Committee should be a Standing or a Select Committee. As
Chairman Goss and I have some distinct experience with this issue, I have a few
comments on this.
I thank the Subcommittee and will be happy to answer any questions you have.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you Ms. Harman.

Thank you both.
Chairman Goss, in your written testimony, you pointed out, in
your opinion, the greatest capability that the select committee, that
this committee can and should provide to Congress is its focus on
a single Department and the integration of the Departments many
functions. Why is that so important in your opinion?
Mr. GOSS. Well, I think we have had testimony on that already.
I think Ms. Harman just said it, and Mr. Weldon hit it with his
chart very brilliantly. The issue of keeping the coordination of the
various agencies properly working is clearly one of the main
threads of our 9/11 reviewthe coordination, the horizontal coordination of the various Federal agenciesand we only do the intelligence community.
The Kean Commission is now doing the rest of them. And clearly
there was a problem. And the President of the United States has
spoken to that problem between the working relationship between
the FBI as a law enforcement people in our country versus the
overseas intelligence people. There is actually an interpretation of
the statutes that there was a wall that forbid them from talking
to each other, which we have done our best to make sure is a broken-down wall.
So I believe that we have learned by the mistakes of the past.
We are able tousing our focus on the intelligence of over 15 agencies and reaching out to chairmen of other areas where we have jurisdictions to share, where we have similar matters, classified and
unclassified, we have found good working arrangements that have
prospered, I think, because we do have a focus on the national security of what we are trying to protect and what we are trying to
do.
I think also the saving of time and so forth is very critical. The
one area that I perhaps would also say with regard to Ms. Harmans point, I certainly agree there are some targets we should
harden. And there are some very obvious vulnerabilities that we
need to focus on.
But I think the President has also made it abundantly clear that
defense alone does not work. You have to have the offense. You
have to have a progressive, forward-leaning, how do we get the information to prevent, to preempt. That means getting information.
And I want to make darn sure there are a bunch of overseers who
are totally focused on that balance between getting necessary information and not intruding on Americans.
And it seems to me a lot of that is going to land in the Department of Homeland Security and the overseers, which I would assume would be some carry-on of this committee.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. In your testimony, which we so much appreciate, we appreciate so very much, you support permanence for
this.
19
Mr. GOSS. Yes, I do.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. As you pointed out, the intelligence committee
is a permanent select committee which is a little bit different
Mr. GOSS. Yes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Than, obviously, the standing committees,
which are more numerous.
The select committee, the permanent select committee, obviously,
has U.S. Government-wide jurisdiction over intelligence and intelligence-related activities. In your experience, can you point to any
pros and cons of a permanent select in dealing with such broad
subject matters, such a broad subject matter?
Mr. GOSS. Yes. I certainly can Mr. Chairman. I would say it is
broad, but it is not so far as to bridge the separation of powers between the branches of government. There in no case has been, that
I am aware of in our intelligence committee, a situation where the
national security advisor would come and testify under oath before
Congress or in fact even bring written documents.
But there has been a behind-the-scenes, comfortable working relationship with every Administration of being able to work things
out that are of critical national security. And that is part of the
beauty of the permanent select committee, which leads me to what
the distinction between a Rule 10 committee, a standing committee
and a select committee.
The advantage of the select committee is that the leadership of
the minority and majority leadership select the people to be on a
select committee. That, therefore, means that there is a closer wiring to the leadership, and the leadership put the people on those
committees that are ready to go to do that work, to make the obligation, to make the commitments, to do the hard and very focused
work of the select committee.
It is different than getting on the committee through the seniority and voting process of the regular standing committees. And I
believe that that extra element of selectness, as it were, by leadership appointment very much aids and abets that close working relationship that you have to have to reach into the Executive
Branch of Government to deal with the business that is necessary
for our national security, even though we dont put it on the record,
and we dont go under oath with each other. I think that is absolutely critically essential.
Ms. HARMAN. If I could just add to that Mr. Chairman?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes, Ms. Harman.
Ms. HARMAN. I agree, with respect to the Intelligence Committee.
I think that element of selectness and the small size of the committee and the fact that most of our hearings and meetings are in
closed session because we are dealing with classified information
makes it different.
But I would not carry that over to the new version, the sleek,
slimmed-down, more permanent version of that committee. I think
this should be a regular standing committee of the House. I am not
sure whether Mr. Goss was saying that or not.
Mr. GOSS. I was only answering the Chairmans question. Not
making a preference.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Right. Ms. Harman certainly made a preference.
20
And Ms. Harman, obviously, are you supportive of permanency?
And we have had the opportunity to read, and we will certainly
hear later on today testimony from other committee leaders who
have a different point-of-view.
Why do you think that your viewpoint is so different than the
committee leaders who are going to basically support the status
quo today in their testimony? Is itdo you think it is your intelligence experience or, perhaps, your exposure to the select committee?
Ms. HARMAN. I think it is my exposure to the issues that are involved here. Homeland Security is our number one priority as far
as I am concerned. It is our number one vulnerability as well.
And if we dont think anew in this Congress, we are not going
to protect the people we represent. You know, the dirtiest four-letter word in government is spelled T-U-R-F.
And I worry, and I am guilty of this as well, that if all we do
up here is resist, build barricades and insist on doing business the
old way, we keep America vulnerable.
So just as we insisted that the Executive Branch, by forming the
Department of Homeland Security and breaking a lot of china to
get there, I think we have to insist that Congress change to match
the threats and help add value to defeating the threats of the 21st
century.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Well, I want to welcome, at this point, Mrs.
Slaughter, our distinguished ranking member who was tied up. Do
you have any comments at this point?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to apologize. The Rules Committee, as the Members
here know, is now working on the budget. And my staff told me
that I was urgently needed there. So the word urgent drew me
right to the committee. Only I realized that my urgency is needed
here.
I am sorry I did not hear your testimony. Both of you are people
I highly respect and highly regard on all issues and certainly including this one.
I have been told that you have both supported a permanent committee. And I think I would agree with you. If that agency is going
to be out there working, I think it is going to require a great deal
of oversight. The committee, I think, has worked well together, and
I appreciate what we are doing.
It is very difficult, again, without the threat assessment. I know
I met just last week with a group of my first responders, and I
keep trying to explain to them that they are not going to get the
money until everything gets straightened out and we know where
we need to go. But that is wearing really thin on them. Their overtime and the money they have spent is really extraordinary.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. But tell me, if they do decide to do a permanent
committee, how do you think it ought to be done? Would it remain
a select committeeand cant be if its permanentbut would we
keep the same members? What are your recommendations?
Mr. GOSS. I suggested that there are pluses and minuses to either using Rule 10 and going with the standing committee.
My concern on the standing committee, obviously, is that you
have people going on the committee more on the basis of seniority
21
rather than on the basisor the voting system of the way we put
people on standing committees that may not get exactly the people
who are exactly the right, most qualified people to go to the committee.
I worry a little bit about the size of the committee, and I certainly worry about the turf wars that would go on between standing committees. I think those are all problems.
On the other hand, the cache of having a standing committee
does help. If it becomes just another authorizing committee and
doesnt have the proper linkage with the Appropriations Committee, however, then it runs the risk of becoming somewhat irrelevant, as the authorizing committees sometimes do, it seems, on the
strong appropriations process we have here now.
Those are considerations. They dont lead to you one conclusion
or the other. On the select committee, I tend to believe the smallness, the focus of the select committee, allowing the leadership to
appoint the members is a very critical factor. It gives the flexibility
and a certain responsiveness to the top leadership and keeps the
top leadership of the House, minority and majority, involved in the
process. I think that is a very important benefit.
So I am not prepared to say which is the best. But I do believe
it ought to be one or the other.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. One or the other.
Ms. Harman?
Ms. HARMAN. Well, I think it should be smaller. Looking at all
of these Floridians, I would recommend the South Beach Diet for
this committee. And I think it should be designed in a way that
it becomes a desirable place to serve, a destination for many of the
ambitious and smart Members of the House.
And so I think, as we do this, we might reconsider some of the
I know how hard this isbut some of the jurisdiction of some of
the older committees. And we should make our House look like the
landscape of the 21st century.
And when we think about this, the largesecond largest department in the Government is the Department of Homeland Security.
The largest is the Department of Defense. And the largest set of
threats against our country are ones that this Department has
major jurisdiction to deal with.
So I think this should be a major committee, a major focus of a
redesigned committee structure in the Congress.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Well, I know that, in putting this together, they
put most of the committee chairs on so that we could try to control
any unruliness there. But given the fact that many of them have
jurisdiction already over parts of this, are you both recommending
that that be taken away from them and put into Homeland Security?
Mr. GOSS. Well, speaking for the Rules Committee, I dont think
there is much jurisdictional quarrel.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. No. We dont have much of a dog in that fight,
do we?
Mr. GOSS. And I dont think we need to worry about that.
Speaking for the Intelligence Committee I did testify that I felt
we have a very unique working arrangement worked out with the
intelligence community about how we manage classified informa-
22
tion which has evolved over a great number of decades since we
put the National Security Act together in 1947.
I think it is working extremely well, and I would not want to
change that. You may call that guarding turf. I think it is just common sense. If you have something that is, working why break it?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. You wouldnt care to comment on the Committees of Appropriations and Transportation, Ways and Means, any
of the rest of them?
Mr. GOSS. On the turf?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Yes.
Mr. GOSS. Actually, I did comment, in my opening comments and
in my aside remarks as well. We have reached out. I mean, we do
business with 15 separate agencies that are in various cabinet secretary agencies around. So I am dealing with secretaries of this or
that, the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Treasury, Attorney General, so forth, all these people on a regular basis.
We dont have any problem reaching out either into the Executive Branch on our business. We dont get into other peoples business. We just do the classified intelligence piece of that.
And we also dont have any trouble reaching out to the various
chairmen and ranking members of those authorizing committees,
and we do work very closely with the appropriators. We have to.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. And that is fine. But do you see that this could
be translated over to a select committee on homeland security?
Mr. GOSS. To a select committee on homeland Security?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Or a permanent committee. One or the other.
How do you think it will work?
Mr. GOSS. I think it will work. I think it will work better with
a select committee because we have been able to make it work that
way, and I notice it hasnt worked quite that way with some of the
standing committees.
But it also has worked with some standing committees, so you
can take that either way. It depends a little bit on the relationships
and leadership of the various committees and where the chemistry
is.
But my view is, it is easier with a permanent select committee
specifically. That is not a preference, it is just a view that that aspect is easier with the select committee.
Ms. HARMAN. I would just add that the goal is to make Congress
more effective in overseeing the Department of Homeland Security
and to make our homeland security effort more effective. And that
is what we should focus on, not how do I keep as much turf as I
already had, wherever it is that I may be.
I do agree with Chairman Goss that there are some unique aspects to the House Intelligence Committee that couldnt easily be
transferred, but I dont want to be heard to say every ounce of turf
as is has to be protected. I really think as we have organized, reorganized the Executive Branch, we have to be prepared to consider
seriously reorganizing Congress.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Chairman Cox?
Mr. COX. Thank you. And I want to thank you as much for your
response to the questions as for your formal prepared testimony
and your opening because it is really helpful, to us and the inter-
23
section between your responsibilities as Members of the Homeland
Security Committee and your permanent jobs on the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence couldnt be closer and more important.
I just want to begin by recognizing the complete agreement that
I have with Chairman Goss, and his testimony concerning the importance of defining homeland security. It is a work in progress, as
you know. It is still under definition. And I think that if we are
to succeed in protecting the country, we have to get away from that
notion that Homeland Security is in the eye of the beholder, that
it is meaning is as meaning does and that we can morph it into
anything convenient particularly for the purposes of funding programs.
That is one of the reasons I think there needs to be rigorous congressional focus, not just from an oversight standpoint, but from a
legislative standpoint and authorization standpoint on what this
Department does. And particularly, I say that because, while the
Department can be and we intended it to be when we just wrote
the Homeland Security Act a short while ago, a bulwark against
a parade of horrible things that might happen to us, it also has a
dystopian future if we let it become what it might in our worst
imaginings, a Department of Homeland Security that is bound to
grow.
Long after we are gone, the Department will still be there. Several decades from now it will still be growing. It will be much bigger, and it is going to grow into something. The importance of our
job right now is that we are going to orient it and maybe a few degrees this way, a few degrees that way, and it will have profound
consequences 10, 20 years down the road.
So this definition is just absolutely essential. But here is part of
the dystopian vision of what Homeland Security Department run
amuck would look like. First, it would be a threat on all of our civil
liberties. Second, it would be a regulator of every corner of American life and every aspect of American commerce. Third, it would
be the excuse for federalizing virtually every State function and
every private sector function. And fourth, it would be the ruin of
the Federal budget.
It can be all of these things if we let it stray from its mission
as stated clearly, which is threefold: First, to protect; second, to
prevent; and, third, to respond. Those three must, it seems to me,
define the Department and thus the jurisdiction of any committee
that oversees it to the exclusion of all else.
If you let other thingsit is just as important to keep things out,
not only of congressional jurisdiction but also the Departments
own jurisdiction, as it is to put all these 22 agencies together and
to make them work together.
So I think we have to recognize the importance of the job we are
doing here in Congress, because it isnt just about our turf. It isnt
just about how we organized ourselves. How we make these choices
will have immediate and long-lasting consequences for real life over
the Department of Homeland Security and us there for the rest of
the country.
The first mission, which is the most important of the three, preventing terrorism relies heavily on an intelligence component.
24
Rather clearly in the charter that we wrote for the Homeland Security Department there isnt a foreign intelligence collection responsibility at all.
So for starters, one of the things that is squarely within your jurisdiction should be not only squarely outside the jurisdiction of
any future homeland security committee, but also outside the jurisdiction of, now or in the future, the Department of Homeland Security. We dont want them in that business.
Second, the Department of Homeland Security really doesnt collect much in the way of domestic intelligence. I suppose if we have
an asterisk or a footnote, we should acknowledge that the Coast
Guard probably collects some foreign intelligence, and certainly,
the Secret Service receives foreign intelligence.
But, you know, in the collection area, the responsibilities of the
Department are very slim and for the most part, we have chartered
it to focus on the fusion of intelligence from all sources and the
analysis of that intelligence. And just as importantly, although it
is not expressed in precisely these terms in the act, the Department has the authority and the responsibility to place requirements on the intelligence community.
So the intersection, from a jurisdiction standpoint, occurs at this
fusion place. And the reason that we have the Department of
Homeland Security with an IA directorate is that we thought, as
a Congress, the House and the Senate, the Democrats and Republicans, about leaving this in the intelligence community as presently comprised.
And it frightened us, as we looked over that precipice, to think
about what would happen to the walls that we have built so carefully about the collection of, particularly, foreign intelligence as we
define in the intelligence community and what we expect Homeland Security to be all about, back to this definition, which is our
own back yard.
And we are talking about getting in touch with our mayors, with
our law enforcement. We are talking about, you know, placing requirements to collection, not just overseas, but with the FBI, all of
the FISA concerns that you have already with the Judiciary Committee, all of those things are going to go on at the same time that
foreign intelligence is being analyzed and in the same place.
Better to put that in a Department of Homeland Security with
a strong civil liberties protection component than to expand the notion of intelligence collection based on the old model, given all of
that history and the fact that the Homeland Security Act, which I
have in front of me, amends the National Security Act, by definition, including within the intelligence community, the foreign intelligence analysis component of DHS, not the domestic analysis and
not any collection.
I just want to place before you both the question about where
you think the Department belongs in this picture, first, and whether you agree with my assumption that, at a maximum, the jurisdiction of this committee should not extend beyond the Department
itself.
You know, obviously, there are major aspects of Homeland Security that fall outside the Department, and I dont know whether
anybody has in mind suggesting that the Departments jurisdiction
25
be only the minimum and not the maximum of what the committee
would look at. So I would ask you both to opine on both of those
questions.
Mr. GOSS. I think it is the hardest question. The debate is going
on in our country aboutmost Americans, on a given day, count
on the United States Government as a certain amount of protection
depending on what the threat is of the day, whether there is a
sniper loose or something else. Mood swings on that. And equally,
most Americans are in distress over the thought that somebody
might be checking their library records.
So you have this balance problem which is why the oversight is
so important. Now, I believe the essence of Homeland Security and
national security is preemptive. It is preventative. I think that if
we are very good at cleaning up after the bomb goes off, thats terrific. And Thank God we have the men and women who do that
and have done it so well.
But honestly, the mission should be to stop the bomb from going
off. That means having the information. Okay. The foreign intelligence pattern is pretty clear. It works. We have the template. It
is set up.
The problem is, where do you plug it in to Homeland Security,
since we dont have a domestic intelligence agency? That has always been the point where we have not found a plug that fits the
receptacle.
Some of us thought when we put together the Department of
Homeland Security, we would do it all in Homeland Security. We
would create a fire hose that came in from domestic intelligence
and foreign intelligence. It would go into a room where there were
analysts, and they would be able to task either local or foreign assets, and they would be able to preempt doing that.
For whatever reasons, we didnt set it up that way. We set it up
differently. The bill that came out, the bill that was signed by the
President came out and thewhat I call the nerve center is now
dependent on outside forces, TTIC, which are basically now the foreign intelligence program led by a CIA person.
Now that is very helpful to preserve the myth that Americans
dont spy on Americans. But it is alsothe camels nose is well into
the tent on the subject. So lets forget that and stop kidding ourselves and just get to the point and say, how are we going to get
domestic information so that we can provide American security
and, at the same time, provide them the safeguards that that is not
being abused, that their liberties and freedoms are not being preempted by the Federal Government under the guise of giving them
protection?
I dont think that is as much an organizational question as a
question of efficiency, is, how can you get that job done? I think,
down the road, we may change our mind on that, on how we are
doing it right now.
I was skeptical that the way the TTIC was set up would work
very well. Actually, it seems to be pulling itself together fairly well
because we have such a huge difference between the size of fire
hoses coming in to the fusion center. I believe that will change in
time, after we get a better definition of what Homeland Security
26
is and what we are allowed to do under the PATRIOT Act and
other type things.
Because if we are going to have preemptive law enforcement, I
am not quite sure, just from a practical point of view, forget the
legal problems, how I explain this in my town meeting when I go
home.
What is preemptive law enforcement? How do I know you are
about to break the law until you have broken the law? And if it
is setting off a bomb, it is a big breaking of the law.
Those are the issues. I dont think they solve organizationally. I
dont think your answer lies in the organization. But there has to
be resolve.
And I will go on to answer your question specifically and say,
yes, I think it is the Department of Homeland Securitys responsibility to respond to the issue of how you handle domestic information that is preemptive to a bad action, how you task to get more
of that information and how you have an action element all in
Homeland Security that can actually go arrest those people before
they pull the trigger.
I think that is what I see is the future of Homeland Security. But
I still see the major component of the intelligence processing component being in the foreign intelligence program because it is the
dominant, hugely dominant, partner of the information and probably always will be, given our sensitivity to our civil liberties.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman I dont want to ask any additional questions. But if you would permit, I would just ask for further clarification on that one point.
TTIC, right now, is essentially funded out of the foreign intelligence budget, all be it getting funded.
Mr. GOSS. Yes.
Mr. COX. But are you suggesting that TTIC actually belongs
within the foreign intelligence construct even though it is supposed
to be
Mr. GOSS. I think that we have actually come up
Mr. COX. Domestic and foreign.
Mr. GOSS. I think it is meant to bridge the gap. I think that is
the purpose of TTIC. The Terrorist Threat Intelligence Center, the
Terrorist Threat Information Center, when does information become intelligence, and is that where the line gets crossed and it is
a no go?
I mean, we have been very cute about how we have handled this.
I think, actually, we have stumbled into something that is working
fairly well and can work for a while. I think it is the least of our
problems right now. I am not prepared to answer your question for
all times. For where it is now, I think it is working right, and I
think we have it set up about right.
Ms. HARMAN. If I could just add for 30 seconds to that comment?
I think TTIC is one of the success stories of the moment. We
didnt intend that it exist. The President took the initiative in his
State of the Union message in 2003, and I give him great credit
for coming up with something that would work in this moment.
So I think that TTIC actually can inform our efforts to reform
the intelligence community. Fusion and integration are the way we
27
have to go in the intelligence community. That is not the subject
for today.
All I wanted to say to Chairman Cox was that your notion of
simplifying the jurisdiction, limiting the jurisdiction here and, perhaps, limiting the focus of the Department of Homeland Security
over time so that they are congruent is, I think, an excellent idea.
If this committee has a more limited jurisdiction it will fit better
in the organization of Congress, and I think it then will have a better shot at becoming a destination committee for Congress, which
we want. We want the most talented people in Congress to want
to serve on this committee.
But I also think that limiting the jurisdiction of this behemoth
Department of Homeland Security that we are trying to cobble together will help it succeed and perform its critical missions and you
have defined them very well.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I have been informed about your meeting at
2:00. I would like to recognize Mr. Weldon, who has been here patiently, and I know he will be brief.
Mr. WELDON. Two questions. First of all, on the jurisdictional
areas. I have spent the past 5 years with a very frustrating challenge that resulted from a 1999 trip that 11 Members of Congress
took to Vienna with me, five Democrats and five Republicans, to
try to work out with the Russians a compromise that would end
Milosevics reign. The Russians brought with them a Serbian who
they claimed could assist them. I called George Tenet up and asked
for a profile of this family and this man, and he called me back and
said, well, Congressman, we dont have much on him. We can give
you a couple of lines. And they did.
I later got a memo, which I still have, from a CIA employee who
told me he checked the internal files of the agency, and they didnt
have anything at all except for this one person in the family, which
wasnt the person we were meeting with.
I was then the chairman of the Research and Development Committee for the military and supporting the Armys Information
Dominance Center known as LIWA down at Fort Belvoir, and
asked them to unofficially run a profile for me of this person, and
they gave me five pages of information. Now, granted the process
wasnt very sophisticated, it wasnt a full vetting process, which
was a problem. But here, they gave me five pages of information
about this family because they had data mining and data fusion capability. I came back, and the CIA and the FBI both called me and
asked me to brief them on the family I had met with, and I told
them everything they asked to know, four agents in 2 hours. And
when I finished, I said, you know where I got my data from? Well,
yeah, you got it from the Russians. No. You got it from the family.
No. I said, before I left I went to the Armys Information Dominance Center where they have a prototype with Raytheon and
other companies, and they gave me five pages of information. And
the CIA and FBI people said, what is the Armys Information
Dominance Center?
From that point, working with intelligence people we put together what was then called the NOAH, National Operations Analysis Hub, a nine-page brief to create what is now called the TTIC.
But this was back in 1999. We put language in two successive de-
28
fense bills that called for DOD to support with money the creation
of this entity, the 2000, 2001 defense bills.
John Hamre, then Deputy Secretary of Defense, told me, Congressman, I will pay for it, but you have got to get the other agencies to agree. He suggested I have a meeting in my office with his
counterparts, the CIA and the FBI, which I did 1 year before 9/11.
I have the date and I have the people who attended. And for 1
hour, four of us, John Hamre, Deputy Director of CIA, Deputy Director of FBI, talked about creating a NOAH. And the response by
the agenciesother agencies were, we dont need it.
So my question is, from the standpoint of data fusion and data
I am glad we have the TTIC and I was glad the President mentioned it in the State of the Union speech last year. We should
have had that back in 1999 and 2000 when people from the Intelligence Community knew full well that there was a need to have
this data fusion and data mining capability. And so the process
then was to link together 33 classified systems that our various
agencies have.
I want to ask you both for the record or now, are you satisfied
that TTIC in fact has done that? And are you satisfied that in your
committee as it currently stands you have enough jurisdiction over
those 33 systems?
Mr. GOSS. The answer is I am not satisfied with the system at
all. It has a long way to go for secure coms and other matters.
There is still some residual, what I will call cultural problems. It
is much improved. I think there is clearly a mission objective now
that is understood, there is a vision about it.
Do I feel we have the jurisdiction to deal with it? I do. I have
the same frustration that you do, because we have been banging
on this particular thing for as long as you have. And we appreciate
your assistance on it. I know the work you have done.
Part of the problem, incidentally, with the Dominance Center
was it scared the heck out of some people about the civil liberties
question, which is still part of the debate and still going on. So, and
that debate is going to go on. So that does create an extra obstacle?
But, no, it is not as good as it needs to be. It is clear, we understand what we need to do. Now all we have to do is get it done.
But we havent got it done yet, and that is one of the things I believe DHS can do.
Mr. WELDON. Perhaps I could ask my second question to Ms.
Harman, if she would take it. And that is, are you satisfied that
the Intel Committee is going to be able to deal with the integration
ofvertical and horizontal integration of intelligence for the first
responder, which is a big challenge? Are you satisfied that that is
a role that you all can play?
Ms. HARMAN. It is certainly a priority for us. Info sharing was
one of the big problems leading up to 9/11. And I only wish your
meeting had resulted in TTIC, standing up TTIC in the year 1999
or 2000. It would have made a huge difference. But we do focus on
it. I have paid certainly visits to TTIC; I recommend that to others.
I know Chairman Cox has been there. Its focus is not just to fuse
the data, but then to get it out vertically down to our hometowns,
and not only to get it down but to get data from our hometowns
up. And the methods of communication are impressive because
29
they can strip out sources and methods, which means that the local
cop on the beat without the security clearance can get the information he or she needs to know what to do.
And I think we are a lot farther along in that effort now than
we were a year ago. And I do think that the new streamlined,
smaller, more effective, permanent in some form committee focusing on homeland security should keep a focus on information sharing, should make sure that first responders have tools in the event
that we cant prevent the attack in the first place. In fact, let me
amend that. They may be the ones who prevent the attack if they
have the right information.
Mr. WELDON. Thank you.
Mr. GOSS. May I add just to that, we have actually seen a successful example of that. It turned out we were wrong, but we had
a person overheard a conversation in a restaurant in Georgia,
phoned ahead to some police people in Florida; they got down to
the local sheriff in my county down in Collier County, and they
shut down I75. They actually arrested a car full of people. Now,
as it turned out, they were on a benign mission, but they had been
saying some things to try and create a little story, more like a
prank, and the system worked. Everybody played by the rules and
the system worked. As I say, it turned out to be wrong. But if they
had been real terrorists, it would have been a very easy takedown.
As it turned out, they werent, and it caused us the inconvenience
of shutting down I75.
Mr. WELDON. Well, but you have also prototyped the JRIES system, which does that both in New York and California, and that
is working extremely well from the standpoint of local responders.
Mr. GOSS. We have the solution. It is just a question of doing it.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member.
Thank you so much. You have been very helpful and you have been
very kind.
We are honored with the presence of the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. We welcome both of
our distinguished colleagues. Again, welcome to both of you. And,
Chairman Goodlatte.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA,
AND CHAIRMAN
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. It is a

pleasure to be with you and the other members of the subcommittee and Chairman Cox of the full committee.
We appreciate the invitation to provide testimony on how existing House rules and procedures may affect appropriate consideration of homeland security matters. I often hear cited the difficulty
that will be faced by the newly created Department of Homeland
Security by having to be responsive to upwards of 88 committees
and subcommittees of the Congress and the exercise of their legislative oversight and appropriations responsibilities.
Some have said that this would be too daunting a task and have
subsequently recommended that the new Department be relieved of
the burden of so many prying eyes. I disagree. This is not an exercise in marking ones territory. Jurisdiction of the various commit-
30
tees and the subcommittees of the House of Representatives is divided not because of the cynics view that Members of Congress
seek to establish and hold onto bases of power. The jurisdiction of
the various congressional committees and subcommittees have been
established over time to mirror the complexity of the various issues
with which the Congress has to deal. The fundamental responsibility of the committees and subcommittees of the House of Representatives is to ensure that the expertise exists to properly oversee the functioning of our Government. The process of dividing jurisdiction is dynamic, as it rightly should be. Changes, when they
are made, are made to take into account the complexities of Federal programs we create and oversee. In most cases, this means
that additional committees or subcommittees are created to provide
additional perspective on issues. Seldom does this process engage
to minimize the accountability of the Federal bureaucracy as would
be the outcome if a new permanent standing Committee on Homeland Security were to be created.
When the Congress authorized the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security, we vested in this new Department numerous
diverse and complex programmatic responsibilities. We provided for
the transfer of up to 3,200 employees from the Department of Agriculture, whose job it is to conduct inspections of people and commercial goods coming into our country that may intentionally or
unintentionally be carrying pests or diseases that could be detrimental to U.S. agriculture.
Over the years, this function has involved the investment of billions of taxpayer dollars and had countless staff hours, education,
and experience devoted to it.
While some may believe that the first and only responsibility of
the Department of Homeland Security is protection of our Nation
against acts of terrorism, I would underscore the fact that in the
Agriculture Committee we are, and rightly should be, at least as
concerned about the unintentional incidents since they are a constant threat. At risk is a food production system which is truly
priceless. Those with experience in this field understand the old
adage: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If an accidental introduction of foot and mouth disease were to occur, it
would cost our economy tens of billions of dollars.
In our zeal to focus attention on the intentional threat to America, we simply cannot neglect to protect ourselves from the historical threats that continue.
Let me be clear. In the Agriculture Committee we are concerned
about both intentional and unintentional threats. My fear is that
a standing Committee on Homeland Security, whose purpose it is
to focus on the mitigation of terrorist threats, might not pay attention to or recognize the damage that is caused by unintentional introductions of plant or animal pests or disease.
In a hearing held to evaluate the proposed one-face-at-the-border
proposal I used these examples to illustrate the importance of having sufficient expertise not only at our border inspection points but
also in our oversight function. And before I show you these examples, I want to introduce a couple of people who are on the Agriculture Committee staff.
31
Now, when new Members of Congress become chairmen of committees, they have the discretion to change the entire committee
staff or keep the committee staff. I must tell you that my approach,
because of the nature of the Agriculture Committee, was to keep
the, in some cases, decades of experience in very fine points on agriculture. Two of those folks are with me today. Elizabeth Parker,
who is a veterinarian, and John Goldberg, who has a Ph.D. in animal and food science and is a microbiologist. These folks are involved on a day-to-day basis with the Department of Agriculture,
with the agricultural community, and Americas farmers and
ranchers and food processors, to make absolutely certain that the
fine-tuning of how our Government responds to threats to American agriculture of a wide variety of kinds are understood by the
Department. The committee oftentimes is pointing out things to
the Department that they havent taken into consideration themselves. We are talking about the Department of Agriculture, not
even the Department of Homeland Security.
So this is a very grave concern to us, that this kind of expertise
will be lost if this jurisdiction is changed over to someplace else.
I have a few examples of the kinds of things that come up.
These seeds that appear to be a matchbook, this is an item that
is prohibited in passenger luggage without a phytosanitary certificate. The product is designed to look like a matchbook and could
easily be overlooked. The risk is to plant pests and diseases.
This is a bonsai tree with silk flowers. The tree was declared as
artificial, but is actually a live bonsai with the leaves removed and
replaced with silk flowers. The risk is the live plants in the soil,
and such importation can harbor diseases, insects, and nematodes.
This is a phytosanitary certificate dealing with prohibited nursery stock. It prohibited plum tree cuttings imported with a valid
phytosanitary certificate. A phytosanitary certificate only attests to
the origin and apparent freedom from pests and diseases. It cannot
be used to determine enter-ability. Detailed regulatory knowledge
is essential when conducting even seemingly routine inspections.
This is a prohibited melon seed from the Middle East misrepresented as pistachios, and the risk is a beetle that comes in these
seeds.
This is a decorative birds nest made from rice straw, and this
is one of many types of handcrafts made from prohibited rice and
wheat straw. These are typically declared as souvenirs, and a number of fungal and bacterial diseases may be contained in the rice.
This is a handicraft containing raw cotton, cotton litter, and cotton seed. Souvenirs such as stuffed toys and handicrafts contain
prohibited agriculture materials. The risk is to pink bollworm, golden nematode, and flag smut.
This is canned soup from England that could pass as a U.S. product. It is Heinz Big Soup. The item is a product of England. It is
prohibited because the ingredients include lamb, a ruminant, which
is at risk for transmitting mad cow disease, and the risk of BSE,
as we all know for the last several months, is a serious problem.
It is heat resistant and survives the canning process, and is listed
as a select agent under the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection
Act.
32
I dont want to bore you with too many of these, but let me show
you one that is boneless duck from Taiwan, deceptively labeled as
jerry fish. Packaging can sometimes be misleading. At a glance,
this appears to be labeled as fish. Actually, this is boneless duck
from Taiwan. Animal products must be carefully examined to ensure that they are what they appear to be. The risk here is exotic
Newcastles disease. It was a serious problem in southern California last year. END is listed as a selected agent under the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act.
Mr. Chairman, with nearly 170,000 employees and countless missions and responsibilities, the function of the Department of Homeland Security lends itself to a functionally diverse oversight mechanism. I cannot see how a single standing committee with a normal
staff can ever amass the expertise necessary to completely properly
oversee this new Department. The Congress has a constitutional
responsibility to ensure that sufficient resources are provided to review and analyze each of our Federal programs. A single standing
committee on Homeland Security would have great difficulty in fulfilling this responsibility, and as such I would be skeptical of any
effort to establish such a permanent standing committee.
I urge the subcommittee to be very cautious in considering
changes to be made to the underlying jurisdictional structure of the
House of Representatives. I would be pleased to answer any questions after you hear from my distinguished colleague.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BOB GOODLATTE
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation
to provide testimony on how existing House rules and procedures may affect appropriate consideration of homeland security matters.
I often hear cited the difficulty that will be faced by the newly created Department of Homeland Security by having to be responsive to upwards of 88 Committees
and Subcommittees of the Congress in the exercise of their legislative, oversight and
appropriations responsibilities. Some have said that this would be too daunting a
task and have subsequently recommended that the new Department be relieved of
the burden of so many prying eyes. I disagree!
This is not an exercise in marking ones territory. Jurisdiction of the various Committees and Subcommittees of the House of Representatives is divided, not because
of the cynics view that Members of Congress seek to establish and hold onto bases
of power. The jurisdiction of the various Congressional Committees and Subcommittees has been established over time to mirror the complexity of the various issues
with which the Congress has to deal. The fundamental responsibility of the Committees and Subcommittees of the House of Representatives is to ensure that the expertise exists to properly oversee the functioning of our government.
The process of dividing jurisdiction is dynamic, as it rightly should be. Changes,
when they are made, are made to take into account the complexities of Federal programs we create and oversee. In most cases, this means that additional Committees
or Subcommittees are created to provide additional perspective on issues. Seldom
is this process engaged to minimize the accountability of the Federal Bureaucracy
as would be the outcome if a new permanent standing Committee on Homeland Security were to be created.
When the Congress authorized the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, we vested in this new department numerous diverse and complex programmatic responsibilities. From the Department of Agriculture, we provided for
the transfer of up to 3,200 employees whose job it is to conduct inspections of people
and commercial goods coming into our country that may intentionally or unintentionally be carrying pests or diseases that could be detrimental to US agriculture.
Over the years, this function has involved the investment of billions of taxpayer dollars and had countless staff hours, education, and experience devoted to it.
While some may believe that the first and only responsibility of the Department
of Homeland Security is protection of our nation against acts of terrorism, I would
underscore the fact that in the Agriculture Committee, we are, and rightly should
33
be, at least as concerned about the unintentional incidents since they are a constant
threat.
At risk is a food production system which is truly priceless. Those with experience
in this field understand the old adage: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure. If an accidental introduction of Foot and Mouth Disease were to occur, it
would cost our economy tens of billions of dollars. In our zeal to focus attention on
the intentional threat to America, we simply cannot neglect to protect ourselves
from the historical threats that continue.
Let me be clear, in the Agriculture Committee we are concerned about both intentional and unintentional threats. My fear is that a standing Committee on Homeland Security, whose purpose it is to focus on the mitigation of terrorist threats,
might not pay attention to or recognize the damage that is caused by unintentional
introductions of plant or animal pests or disease.
In a hearing held to evaluate the proposed One Face at the Border proposal,
I used these examples to illustrate the importance of having sufficient expertise not
only at our border inspection points, but also in our oversight function.
PREPARED SLIDES: COPIES ARE MAINTAINED IN COMMITTEE FILES
Nursery Stock
Example 1Seeds that Appear to be a Matchbook
Seed for propagationThe item is prohibited in passenger luggage without a
phytosanitary certificate. The product is designed to look like a matchbook and
could easily be overlooked.
RISK: Plant pests and diseases.
Example 2Bonsai tree with Silk Flowers
The tree was declared as artificial, but is actually a live bonsai with the leaves
removed and replaced with silk flowers.
RISK: Live plant in soil. Such importations can harbor diseases, insects, and
nematodes.
Example 3Nursery Stock and CITES
This nut can be mistaken for a small coconut and released. Actually, this is a
palm nut that is an endangered species (CITES II). The correct action is to authorize movement to a plant inspection station.
RISK: Plant diseases and violation of CITES regulations.
Example 4Prohibited Nursery Stock Accompanied by a Phytosanitary
Certificate
Prohibited plum tree cuttings imported with a valid phytosanitary certificate. A
phytosanitary certificate only attests to the origin and apparent freedom from pests
and diseases. It can not be used to determine enterability. Detailed regulatory
knowledge is essential when conducting even seemingly routine inspections.
RISK: Plum pox virus (listed as a select agent under the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act)
Nonpropagative Plant Imports
Example 1Misrepresented Melon Seed.
Prohibited melon seed from the Middle East misrepresented as pistachios.
RISK: Khapra beetle.
Example 2Decorative Birds Nest Made from Rice Straw
This is one of many types of handicrafts made from prohibited rice and wheat
straw. These are typically declared as souvenirs.
RISK: A number of fungal and bacterial diseases of rice.
Example 3Handicrafts Containing Raw Cotton, Cotton Litter, and Cotton Seed
Souvenirs such as stuffed toys and handicrafts can contain prohibited agricultural
materials.
RISK: Pink Bollworm, Golden Nematode, Flag Smut
Animal Products
Example 1Canned Soup from England That Could Pass for a U.S. Product
Heinz Big Soup. The item is a Product of England and is prohibited. Ingredients
include lamb (a ruminant) which is a risk for transmitting BSE.
RISK: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). BSE is heat resistant and survives the canning process. BSE is listed as a select agent under the Agricultural
Bioterrorism Protection Act.
Example 2Boneless Duck from Taiwan Deceptively Labeled as Jerry
Fish
Packaging can sometimes be misleading. At a glance, this appears to be labeled
as fish. Actually, this is boneless duck from Taiwan. Animal products must be carefully examined to ensure that they are what they appear to be.
34
RISK: Exotic Newcastles Disease (END). END is listed as a select agent under
the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act.
Example 3Cheese with Meat.
Cheese with embedded salami originating in Europe is prohibited without a proper certificate of processing. Hard cheeses, which are normally enterable, may contain meat which changes the entry status. Knowledge of animal products and the
associated risks is key to making correct regulatory decisions and preventing the
entry of a foreign animal disease.
RISK: Foot and Mouth Disease(FMD). FMD is listed as a select agent under the
Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act.
CLOSING COMMENTS:
With nearly 170,000 employees and countless missions and responsibilities, the
creation of the Department of Homeland Security lends itself to a functionally diverse oversight mechanism. I cannot see how a single standing Committee with a
nominal staff can ever amass the expertise necessary to properly oversee this new
Department. The Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to ensure that sufficient resources are provided to review and analyze each of our Federal programs.
A single standing Committee on Homeland Security would have great difficulty in
fulfilling this responsibility and as such, I would be skeptical of any effort to establish such a permanent Standing Committee. I urge this Subcommittee to be very
cautious in considering changes be made to the underlying jurisdictional structure
of the House of Representatives.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we will hear

from the distinguished ranking member and then open to questions.
Mr. Stenholm.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES W. STENHOLM, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS, AND RANKING MEMBER
Mr. STENHOLM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking

Member Slaughter, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify today. And let me first say I associate myself
completely with the chairmans remarks.
The Agriculture Committee has a longstanding tradition of bipartisanship, and today is no exception. So I associate myself with his
remarks, and would add a couple of others.
Mr. Chairman, last year testifying in favor of a Permanent Committee on Homeland Security, one of your outside witnesses justified his position by asking the question: Is the issue of homeland
security important enough to warrant a separate committee focused exclusively on the policies, programs, and problems of homeland security?
In point of fact, I believe the correct question should have been:
Is the issue of homeland security important enough to warrant getting our policies right? The answer there is clearly yes.
Mr. Chairman, creating the Department of Homeland Security
was a major change in the organization of our government. The Departments success in every area is crucial to the security of our
people. The Agriculture Committee has an interest in the transfer
of functions of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to
the Department of Homeland Security. We understand the reason
for the transfer. APHIS personnel have long performed a key border security role. The agency work is done under statutes developed over the years by the Agriculture Committee to address the
many pests and diseases, as the chairman has shown you, that
threaten our food and fiber production system. APHIS has done
35
that job well. We feel that the Agriculture Committee oversight of
the agency provides the stability needed to ensure the ongoing success of this mission.
Mr. Chairman, you are more familiar than I with the various
problems that have confronted the Department of Homeland Security in its infancy. However, I will provide an instance relating to
the agriculture functions and how congressional oversight came
into play.
Agriculture inspectors are stationed at ports and airports
throughout the U.S. These 3,000-plus inspectors formerly with
APHIS are responsible for screening arriving passengers and cargo
for materials that might produce plant or animal diseases or pests.
This work has been going on for more than a century and is a complex task. While the agency work is not focused solely on terrorism,
as some have noted, a catastrophic animal disease doesnt care if
it is introduced by a malicious terrorist or by a careless tourist. The
effect is pretty much the same. However, the Department of Homeland Security proposed to eliminate the agriculture inspectors altogether and to disburse their duties among the uniformed Customs
and Border Patrol officers.
This was a well-intended attempt at gaining efficiency for taxpayers. However, had that plan been implemented the impact on
American agriculture and the subsequent cost to the taxpayers
could have been astronomical. Our agricultural inspectors are highly trained professionals with years of science training. Many hold
advanced degrees in disciplines like entomology or plant pathology.
They undergo extensive training in disease identification, technical
lab analysis, and interview methods. Under the DHS plan, the replacements would have had only 72 hours of training in agriculture
disease and pest identification.
When members of the House Ag Committee learned of this plan,
we immediately began the process of educating the DHS about the
implications of their proposal. They came to understand the unworkable nature, even the danger of their plan, and ultimately
scrapped it altogether, opting instead to keep the agriculture inspectors. In fact, DHS now plans to increase their total numbers.
This is a clear example of the critical need to keep the expertise
of the committees of jurisdiction actively involved. Had the attention and oversight of our committee not been present in the case
just mentioned, we might have left exposed to billions of dollars of
damage the U.S. agricultural economy.
One example would be if an illness such as foot and mouth disease had unintentionally slipped into the country under the proposed DHS inspection plan.
Mr. Chairman, while I dont recommend the creation of a Permanent Homeland Security Committee, I do want to make clear that
we need to increase our efforts to make sure the job of homeland
security is done right. One thing history shows is this: While every
proposal to realign jurisdiction sets out to solve the problem of jurisdictional overlaps, no plan can really get this job done.
In the early 1990s, the Joint Committee on the Organization of
Congress provided the idea of using ad hoc committees to deal with
crucial cost-cutting matters. I supported this. As you consider proposed changes to House rules, I urge you to consider giving more
36
life to the Speakers little used rule 12 authority to refer matters
to ad hoc committees.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, it was a good idea when House rules
were amended to limit each Member to two committee assignments. Unfortunately, this rule has been thoroughly ignored. Today
125 Members of the House serve on three or more committees. We
should strive to achieve the goal of the two-committee limit. Establishing another permanent committee will only make reaching that
goal more difficult.
Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for this opportunity to testify.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES W. STENHOLM
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Slaughter, and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for holding this hearing and giving us the opportunity to testify. The Select Committee has been directed to conduct a study of the operation and implementation of the rules of the House with respect to homeland security, and I commend
you for seeking the testimony of interested committees.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that I am in complete agreement with the testimony
of Chairman Goodlatte. The Agriculture Committee has a long-standing tradition of
bipartisanship and takes very seriously its responsibility to work together to improve our nations food and fiber production policies. Our colleagues believe this
work is one of the most important jobs they have in this House.
Clearly, the task of the Select Committee on Homeland Security is equally important. I am encouraged by the bipartisan manner in which youve undertaken your
effort to explore possible needed changes to House Rules, and I know that you will
give every consideration to the many issues that will be raised as you proceed.
Mr. Chairman, testifying in favor of a permanent Committee on Homeland Security last year, one of your outside witnesses justified his position by asking the question: Is the issue of homeland security important enough to warrant a separate
committee focused exclusively on the policies, programs, and problems of homeland
security In point of fact, I believe the correct question to be: Is the issue of homeland security important enough to warrant getting our policies right? The answer
there is clearly Yes.
Mr. Chairman, creating the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was a major
change in the organization of our government. The Departments success in every
area is crucial to the security of our people. The Agriculture Committee has an interest in the transfer of functions of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) to the DHS. We understand the reason for the transfer; APHIS personnel
have long performed a key border security role. The agencys work is done under
statutes developed over the years by the Agriculture Committee to address the
many pests and diseases that threaten our food and fiber production system; APHIS
has done that job well. We feel that Agriculture Committee oversight of the agency
provides the stability needed to ensure the ongoing success of this mission.
Mr. Chairman, you are more familiar than I with the various problems that have
confronted DHS in its infancy. However, I will provide an instance relating to its
agriculture functions and how Congressional oversight came into play:
Agricultural inspectors are stationed at ports and airports throughout the US.
These 3000+ inspectorsformerly with APHISare responsible for screening arriving passengers and cargo for materials that might introduce plant or animal diseases or pests. his work has been going on for more than a century and is a complex
task. While the agencys work is not focused solely on terrorism, as some have
noted, a catastrophic animal disease doesnt care if it is introduced by a malicious
terrorist or by a careless tourist; the effect is pretty much the same.
However, DHS proposed to eliminate the agricultural inspectors altogether and to
disperse their duties among the uniformed Customs Border Patrol officers. This was
a well-intended attempt at gaining efficiency for the taxpayers. However, had that
plan been implemented the impact on American agriculture, and the subsequent
cost to the taxpayers, could have been astronomical. Our agricultural inspectors are
highly trained professionals with years of science training. Many hold advanced degrees in disciplines like entomology or plant pathology. They undergo extensive
training in disease identification, technical lab analysis and interview methods.
Under the DHS plan, the replacements would have had only 72 hours of training
in agricultural disease and pest identification.
37
When members of the House Agriculture Committee learned of this plan, we immediately began the process of educating the DHS about the implications of their
proposal. hey came to understand the unworkable nature, even the danger, of their
plan and ultimately scrapped it altogether, opting instead to keep the agricultural
inspectors. In fact, DHS now plans to increase their total numbers.
This is a clear example of the critical need to keep the expertise of the committees
of jurisdiction actively involved. ad the attention and oversight of our Committee not
been present in the case just mentioned, we might have been left exposed to billions
of dollars of damage to the US agricultural economy. One example would be if an
illness such as foot and mouth disease had unintentionally slipped into the country
under the proposed DHS inspection plan.
Mr. Chairman, while I dont recommend the creation of a permanent Homeland
Security Committee, I do want to make clear that we need to increase our efforts
to make sure the job of homeland security is done right. One thing history shows
is this: while every proposal to realign jurisdiction sets out to solve the problem of
jurisdictional overlaps, no plan can really get this job done. In the early 1990s, the
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress revived the idea of using ad hoc
committees to deal with crucial, cross-cutting matters; I supported this. As you consider proposed changes to House Rules, I urge you to consider giving more life to
the Speakers little-used Rule 12 authority to refer matters to ad hoc committees.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, it was a good idea when House Rules were amended to
limit each Member to two committee assignments. Unfortunately, this rule has been
thoroughly ignored. Today, 125 Members of the House serve on three or more committees. We should strive to achieve the goal of the two-committee limit. Establishing another permanent committee will only make reaching that goal more difficult.
Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward
to working with the Select Committee as it continues its process of reviewing House
Rules.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Stenholm, and thank you,

Chairman Goodlatte.
Following up on one of the points that you brought out, Chairman Goodlatte, let me say first for the record that I do not believe
that any of this subcommittees previous witnesses in prior hearings nor anyone on the dais today have supported creating a Permanent Committee on Homeland Security without the necessary
member and staff expertise necessary to get the job done right.
In Chairman Bill Youngs submitted written statement, for example, he explains that when his committee reorganized they also
shifted key members and staff to the new Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations. Certainly, a shift of jurisdiction
among standing committees would necessitate a similar shift in
members and staff. I certainly would not support a proposal that
does not account for the need to harness the expertise, some of
which you have referred to with very brilliant members of your
staff, of each of the current standing committees.
If we remove that argument, thus, Mr. Chairman, are you still
testifying today that a permanent committee with a primary focus
on homeland security issues, including integration and coordination, would not be of benefit to the fledgling Department of Homeland Security and the American people?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I dont think you can
remove that argument because these folksand there are many,
many more on the committeess staff who have expertise in various
areas for this one small segment from the Department of Homeland Securitys perspective some 3,000 employees out of 170,000.
These commmittee staff are used not just for this area, but they
are used for all of the different issues that the Department of Agriculture and the Agriculture Committee have to deal with related
38
to animal and plant health science. There would be an enormous
duplication of that, and, quite frankly, a waste of resources if these
folks were duplicated on the Department of Homeland Security for
the purpose of fulfilling that purpose.
I believe that the Agriculture Committee, which spends every
minute of every day living and breathing these issues, and looking
at it from a comprehensive standpoint from the chairman of the
committee and the ranking member right through the committees
staff to deal with these things could not be replicated in a new
committee that has so many other responsibilities unrelated to this
major concern for agriculture, but I believe not major concern for
the Department of Homeland Security. I think the evidence of that
is in the approach they took before we spoke out, as Congressman
Stenholm said, toward designing the one-face-at-the-border program. They have made a number of improvements to it, and I applaud that. But that was not their perspective on how to proceed.
The oversight capability of poking holes in that comes about
through the expertise of the Agriculture Committee and is not likely to be duplicated in a segment of a new Homeland Security Committee.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, according to most homeland security experts, one of the most critical issues facing the Nation is
the threat of agro-terrorism. Do you believe that it is important for
Congress to focus on that threat?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Absolutely. And we focus on that, and as a
member of the Homeland Security Committee I work to make sure
that the committee focuses on that. We are certainly very much
dedicated to the Department of Agriculture focusing on it, and they
do focus on it. Frankly, agro-terrorism is not simply an issue that
is going to be detected and stopped at our borders. It is something
that can take place in the interior of our country, and we have to
have every member of the Department of Agricultures staff and
Americas farmers and ranchers all working in coordination to fight
agro-terrorism, because it can happen on anybodys farm anywhere
and then spread rapidly around the country.
So, again, I think the focus needs to be where the large numbers
of experts are that, again, cant be replicated by the Department
of Homeland Security to contribute to that effort on agro-terrorism,
which certainly the Department of Homeland Security has an interest in as well, and we support. But we think that the oversight
of that effort with these agricultural agents at the border ought to
be overseen by the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, has the Agriculture Committee
held any hearings in the area of agro-terrorism?
Mr. GOODLATTE. We meet on a daily basis met with the folks
with the Department of Agriculture. But holding hearings on an
issue where the public knowledge about what can and could happen here is not always desirable. We have had private briefings on
this issue, but we have not had public hearings on it that I am
aware of, at least not in the 1 year that I have been chairman. If
we saw the necessity of holding public hearings on the issue in
such a way that we did not feel that we were educating terrorists
on how to carry out their attacks, we would certainly do so. But
we think that most of this needs to be done in a different fashion.
39
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I am glad you do see the importance of the
issue to the safety of the Nation.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Absolutely.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. And I would like to ask, I am thinking about,
Ranking Member Stenholm, the thrust of your testimony, for which
I thank you both for your kindness and your time.
I guess what I was hearing through your testimony, Mr. Stenholm, is your concern that a new committee focused on homeland
security would, or certainly might, lead to the ignoring of traditional missions of some of the agencies now within the Department
of Homeland Security, and you were concerned. Certainly I think
I heard that in your testimony.
Mr. STENHOLM. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. That was the concern.
And as I pointed out, we haveanimal and plant diseases can be
introduced under agro-terrorism, or they can be introduced naturally, or they can be brought in innocently by humans. And, therefore, the overall function of our inspectors is, yes, to be helpful in
providing, as Chairman Cox mentioned a moment ago, finding the
bad guys before they do the bad deed. That is one function. But
also it is also internal, as the chairman has pointed out, that it is
an ongoing, everyday occurrence, an everyday responsibility that
we have for purposes of protecting our Nations food supply. And,
therefore, the division of responsibilities in that area could be very
detrimental.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I certainly sensed, as I say, the thrust of your
argument. I guess the flip side is continuing the status quo perhaps
could result in the opposite problem. In other words, you focused
in on the danger that there might be some traditional missions ignored. The flip side is that the opposite could result.
I guess, what do you think is the greater risk, Mr. Stenholm?
That we focus too heavily on homeland security, or not enough on
homeland security?
Mr. STENHOLM. The greatest risk would be not enough. That is
something the House Agriculture Committeewe held a hearing
on individual animal identification as part of our food safety concerns devoted on BSE, for example, just a couple of weeks ago. A
lot of concern in this country in the beef industry about that, and
making sure that we do everything humanly possible to continue
to assure the American public consumer that our food supply is
safe. That takes many different directions, as we do. But the danger to all of us is not doing enough and making sure that the resources we have are used efficiently.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Ms. Slaughter.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you very much.
There was a meeting here sometime this week that one of my
a fellow in my office attended about BSE. And one of the questions
she brought up, since they have come up with this freon technology, was could they be adapted as a terrorist tool to infect the
agriculture in the United States? And the response from the expert
was, yes, they could. I wonder if your committee has given any
thought to anything like that?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, we have had hearings on BSE in addition
to the hearing that Congressman Stenholm referred to. I wouldnt
want to offer my personal expertise on whether it could be trans-
40
missible, but I think it could be a terrorist issue because the introduction of animals with BSE into the country could be deliberately
done. The economic impact of doing so could be devastating, far
worse than the one incident that we have had which brought about
a 20 percent reduction in beef prices upon learning that the one
cow had come here from Canada.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. This was not necessarily a cow. This was the
agent that is associated with BSE which could be adapted itself to
infect many kinds of animals. But anyway, I just wanted to bring
that to your attention, is something that I would appreciate if you
could kind of give a look at.
Have you provided any oversight to the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service?
Mr. GOODLATTE. We have indeed, and we have done that at the
full committee level and at the subcommittee level. And I stand
corrected by my staff. We did hold a hearing on this subject, my
predecessor did, following September 11, and it was very much related to this issue of what is the best way to conduct oversight and
to utilize the expertise both of the Department of Agriculture and
the committees expertise in overseeing what is being done to combat bioterrorism.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. How do they feel their integration is going into
DHS?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, a hearing was held in this committee, at
which I expressed very grave concerns about to the director of the
one-face-at-the-border program about the initial plans. This was
following several other discussions that had taken place at the
member level and the staff level in order to impress upon them our
grave concern that they were overlooking a number of things in the
establishment of that program. And, as Congressman Stenholm
notes, substantial changes were made to preserve the animal inspection system as an independent system, merged in with the oneface-at-the-border, but nonetheless have that distinct agricultural
expertise preserved. But as has been noted, and you have noted,
Congresswoman Slaughter, this is not just a problem at the border,
it is a problem everywhere in the country. We have 100,000 Department of Agriculture employees who all play a role on a regular
basis in educating farmers and making sure that they are aware
of necessary precautions that need to be taken not only for the deliberate introduction of biological agents that could cause serious
harm, but for the much more likely introduction inadvertently of
these things. Because that happens on a regular basis, and finding
it and rooting it out, destroying it and dealing with it is one of the
principal jobs of many sectors of the Department of Agriculture.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Absolutely. But one of the things I mentioned
then is the border security inspections functions of APHIS from
this initial thing. Do you think that there is a disadvantage to
as you pointed out, you have asked that that be kept separate?
How doesthey separatethis party is separated from the actual
Department of Agriculture, is that correct?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Yes. APHIS was effectively split. I voted for the
creation of that after the assurances were made that the policy regarding agricultural issues would remain with the Department of
Agriculture and the policy setting jurisdiction would remain with
41
the Agriculture Committee in the Congress. And I think that is a
good arrangement.
I can see that there are certain advantages to having a coordinated effort at the border, and we recognize that, as long as the
expertise that is needed for agriculture is not lost in that coordination. We were concerned, but I think the process worked in that the
Agriculture Committee, both the staff and the members, stepped
up to the plate and complained about that, and that brought about
a change that has improved that one-face-at-the-border program.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. You dont think that portends any problem with
other committees if we were to make this a permanent select, select or permanent committee? Not being able to give up the jurisdiction?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I cant speak for the individual problems of
other committees. I am aware of the specific concerns that we have.
I can envision that there would be other concerns expressed by
other committees, but as to whether those can be worked through
or not, I wouldnt want to offer my testimony.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Stenholm? Any comment?
Mr. STENHOLM. Yes. I have 25 years of experience dealing with
the frustrations of the bureaucracy as it influences my decisions in
what I recommend to you today. It has been extremely difficult getting the various agencies of the United States Department of Agriculture to cooperate together. There is this stovepiping, this constant turf battles that go on that is extremely frustrating.
But in this case, for this committee, I too join and support it, as
the chairman did, the movement, because it made sense to have
the authority placed in Homeland Security, but provided you didnt
lose the oversight and the expertise of the specific functions that
did not necessarily deal with human terrorists but with the agroterrorism. That made sense and still makes sense, provided you
continue that type of an arrangement, and that is what we are
here testifying today for.
But youthis createwhen we created the biggest bureaucracy
in the history of our country, that bothered me a little bit, because
the idea of how do you control that? How does any one committee
maintain the knowledge base, both staff-wise as well as memberwise, over that? And that is why I am a little bit reluctant. In fact,
I join the chairman in saying, please think twice and sleep on this
before you do it, because I think a dividing of the responsibilities
with the proper focused committee is the best way to go, rather
than the idea you can create a super committee that can in fact
take care of all of the responsibilities. In the case of agriculture,
I think it would be a colossal mistake.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you both.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Chairman Cox.
Mr. COX. Thank you.
I want to take the opportunity to thank you for not only your
prepared testimony but for your opening statements and your very
helpful responses to questions. And I want to ask you right off the
bat if there is any way that you wouldsince that is the jurisdiction currently of the select committee, if there is any way that you
would rewrite the Homeland Security Act with respect to either
42
topics that are within the jurisdiction of your committee or topics
that are of concern to your committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, I dont know if I would have the opportunity, but I would want to go back and review the sections as they
pertain to agriculture to see how much authority we would have to
alter, for example, legislatively the kind of action that was originally proposed by the Department of Homeland Security with regard to agriculture inspection at borders. My understanding was,
and still is, that we would be able to undertake that in the jurisdiction of our committee. If I found we could not, then I would want
to change that to even further strengthen that committee authority.
Mr. COX. Mr. Stenholm?
Mr. STENHOLM. I would take my own advice on that one and
sleep on it before I would give you an answer.
Mr. COX. But I think it would be helpful as a follow-up perhaps
to your testimony here today if you could or have your staff think
about that question. I say that in response to something that you
both said in the last half hour that I strongly agree with, and that
is that there is more than turf here. This is about policy. And, you
know, to the extent that people are making arguments about how
Congress should or shouldnt organize itself based on sound policy,
it seems to me that the same would hold true for the Department
itself. If it is not wise for the Congress to organize itself in a certain way because of loss of focus or expertise, then perhaps it is
no more wise for the Department to be organized that way. We are
making an argument in behalf of the Homeland Security Committee within the House on the basis that we have already created
this Department and therefore we need something to track it. But
if we have found flaws in that when we look at it from a policy
standpoint and the Congress, maybe the same problem exists at
the Department and we should revisit what we put in there. It is
certainly very much what I think our committee responsibility here
on the select committee is all about, looking at that statute, revisiting it constantly, and making sure that the decisions that we
made in practice turn out to be sound.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Cox, if I might, I would say I think you have
asked a very pertinent question that all of us need to think of, both
sides, whether the Department itself needs to be reconfigured before we permanentize it any more than it is, and the same way is
the jurisdiction and the oversight of the Congress. I think that is
a very good question.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I have one final question I would like to ask
Mr. Stenholm based on something that he referred to.
Mr. Stenholm, you suggested in your testimony that the Speaker
should utilize his authority to have the House create an ad hoc
panel to deal with homeland security, I assume. What should be
that panels jurisdiction, in your opinion? Both legislative and oversight, or just oversight?
Mr. STENHOLM. I think it would be both. And therein, if this
oversight committee should have a concern in the area of agriculture, that it wouldthey would then call on the agriculture appropriate people, staff, members, et cetera, to respond. If it is an
43
ad hoc committee, it is at the Speakers direction, and it is for a
purpose similar to what Mr. Cox was asking just a moment ago.
That is the way I would view that.
Now, I think that could be what could be very helpful and something that we ask you to seriously consider.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I want to thank both of you for being here
today, for your thoughtful testimony, and we are grateful. Mr.
Goodlatte, Mr. Stenholm, thank you very much.
I believe the next witnesses are Mr. Barton and Mr. Dingell. And
we are informed that they are on their way. Hopefully, they will
be here shortly.
At this point we want to ask of the distinguished ranking member, since she was detained for a few minutes at the Rules Committee at the beginning of our hearing, if she would be so kind as
to give her opening statement.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to.
I thank the many members who are taking the time out of their
full schedules to speak with us today. There are many demands on
everyones time, not the least of which this week is the Federal
budget for fiscal year 2005. Your time and your insights are greatly
appreciated.
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security has raised
many issues. Congress has the responsibility over the new Department itself, and Congress has the heightened responsibility to respond to the threat of terrorism. The question that this subcommittee continues to consider today is what structure is best for
the House and best for the nascent Department.
Some structural changes have already been made. The Appropriations Committee created a Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee. The Senate has incorporated its homeland security
duties into its Government Affairs Committee, instead of creating
a separate Homeland Security Committee.
Last year, this subcommittee heard from a series of distinguished
scholars, former Members, former Speakers, and others. A consistence seemed to emerge from those hearings that the House should
have a Committee on Homeland Security. These recommendation
are helpful but not conclusive. Parliamentary and practical, issues
such as committee jurisdiction, referral, oversight, legislative authority, and subject matter expertise are important parts of the
equation in determining the utility, necessity, and desirability of a
Homeland Security Committee.
This is where your experience and expertise is invaluable to the
subcommittees deliberations. The big questions continue to be debated: Should the House have a Homeland Security Committee?
Should it be permanent? Select? Or permanent select? Should it
have oversight jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security? Should it have legislative authority for the Department?
Should the committee have jurisdiction over homeland security programs, or jurisdiction over all of the entities that have been moved
into the Department?
I look forward to hearing from the distinguished panelists today.
The chairmen and ranking members of the committees with jurisdictions over programs and entities within the Department of
Homeland Security will be able to provide special insight into the
44
daily workings of the House and our collective response to terrorism and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mrs. Slaughter.
I will at this point, since we do expect them to be here shortly,
let us recess the committee for just a few minutes, subject to my
calling the committee back into order.
[Recess.]
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. The hearing will reconvene. At this point I
would ask the chairman and the ranking member, the Honorable
Joe Barton and the Honorable John Dingell, of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce to come up to the table, if you will be so
kind, and testify.
We are honored by your presence, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member. This is the fourth hearing of this Subcommittee on
Rules of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and we are
completing, as you know, a very important study required by law,
and we will report to the Rules Committee our recommendation
with regard to our study of rule 10 as it relates to the issue of
homeland security.
Welcome, both of you. Chairman Barton.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS,
AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Chairman Cox. Thank you, Congresswoman McCarthy. I am delighted to
testify before this committee that I am actually a member of, also,
although not this subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would ask that
my formal statement be in the record.
Mr. BARTON. And I am going to briefly elaborate on it.
I think you all know that I am a new chairman of the Energy
and Commerce Committee. I have been on the job about a month.
So I am an overnight success after 20 years in the Congress, and
I am looking forward to being a chairman and taking the wisdom
of Chairman Dingell to my right, who has served this same committee as chairman. I believe he served it for 14 years.
I believe that the work of this select committee has been good.
You have got good staff, you have helped the focus of Congress on
some of the most important issues facing America and the American democracy.
With all respect, and I mean that respectfully, my opinion is that
this select committees work is either done or will be done by the
end of this Congress.
Because of the work of this subcommittee, I think the House has
our house in order. I have attached to my testimony the work that
the Energy and Commerce Committee has done both immediately
before and immediately after and after 9/11 to protect our homeland security. The Energy and Commerce Committee has conducted
over two dozen homeland security-related hearings in the recent
years, worked our will on over a half a dozen pieces of major legis-
45
lation directly related to homeland security. Weand I mean we,
being the Energy and Commerce Committeeon a bipartisan basis
have demonstrated that the homeland matters in our jurisdiction
will get the time, the attention, and the resources that they need.
The select committee has brought the broader perspective together.
It has done an excellent job. But it is my opinion that to make this
a permanent committee would not further progress.
And why do I say that? The problem, in my opinion, is that there
is no way over time to discuss the jurisdiction of the Energy and
Commerce Committee as on homeland security and the jurisdiction
that this select committee, if it were to become a permanent committee, would have on homeland security issues.
Let me give you a few examples. The Energy and Commerce
Committee has jurisdiction for security at commercial nuclear
power plants. Everybody, regardless of where your committee is,
agrees that securing these facilities from a terrorist attack or any
kind of attack is a very good idea. The conference report on H.R.
6, the comprehensive energy bill, contains very strong new requirements in that respect. These requirements were developed in our
committee on a bipartisan basis. Congressman Markey of Massachusetts was a leading proponent of increased security for nuclear
power plants.
How do you distinguish the need to keep our nuclear plants secure from terrorism versus the need to secure them against sabotage or something done by a former disgruntled employee? And the
answer is you really cant. The Energy and Commerce Committees
bill that is in the Senate right now legislates for both these contingencies.
Let me give you another example. The Energy and Commerce
Committee has jurisdiction over the public health, and we have the
same issue there. When we look at how to deal with outbreaks of
dangerous and contagious diseases, we certainly take terrorists
using the ability through the airways, through the waterways, to
spread some contagion that would create a contagious disease very
seriously.
But are those potential terrorist attacks any more different or
any more dangerous that the spread of an infectious disease that
is spread by normal means, such as the SARS virus last year?
When it comes right down to it, Mr. Chairman, there is really no
way to distinguish between the consequences. And if you have two
committees doing the same thing, it may muddy the water, so to
speak.
I want to address one last issue. One of the primary reasons that
has been raised as to why the Department of Homeland Security
should have its own committee before the Congress is that the Department of Homeland Security shouldnt have to answer to numerous congressional committees and subcommittees, that its work
will be compromised by having too many bosses in the Congress.
Well, the answer to that concern is not to the formation of another
committee. The answer is just the opposite: To get somebody to coordinate jurisdiction between the existing committees and consolidate, not to expand.
A brand new committee, no matter how well formed and with the
right people, with new members and new staff is not going to do
46
a better job than the existing committees if we do our job. And I
will submit for the record the hearings and the legislation that we
have done in the Energy and Commerce Committee over the last
several years.
So with all due respect, I would hope that at the end of this Congress, the Speaker and the minority leader wish to make this a select committee for another Congress, that would be one thing. But
to make this a permanent committee would be something that I
would have to oppose.
And I would now yield to back to the Chair.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOE BARTON
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Slaughter, and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity to testify before you on the future of the Select Committee.
Im new to this game, as you know. Ive been a Committee Chairman, oh, about
a month now. Its good. I recommend it to anyone who gets re-elected ten times.
I very strongly believe that the work of the Select Committee has been good.
Youve had some good staff. Youve helped to focus the Congress on some of the most
critical issues facing America and American Democracy.
But, with all due respect, the Select Committees work here is done. The fact of
the matter is that the House has its house in order. I have attached to my testimony
the incredible work that my Committee has donepre 9/11 and afterto protect the
homeland. We have conducted over two dozen Homeland-related hearings in recent
years, and worked our will on half a dozen major pieces of Homeland-related legislation. We have demonstrated that the Homeland matters in our jurisdiction will get
the time, attention, and resources they need. And, frankly, the Select Committee
has become an impediment to further progress.
The biggest part of the problem is that there really is no way to distinguish the
jurisdiction that my Committee has - and others too, Im sure - between homeland
security-related issues and issues that we would otherwise act on. Let me give you
a couple of examples. Take security at commercial nuclear plants. We all agree that
securing these facilities from attack is a good idea - in fact, the conference report
on H.R. 6, the comprehensive energy bill, contains very strong new requirements in
that respect. But how do you distinguish the need to keep plants secure from terrorism versus the need to secure them against sabotage by a disgruntled former employee? Well, you really cant. We legislate for both those contingencies.
My Committees jurisdiction over public health is very much the same way. When
we look at how to deal with outbreaks of dangerous and contagious diseases, we certainly take terrorist attacks seriously. But are those potential attacks any more different than the spread of the SARS virus last year? When it comes down to it, not
reallyboth require the Congresss full attention.
Mr. Chairman, Id like to address one last issue. Many have said that the Department of Homeland Security shouldnt have to answer to dozens and dozens of Congressional Committees - that its work will be compromised by having too many
bosses in Congress. Well, the answer to that concern is not the formation of a whole
new committee. The answer, very simply, is to ensure that someone coordinates the
needs of Congress with the Department. A new committee with 50 Members wont
do any better job than a liaison staffer in the Speakers office - and it would be a
whole lot less expensive.
We dont need a new Committee. We really need fewer Committees. What we
need is to consolidate the wisdom, and competition, and experience, and excellence
of the Members in the existing standing Committees that have the dedication to get
the homeland security job done.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that my views are clear. And I hope that view prevails in
your deliberations.
I am, of course, happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have.
March 24, 2004
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HOMELAND SECURITY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
LEGISLATION
107TH Congress
47
USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162/Pub. Law No. 10756). Included an amendment
to the Communications Act of 1934 clarifying the scope of permissible governmental
access to the communications of certain cable subscribers.
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act (H.R.
3448/Pub. Law No. 107188). Ensures that a sufficient number of drugs and vaccines are available to the public in the event of a terrorist attack. Also provides
framework for greater protection of food and drinking water supplies. Includes provisions expediting the approval of life-saving drugs for all Americans.
Homeland Security Act (H.R. 5005/Pub. Law No. 107188). Committee drafted
provisions relating to Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
(cybersecurity), Research Development and Technology Systems, and Emergency
Preparedness and Response. Committee continues to exercise jurisdiction over critical homeland security aspects of the Department of Energy, the Department of
Health and Human Services, and associated departments and agencies.
Price-Anderson Act Reauthorization Act (H.R. 2983/Became part of H.R. 4, the
Securing Americas Future Energy Act, which died in conference). Included rigorous
new anti-terrorism requirements on commercial nuclear energy plants and nuclear
material transporters.
108th Congress
Project BioShield Act (H.R. 2122/Stalled in Senate). Provides HHS with
broad new powers to prepare for and react to bioterrorist threats.
E911 Implementation Act (H.R. 2898/Stalled in Senate). Grant program to
ensure that wireless phones have the technology to provide location information to emergency call centers.
H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. Included rigorous new anti-terrorism
requirements on commercial nuclear energy plants and nuclear material
transporters. Pending in the Senate.
HEARINGS
106th Congress
Internet Posting of Chemical Worst Case Scenarios: A Roadmap for Terrorists.
(Joint hearing between the Subcommittee on Health and Environment and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) February 10, 1999
The Threat of Bioterrorism in America: Assessing the Adequacy of the Federal
Law Relating to Dangerous Biological Agents. (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) May 20, 1999
The Chemical Safety Information and Site Security Act of 1999. H.R. 1790.
(Subcommittee on Health and Environment) May 19, 1999 and May 26, 1999
The Security and Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) Act. H.R. 850. (Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection) May 25, 1999
The Rudman Report: Science at its Best, Security at its Worst. (Full Committee)
June 22, 1999
Results of Security Inspections at the Department of Energys Lawrence Livermore laboratory. (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) July 20, 1999
The State of Security at the Department of energys Nuclear Weapon Laboratories. (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) October 26, 1999
Safety and Security Oversight of the New Nuclear Security Administration
(Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) March 14, 2000
Legislation to Improve Safety and Security in the Department of Energy. H.R.
3383, H.R. 3906, and H.R. 3907. (Subcommittee on Energy and Power) March 22,
2000
Computer Insecurities at DOE Headquarters: DOEs Failure to Get Its Own
Cyber house in Order. (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) June 13,
2000
Weaknesses in Classified Information Security Controls at DOEs Nuclear
Weapon Laboratories. (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) July 11,
2000
107th Congress
Protecting Americas Critical Infrastructure: How Secure Are Government Computer Systems? (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) April 5, 2001
Ensuring Compatibility with Enhanced Calling Systems: A Progress Report.
(Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet) June 14, 2001
How Secure is Sensitive Commerce Dept. Data and Operations? A Review of the
Depts Computer Security Policies and Practices. (Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations) August 3, 2001
Reauthorizing of the Price-Anderson Act. (Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality) September 6, 2001
48
A Review of Federal Bioterrorism Preparedness Programs From a Public Health
Perspective. (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) October 10, 2001
A Review of Federal Bioterrorism Preparedness Programs: Building an Early
Warning Public Health Surveillance System. (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) November 1, 2001
Bioterrorism and Proposals to Combat Bioterrorism. (Full Committee) November 15, 2001
Cyber Security: Private-Sector Efforts Addressing Cyber Threats. (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) November 15, 2001
Electronic Communication Networks in the Wake of September 11. (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) December 19, 2001
Creating the Department of Homeland Security. (Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations) June 25, 2002 and July 9, 2002
Securing America: The Federal Governments Response to Nuclear Terrorism at
Our Nations Ports and Borders. (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations)
October 17, 2002
108th Congress
A Review of NRCs Proposed Security Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants
(Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) March 18, 2003
Furthering Public Health Security: Project BioShield (Subcommittee on Health
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response of
the Select Committee on Homeland Security) March 27, 2003
Nuclear Terrorism Prevention: A Review of the Federal Governments Progress
toward Installing Radiation Detection Monitors at U.S. Ports and Borders (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) September 30, 2003
Port Security: A Review of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protections Targeting and Inspection Program for Sea Cargo (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Field Hearing in Camden, New Jersey) December 16, 2003
Nuclear Security: A Review of the Security at DOE Nuclear Facilities and the
Implementation of the Revised Design Basis Threat (Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations) March 4, 2004
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have

been very frank. We appreciate your frankness.
Mr. Dingell.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND RANKING MEMBER COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
COMMERCE
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. It is a privilege to appear before you today. I would like to thank you and my colleagues
and members of the committee for this opportunity.
I would like to begin by asking unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks in the record.
Mr. DINGELL. Second of all, I would like to endorse everything
that our chairman has said to you. He has talked good sense. And
I would point out this committee has done useful work during this
session of Congress, and I commend you for it. It was necessary
that we have an overview of the entirety of the business of the national security. I think you have accomplished that with the cooperation and the assistance of the standing committees which
have their responsibilities.
I would note that the standing committees have taken their responsibilities as seriously as have you ladies and gentlemen here,
and we have moved cooperatively with you and with the others
who are concerned with these matters and with each other to see
to it that we have accomplished the legislative purposes that were
needed. I do not believe that the Congress is well served by con-
49
stantly multiplying the number of standing committees. It tends to
increase the budget, it tends to increase the confusion, it tends to
create additional workload for the Members, and it doesnt seem to
result in any significant benefits in terms of either higher quality
or greater and more important legislative production.
I would note that our committee has dealt with all of the concerns which we have in this question of national security. I would
point out that we have done the oversight which is needed, and
that this is not a new thing that began to happen when Mr. Bliley
or Mr. Tauzin or my good friend our current chairman took office
as chair. I would note that these things were going on before, that
we had very extensive hearings on safety at nuclear power plants,
safety at other power plants, questions related to public health,
matters that were associated with possible spread of disease or
epidemics or problems of that sort, and addressing also the question of the safety at the nuclear facilities. And we have forced a
number of clean-ups, including at the national laboratories and at
the colleges and universities which address these questions, and
have a long history going back to the days of my predecessors, Mr.
Chairman, of this committee.
Now, I would be happy to submit for the record additional information over and above that which our able chairman has submitted to you.
We have addressed the problem of SARS, and anthrax and chicken flu. We have also talked about how these have come to be and
how they should be addressed and whether they are dealt with by
foreign terrorists, common criminals, or just normal natural events.
We have a long history of having worked with the agencies under
our jurisdiction, whether they are the Department of Homeland Security with the work that they are doing, or the Public Health
Service or the Centers For Disease Control or whomever or whatever they might happen to be, as well as the former Atomic Energy
Commission and now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
And our work has been not only of high quality, but it has been
done on the basis of much experience, long association with those
agencies, and with a generally friendly relationship.
I would say that, as our chairman indicated to you, that the idea
of having a single committee to which the agencies would report on
homeland security doesnt make very good sense to me. I went
through the energy crisis, in the 1970s, and I have gone through
a number of other problems of similar character, and I never found
that there was anything other than benefit to be achieved by having a large number of committees viewing these questions from the
standpoint of their own experience and expertise. And I would say
that this happened very much during the time of the 1970s when
the Energy Administrator or the chairmen of the regulatory bodies
or later the head of the Department of Energy would come up to
report to different committees about how they were conducting
their business. When there was need to get together on a large single energy bill, it was always possible to work out the agreements
amongst the different committees that had responsibilities, and it
was always possible to work with the leadership of the Congress,
the Speaker, the minority leader, the majority leaders, and the others so as to achieve a unified legislative consequence to this. And
50
I see no reason why we should be apprehensive that that will not
work again. And I would say this having written a number of large
energy bills, clean air bills, and things of that kind that involve the
jurisdiction of many committees having to work together under
somewhat difficult, time-consuming but nevertheless successful
problems they confronted.
In any event, I think that the Committee on Homeland Security
has served the Congress well. I think that they can, quite frankly,
terminate their affairs with the thanks and the appreciation of the
Congress, and the understanding that the standing committees
that now having jurisdiction over these matters will continue to do
their work well as they always have and that there is no great reason for setting up a single committee which would, quite frankly,
achieve I think perhaps an excessively cozy relationship with the
Department of Homeland Security, which very frankly seems to
need some rather hard and questioning supervision. And I will be
happy to talk about them and the dissatisfaction that people at the
border region happen to feel, and I think my good friend the chairman is nodding affirmatively that he has had similar problems
with them not doing the job they should, not having the budget
that they should, and needing, quite frankly, a long period of patient, tolerant supervision from more than just one committee.
And so I would suggest that you have my thanks for the good
work which you have done, you have my good wishes for the future, you have my hope that you will succeed in your other undertakings within this body. But I am going to observe that we have
capacity within the standing committees to address the problems
that exist, and I would hope that we would thank you, I bid you
farewell, and look forward to your continuing success, but understand that your presence has been helpful but is no longer required.
PREPATED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN D. DINGELL
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity
to testify before you on the subject of possible changes to the House Rules relating
to jurisdiction over homeland security.
I made no secret of my sense that a new Department of Homeland Security would
create as many problems as it was intended to solve. Without going into all of my
reasoning, I was particularly concerned that public health entities, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, could be damaged by moving all or part
of their activities to the Department.
Lets look at our recent health outbreaksSARS, anthrax, chicken fluyou name
it. Whether produced by foreign terrorists, common criminals, or more often, natural
events, all can have devastating effects. Yet the role of public health officials is the
same throughout. And they must be prepared to respond without first determining
whether the initial cause was terrorist activity or natural occurrences.
As a result, working on a bipartisan basis, the Committee on Energy and Commerce attempted to limit any harm that could be caused in the legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security, and I think we did so. We must now
be sure that we do no harm to our Committees jurisdiction over health and health
facilities and public health and quarantine, which enables us to address threats
to the public health regardless of the source.
I would add that our Committee has always taken its responsibilities in this field
very seriously. For example, we held hearings on the threat of bioterrorism in America in May 1999. This was followed by three more hearings in 2001, and we took
the lead role in crafting the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness
and Response Act. We took the lead in this Congress on the Project Bioshield Act.
The potential for overlap between our Committee and a Homeland Security Committee abounds in a variety of other areas, such as nuclear facilities, oil pipelines,
51
chemical security, electricity transmission, and telecommunications security. In each
of these areas, our Committee and its staff have developed expertise that predate
the events of 9/11.
This should come as no surprise. For example, the regulation of nuclear powerplants must take into account security issues, whether the threat is a disgruntled
employee or a terrorist attack. And the regulation of electric transmission lines
must take into account the effects of overhanging trees as well as a terrorist attack.
Our Committee has been thorough and relentless in holding hearings, seeking
GAO reports, and enacting legislation to make all of these facilities more secure.
The actions we take in ensuring security at critical facilities must be broad-based,
taking into account a variety of scenarios from acts of God, human error, or human
malfeasance. We cannot and should not try to split these important security issues
based upon their root cause.
I would also like to briefly anticipate two arguments in support of revising Committee jurisdictions to recognize the new Department of Homeland Security. First
I am sure that the Administration would prefer that it answer to just one Committee. My experience over many years suggests that such a cozy relationship rarely
advances accountability. For example, many have cited intelligence lapses for September 11, but I note that the intelligence agencies report just to the Intelligence
Committee and the FBI reports to the Judiciary Committee. It is hard to see how
that scheme improved accountability.
Second, some might suggest that a Homeland Security Committee would somehow
place a greater emphasis on homeland security issues than other standing committees. Again, I would refer you to the record of this Committee and our lead role in
investigating matters of bioterrorism, nuclear weapons security, and other matters
to suggest that is not the case. On the other hand, while I commend all the efforts
your Committee has made in this area, I strongly believe that the accumulated expertise of our Members and staff in these areas would be wasted if jurisdiction were
changed to place these issues in a new committee.
In summary, we are providing you with just a recent glimpse of our activities on
homeland security issues. They show that we have looked at these matters for many
years, and when we recognized the need for increased activity, we have been the
first to act. I strongly urge you not to recommend either limiting our Rule X jurisdiction in any fashion, or establishing any new jurisdiction that will duplicate or
overlap our actions.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you Mr. Dingell. We also thank you for
your frankness
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, we have Mr. Waxman, Mr. Hall and
Mr. Upton, I think. If you would like for them, I dont know what
the protocol is but they are willing to testify if you wish them to
or be available for questions.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. They are certainly welcome, certainly welcome.
The objective here is to listen and to get input, so you are not foreclosed from bringing up your ideas. So if you would like to speak
now, I mean, you are more than welcome.
Mr. UPTON. I am just sitting behind them for support.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Well, your support is noted and is most important.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Barton, you make a valid point about how
critical infrastructure protection efforts cannot be focused solely on
the terrorist threat. But your analysis does not seem to account for
the interdependencies among critical infrastructure and key assets
and the integrated threat and vulnerability assessment that the
Department of Homeland Security is charged with performing.
These cut across many committee jurisdictions, financial services,
agriculture, energy and commerce, transportation and infrastructure, resources, et cetera. Do you not see that Congress seems to
need some committee focusing on such interdependencies and the
overall strategy? Who will do it otherwise?
Mr. BARTON. Well, Mr.Chairman, I think that is an excellent
question. My answer is I think to the extent that the Energy and
52
Commerce Committee has jurisdiction in these interagencies, in
these interdependencies, we are doing that. I will not deny that a
special committee that focuses just on one department can also do
it. I mean, I dont think it is a question whether a select committee
if it were to become a permanent committee couldnt do it. But I
do think and I will put into the record all of the hearings and the
laws and the testimony that we have done on the Energy and Commerce Committee in the last three Congresses, and it is fairly extensive. As Mr. Dingell pointed out in his prepared remarks, over
time, if you have one committee that oversees one agency, it is
human nature to develop, as he put it, a cozy relationship. By having several committees that each independently oversee that, the
Homeland Security Department, you are much more likely to get
all these interdependencies covered. I mean, just byyou are getting multiple views and multiple hearings and quite honestly multiple personalities.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Do you have a comment, Mr. Ranking Member, Mr. Dingell, on that question?
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I agree with our chairman here. In
a nutshell, if there is a large problem which needs to be addressed,
the committees now of jurisdiction have the capacity to do that, to
address that problem, especially if they have the support and the
assistance of the Speaker and the leadership. We have done this
over the years, going back into the 1970s and the 1980s where the
leadership would work with the different committee chairmen and
the different ranking members to see to it that we all work together, and the end result was that sometimes as many as 27 different committees would be working together on legislation, working together very well. The end result was that we passed legislation, which had the unique advantage of having the special expertise and experience of each and every one of these committees
working together with the Speaker occasionally facilitating and assisting them in seeing to it that a unifiable and satisfactory conclusion was achieved.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you. Miss McCarthy.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to my chairman and ranking member for being here to share their thoughts
today, and I have read both of your testimonies and I cant take
issue with anything that you share because at least 70 Percent of
all of the matters in the House come through the very committee
you are chairman and ranking member of, and I am honored to
serve there, so it has held me in good stead in this new role. But
I want to toss out aexpand upon your idea, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Barton, and ask you, Mr. Dingell, to weigh in on it.
In Mr. Bartons written testimony he spoke about the need not
so much for this committee as a liaison that would work with all
the committees, as you mentioned, that areyou know have some
jurisdiction already on this matter. The committee that has the
most jurisdiction, as you point out, Mr.Dingell, is the Commerce
Committee, both from our work on weapons depositories and
health. I think about all the joint jurisdiction we already have with
Judiciary, with Ways and Means, but perhaps an expanded role on
the Commerce Committee with the liaison, Mr. Barton, that you
mentioned someone, from the Speakers office that interfaces with
53
the other committees could see to it that there be joint referrals to
the Commerce Committee and expand the role of the Commerce
Committee to tackle additional matters beyond what we already
do. I just would love your thoughts on that kind of concept. I do
think therewell, while there may not need to be a Homeland Security Committee, there needs to be one place that coordinates it
all from the other committees that have jurisdiction, whether that
be the Speakers office, in conversation with the minority leaders
office, so there is input, or whether a committee as vast already as
Commerce whose jurisdiction covers almost all of these matters
anyway. I would just love your thoughts on that as a possible solution to the matter.
Mr. BARTON. Well, Congresswoman, I think that is a very valid
point. I am glad that you read the testimony. It is to your tribute.
You always do that.
Ms. MCCARTHY. I try.
Mr. BARTON. I would like to point out I think the obvious. The
chairman of the committee, Mr. Cox, is also a member of this committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee. He was my vice
chairman when I chaired the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, and the young man that is briefing him was one of the
Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee staffers. So they were
trained well on Energy and Commerce to be the chairman and the
staffer on this committee, and if the Speaker wanted to, in addition
to appointing a senior staff member of his personal staff and the
Speakers office to serve as the liaison with all the committees and
wanted to appoint Mr. Cox and Mr.DiLenge to assist on that, Mr.
Cox as the congressman and Mr. DiLenge as the staff assisting the
Speakers staff, I think that would be a great compromise, or Mr.
Diaz-Balart, who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee. I mean I am not going to sit here and tell you folks that
you dont need to have some coordination. But to have a full blown
committee, with all the staff and all of the jurisdictional issues that
would arise from that, to my mind is self defeating.
Mr. DINGELL. I would like to echo what the chairman said, but
I would like to go further. This issue of the committee having jurisdictional borders which cause difficulty is not a new thing around
here. Our committee has jurisdictional borders with Ways and
Means; Public Works has similar situation. We have it on Superfund and Medicare and Medicaid. They have it on highways and
other things of that sort. We have a jurisdictional border with Agriculture, where we have to address together the questions of food
safety. And these things are done regularly and although they are
sometimes a little bit of difficult, they always are worked out and
I think satisfactorily over time. And if you look you will find we
have had a long and interesting relationship with our colleagues at
the Science Committee, where questions there have been dealt
with, I think, without too much difficulty simply because the chairmen understand how these things are done by working together.
And if questions arise that require greater effort and a major piece
of legislation, which I dont think is needed at this time, then the
leadership of the House can pull this all together. The chairmen
can get together and the committees can get together and the busi-
54
ness that needs to be addressed can be done, and I think expeditiously as well.
And I would point out that all of these committees have two
things. One is a familiarity with the issues. And I would point out
that in a major terrorist attempt involving health matters, such as
some kind of bacterial agent or something of that kind, are not
matters that could not be addressed in just about the same way
whether it involves terrorism or just as a naturally unfortunate
event. Similar situations with regards to a major problem such as
a huge spill of hazardous substance or an emission, a massive
emission of some kind of air pollutant or water pollutant or something of that type. And with all respect to this committee, you have
done great work. But sitting committees have the capacity to address these things and have never been found wanting in their addressing of the problems.
Mr. BARTON. I might justif I may, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes, you may.
Mr. BARTON. And based on what Chairman Dingell said, just
give you some examples. Health and Human services, whose Cabinet Secretary has already testified before my committee on budget
priorities and policy issues, also is subject to the Budget Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, obviously the Appropriations Committee, the Government Reform Committee. So they are
going to multiple committees. The Environmental Protection Agency, which is one of the major agencies that we have jurisdiction
over, they also have to report to the Transportation Committee,
again the Appropriations Committee, Ag Committee, the Government Reform Committee, and the Science Committee. Department
of energy, in addition to being responsible to the Energy and Commerce Committee has issues for, Armed Services, Government Reform, Science Approps, Resources. So most of the Cabinet agencies
do report to multiple congressional committees, and I dont see why
Homeland Security should be any different, especially if we are
doing our job. Now if we are not doing our job, that is a whole different ball game.
Mr. DINGELL. They can fire you then.
Mr. BARTON. Yeah. But I dont see, I dont sense on these issues,
nobody has said the Energy and Commerce Committee has not
done its job and again we are blessed because the chairman of this
committee is also a member of our committee, as is the distinguished lady asking the questions.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Ms.Dunn.
Ms. DUNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
gentlemen for coming to testify before us today. I think it is very
useful to have you as a member of the committee and to get your
honest appraisal of the direction in which we should be going, and
that is why we wanted to have this hearing today. I have a concern
with the number of committees that the Homeland Security Department has to report too. I think it might be useful to have a resolution outlining exactly whom they should report to. Maybe we
could cut that 88 committees and subcommittees down to a point
where they would have more time to do the job that they were
putthat administration has put to them. That could be useful and
it could be done in a separate motion.
55
My support for making the responsibilities of the Department of
Homeland Security Select Committee permanent has a lot to do
with focus on the problem. Things are different since 9/11. And in
every area of the administration there are pockets of responsibilities that really need focus. Focus is the word that always makes
me realize how important it is to put together a committee that has
a laser like approach to the responsibilities that this select committee has taken, and that is to oversee the department and to prevent terrorism, to reduce the vulnerability of the United States and
then to respond to acts of terrorism if they were to occur. That is
what I fear we lose when we spread these responsibilities out over
20 or so committees and additional subcommittees. I think it is
very easy to say, and I remember being part of a wonderful bicameral group called the Organization of Congress when I first
came here as a freshman. This committee looked at all the responsibilities of the different committees, and in fact in 1995 we did reduce the number of committees by two or three, and that was appropriate. But on the other side of that, if we are not able as a Congress to respond to the new issues as they come into being, the
problems, as we did when we formed the Energy Committee a few
decades ago, then I think that we are getting behind the 8 ball,
behind the private sector, behind the sort of movement that we
want in this country to preserve the safety of our citizens, which
I believe is the first and primary responsibility of all of us who represent constituents. I think it is easy to say keep the jurisdiction
as we have it now, and so we have to push ourselves to see if there
is a way that we could bring focus to this new and disastrous responsibility of the Congress without ransacking all the other committees that have done a very fine job, certainly exemplary job on
most of these responsibilities up to 9/11.
My problem is with the additional responsibilities. I dont know
how much time percentage-wise can you spend on the prevention
and the response of terrorism and the assessment of the
vulnerabilities. Maybe you can do that by setting up an
antiterrorism oversight subcommittee on each committee. Maybe
that is possible.
I just would really like to go into your thinking, both of you, and
I would like to ask you if you see any responsibility within your
jurisdiction that you think could be set aside. I think that is an important question for you to look at and answer.
I am on Ways and Means. There may be some things we could
do with Customs to bifurcate its responsibilities, maybe not. The
Commissioner of the Customs doesnt want to separate the revenue
raising, trade-related responsibilities of Customs away from the responsibilities they have. But on this committee, we have subcommittees that are looking every single day at the safety of ports
and borders and cyber security and infrastructure, and that is our
specific focus, and I think this committee does it very well with
very responsible people in charge of the subcommittees, and so I
would like to ask you, is there a responsibility that you currently
have that you think could be set aside in a committee that would
focus in a laser like way on the security of the people we represent?
Would you see a subcommittee being the answer to that problem?
Or do you think things are fine the way they are now and the per-
56
centage of your time you have that you could allocate to this new
responsibility is adequate?
Mr. BARTON. Let me see if I can address that, Congresswoman.
I would like to point out that the task force that you served on
when the Republicans became the majority in 1994 recommended,
and it was enacted in the rules, the elimination of the District of
Columbia Committee. We do that now at theone of the subcommittees on appropriations. We eliminated the Merchant Marine
and Fisheries Committee, put those jurisdictional issues I believe
in the Resources Committee. Maybe some of them are in Transportation. There was some debate at the time about eliminating the
Small Business Committee. We thought those issues were broad
enough that we kept that committee. We also discussed briefly consolidation of the Veterans Committee in the Armed Services Committee, and so we decided to keep Veterans as a separate committee.
So when the Republicans became the majority and initially in
1994, and became into power in 1995, we went both ways. We kept
two committees to focus on specifics, Veterans and Small Business,
but in the District of Columbia and Merchant Marine and Fisheries
we consolidated. So you can argue that issue on focus either way.
In terms of jurisdictional issues, that we wanted to create a permanent Homeland Security, are there some jurisdictionalis there
some jurisdiction in the Energy and Commerce Committee that
should automatically go to Homeland Security? My answer to that
would be not unless it is proven that it wouldthat we, i.e. the Energy and Commerce Committee, have failed. Now if there is some
issue that we have failed to act on, failed to give the focus that you
alluded to, I have only been chairman for a month but you tell me
what it is and, by golly, there will be some focus. In terms of general oversight, I still have to get things approved and cleared by
the membership and the leadership, but I have outlined to my subcommittee chairmen that in the next Congress if the Republicans
are still in the majority, I am thinking of asking every subcommittee chairman to be a member of the Oversight Subcommittee and I am going to do oversight not only at the Oversight
Subcommittee, but also have every subcommittee chairman do
oversight on their authorization subcommittees.
So if your question is if we do not create a permanent Homeland
Security Committee, should the Energy and Commerce Committee
create a Homeland Security Subcommittee? I am very willing to do
that, if we change the rules to allow more subcommittees than are
currently allowed in the current House rules. It is my understanding that the current House rules only allow for five subcommittees at each standing committee. I would not want to give
up one of the existing subcommittees and I certainly am not going
to give up the Oversight Subcommittee, but if we would expand the
House rules so that you could have six subcommittees, I would be
very willing to create a Homeland Security Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce, if that is your question.
Mr. DINGELL. I think you have to ask yourself, and I say this
with great respect, what would have been done differently in Congress than was done if there had been a different committee structure. First of all, when the committees, the standing committees
57
were asked to work on legislation, they did so with all vigor and
it was done. It came then to the Committee on Homeland Security,
and I found very small changes made, if any, in the work that was
done by the Commerce Committee. And I think you would find a
similar situation obtained with regard to every other committee
which submitted its process to the oversight of the Homeland Security Committee. The matter then went to the Rules Committee and
the work product of all the committees was put together and accepted.
Now, my question is, how do you sort outlets say that you
have got a question that relates to public health, SARS or anthrax
or chicken flu or whatever it is or some kind of biological agent
that is released. The Commerce Committee deals with these questions every day. We know all about it, and we know what has to
be done and we know the agencies that do it. We know what existing law is and we have that expertise. And the question is, how
much different would the approach that would be taken, for example, by the Homeland Security Committee be from that which the
Commerce Committee would suggest because we deal with these
things in a holistic way. We dont just deal with homeland security,
but we deal with all the impacts to this. We would have the advice
of the Federal agency that has responsibility over this, the Department of Homeland Security. And I dont see us departing significantly from their suggestions, but I do see us having a keen awareness of how an attempt to address a particular problem that might
relate to homeland security or terrorist activity would impact on
the broad overall policies we have with regard to health or dangerous biological agents that might be naturally introduced into the
society or might be introduced by terrorists. I see a similar situation with regard to poisons or hazardous substances or toxic substances. I see things that would relate to other matters of jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, and I dont see any of the sitting
committees or standing committees that address these matters that
would behave any differently working with the Department of
Homeland Security and I dont see any difference between what
they did or would do because of the presence of the Homeland Security Committee.
Mr. COX. I want to thank you formally. I have already had a
chance to thank you informally for appearing and for providing
both formal testimony and your opening statements and illuminating answers to questions. And as you know, I am a very
proud member of the Energy and Commerce Committee myself, as
the chairman mentioned, that he and I used to be the chairman
and vice chairman respectively of the Oversight and Investigation
Subcommittee, and because of that long service on the Energy and
Commerce Committee I am very familiar with the broad jurisdiction of the committee and also the intersection between the focus
of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the mission of Homeland Security. At Energy and Commerce we are responsible for energy and air quality, one of the subcommittees on which I serve
and which you used to chair, Mr. Chairman, EPA, which is, you
know, virtually a Cabinet department, the Department of Energy,
FERC, NRC. We have a separate Subcommittee on the Environ-
58
ment where we focus on things like Superfund and drinking water
and RCRA, and we have a Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet, which is very active and focused on the activities
of the FCC and NTIA. We have a Subcommittee on Commerce,
Trade, and Consumer Protection, which, among other things, includes jurisdiction over the Department of Commerce. We have a
Subcommittee on Health, which is responsible for Medicare and
Medicaid and HHS and FDA and CDC and NIH, and we have a
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, which as I mentioned I was vice chairman of under your chairmanship, which doubles down from an oversight perspective in all those areas.
Having spent a year and a half, actually longer than that, because of the time we spent in Energy and Commerce with our referral on the Homeland Security Act, going through that act and
understanding it fully and now watching the Department grow according to that blueprint, I am pleased to say that the Energy and
Commerce Committee has almost the least amount of conflict of
any major committee from a jurisdictional standpoint, and to the
extent we do have overlap we have worked very closely together,
most notably on the BioShield legislation. But even there, the statute makes it very clear that the Department of Homeland Security
acquired no jurisdiction over the human health aspects countermeasure, and so the reason for the collaboration was essentially because the legislation itself was collaborative between the Department of Homeland Security and HHS. That is a dual function.
There was no government agency within the jurisdiction of Energy
and Commerce transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. There were some very small programs and a small number of
them, but no government agency, you know, unlike other committees. The whole Coast Guard got transferred, the whole INS got
transferred, and so on. That didnt happen with Energy and Commerce.
And so we have, I think, two premises from which to work. First,
there is already a very broad and important jurisdiction at Energy
and Commerce which we want to maintain continued focus on. And
second, there is a discrete and severable function of this new Department that at least heretofore has been largely without the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I appreciate
the notional offer that was made to acquire the jurisdiction and as
a proud member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, that is
my committee, I recognize that and I am here to say that I am
proud of
Mr. BARTON. I can make it more than notional if there is any interest. We can have a proposal to this committee or the Speakers
office within 48 hours if there is interest in that.
Mr. COX. I recognize that Texas deal maker there. We are happy
to do this acquisition. But I think what is really important, and I
just mention in a side bar before we begin, is that the Congress,
the House and the Senate, keep a focus on the Department of
Homeland Securitys mission, its purpose for being, because in the
same way that we have jurisdictional concerns because of all the
overlap here in the House, there is a potential at least for the Department of Homeland Security to grow into areas where it doesnt
belong.
59
The Department of Homeland Security has a very important mission, and I think it is vitally important that it keep focused on that
mission. Number one in its mission statement is preventing terrorism. Number two is protecting us against potential terrorist acts
so that if they occur we minimize their damage. And number three
is, and last, it is the only missions they have, those three, is to respond, to be prepared to respond in the event terrorism does occur,
which inevitably some time in our future history it will, and then
help the country recover thereafter.
If the Department of Homeland Security, however, morphs into
the regulator of every aspect of American life in every corner of
American enterprise, then it is going to encroach not only into missions which were not assigned it by the Homeland Security Act,
but also into the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee, where it doesnt belong. If it grows to federalize every State
and local and private sector function because homeland security
touches everything, then inevitably it will also encroach directly
into the traditional jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and if it grows in that fashion it probably will be the ruin
of the Federal budget and also encroach in the jurisdiction of the
Budget Committee in a big way, where we hope that it does not.
So I would just ask you, if not at this moment as a follow-up, ask
the professional staff of the Energy and Commerce Committee to
focus on this question. Given that the Congress and at least for
this Congress, this select committee has jurisdiction over the
Homeland Security Act itself, what recommendations would you
make, given the experience that we now have with a real department, based on the blueprint we wrote not that long ago, to change
the Homeland Security Act with respect to things that went in that
perhaps should come out or, if you are so inclined, things that
didnt go in that ought to have in the first place, perhaps instead
of some things that did? And if you want to respond off the cuff
to that, I would accept anything you have to offer by way of wisdom right now. But you know, recognizing that that is the sort of
thing that would also require some study and some professional
staff work, I would welcome it as a follow-up.
Mr. BARTON. I think you make a valid point, Chairman Cox. I
would reserve the right to staff it appropriately and respond officially instead of commenting off the cuff. But the ability of any department to grow is limited only by its ability to get resources from
the Congress in which to do that growth. And I think on an issue
like homeland security, since it covers everything in a technical
sense, there is a tremendous impetus to become larger and larger,
so I dontif I understand your theory correctly. I dont dispute the
theory. But I would like to allowbe given the time to respond in
writing to the specifics of the question.
Mr. COX. I make the kind of question because I am so convinced
that if the Department does grow like Topsy that it will lose its
focus and we will be less safe. So we have got to keep it focused
on this mission.
Mr. BARTON. I agree with that.
Mr. COX. I also make the comment because in your prepared remarks you mentioned that it might be difficult to distinguish between what is homeland security and what is everything else, and
60
I think we have got to get past that. We have got to come up with
a definition.
Chairman Goss was here earlier and made the point in his formal testimony, you know, one of the things that Congress needs to
do and the Department needs to do increasingly a better job of is
defining what is homeland security. It cant be in the eye of the beholder. It cant be whatever we say it is and change our mind constantly. It has to be focused.
Mr. BARTON. I can tell you in my congressional district, everybodyalmost every municipality and their subdivisions thereof
now have a grant asking me to support for some effort that they
classify as homeland security. And I dont think my district is
unique. You know, I am besieged. I wont say overwhelmed, but I
amI have probably hundreds of requests for specific grants that
are categorized as homeland security because we have funded that
and it has been a high priority, as it should be, to focus on it.
Mr. DINGELL. I would like to make a couple of observations. One,
if that is a deep concern and you feel the committee must be kept,
there is nothing to say that this committee could not continue to
be a select committee and that it could serve in that fashion. But
if there is a need to have that be focused on by the standing committees, that could be inserted into the rules and the Speaker can
see to it then that the rules are carried forward by the committees
which have the jurisdiction.
I dont see anything which has transpired during this session of
Congress or the prior one which was any different really because
of the presence of this committee. It was a response by the Congress, and I of course have some concern about the fact that the
Congress keeps getting bigger and bigger. We keep getting castigated more and more for the multiplication of efforts and the
amount of work and friction in bureaucracy and wasted time,
money and energy that goes into this body. And a major part of
that is by the fact that the committees keep getting larger and
larger and we keep getting more and more of them.
And I want just to give you some history, and I apologize for this,
but when I came here, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
was smaller than most of its subcommittees. A subcommittee had
three to five members. Five members was a big subcommittee.
When we got done with the hearings, which went expeditiously because we didnt have, what is it 44 or 46 members
Mr. BARTON. We have 57 members of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. DINGELL. Making opening statements at 5 nutes a head. We
could dispose of the hearings on a piece of legislation in a day and
have time for proper inquiry of the witnesses. And the end result
was that we would then close the doors, take off our coats, roll up
our sleeves and have a huge Donnybrook, and sharp words were
used and everything else. But the result was that we came forward
with legislation upon which we were in agreement. And that legislation then went through the Congress without any real difficulty
because it wasnt so complicated and we hadnt made ourselves so
muscle bound that we really had problems in legislating.
And you can keep on increasing the number of committees. The
Peter principle says every time you have a problem you set up a
61
committee or you set up a study group or you do something else
like that. But that doesnt address or focus upon the problem that
you confront.
So my statement to you, and my prayer to you would be let us
not increase the complexity of the Congress. Let us not increase the
number of committees. Let us not increase the amount, the number
of units of work that must be done to a unit of accomplishment because that is simply to invite more delay and more disaster and
more problems for the Congress. And with all due respect, and I
say this sincerely, the members of this committee have tried hard
and I believe you have served well and you have served honorably.
But we are going to get so big around here in terms of the number
of committees and number of responsibilities the Members have
that we are going to have to have one of these searing, tearing reorganizations that takes place, causes no end of trouble, and leaves
a lot of Members adrift without things to do, that distorts the function of the Congress for years.
That happens every time we have a reorganization, and it also
happens every time you reorganize the executive, because I find no
real benefit that has been accomplished by setting up a Department of Homeland Security. They simply moved a lot of agencies
over there. They dont get along with each other. We had a similar
situation when we set up the Department of Energy. Everybody
hated each other inside the Department of Energy. It was 20 years
before we got them to work together. A similar situation with regard to the Department of Education. And I would just say that the
simpler we can make this business of ours the more successful we
will be, and more committees are not going to contribute to that.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. You have both been very patient and helpful
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, if I might just
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes.
Mr. COX. Just as a member of both committees, I observe that
first with respect to your comment, Mr. Dingell, that you are not
sure what difference has followed from the Select Committees
work. As a result of over 35 hearings of the Select Committee, we
put forward a dramatic restructuring of first responder grants already, and the Department has changed very much the way that
it is focusing its first responder grant money. We are putting in a
very strong emphasis on intelligence threat and vulnerability. We
have focused a great deal of attention on the threat advisory system and that has become much more refined as a result. We have,
after the Senate committee of jurisdiction, without question gone
forward with BioShield as an entitlement program. We drew to the
attention of the Energy and Commerce Committee the importance
of stopping that as an entitlement program, and as you know, we
have now passed in the House collaboratively between Energy and
Commerce and our committee not as an entitlement program because we so strongly believe, and Energy and Commerce was in
agreement on this point, that this not be unsustainable. And I
think very importantly, we put a very strong focus on the Infrastructure Protection and Information Analysis Directorate. There is
a different person running that now following the hearings that we
have had, over 35, as I mentioned, on these subjects alone.
62
In contrast with that, the list that the committee provided the
Energy and Commerce Committee to this hearing of all of the entirety of the work that has been done during the 108th Congress
lists not a single full committee hearing, and one of the five hearings that was conducted was a joint hearing with our committee.
There is just not time nor the jurisdiction with Energy and Commerce to reach all the things that the Department of Homeland Security is doing, and I would just tell you that I have made it my
priority to attend all of my subcommittee meetings and hearings
not to mention markups and full committee hearings and markups
in Energy and Commerce, and I see very little overlap with the
work thatthe very important and substantial work we do in Energy and Commerce as what we are doing in the select committee.
I just think they are as different as night and day. But that is my
observation.
I would also, with respect to the growth of Congress point, just
add that historically whenever we have created a significant new
department we have also assigned authorization and oversight responsibility to a committee in the Congress. It is true for the Department of Defense, true for the Department of Education, true
for the Department of Energy, and it is not clear why with a national security mission as important as protecting the country it
should be different for the third largest Cabinet department, the
Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. You both have been very patient, but I would
like to ask one last question, based on something that you both
stressed. You both testified that the jurisdictional overlap is inherent in the committee system and that a new committee would not
reduce the overlap, but would rather create many new and untested overlaps. Also, you have both testified that in your opinion a
new committee is not needed.
Former Speakers Gingrich and Foley testified before us that
there should be a standing permanent committee with authorization jurisdiction to provide simple, focused, centralized and efficient
oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. Both Speakers,
as I am sure you recognize, have an intimate understanding of the
House committees and jurisdiction. They both rejected the notion
that a new standing committee would increase overlap if it were
done right. They both also said that while overlapping jurisdiction
may be acceptable or even desirable on some issues, as you both,
I believe, pointed out, it is not for such a critical mission as homeland security.
Why do you believe Speakers Foley and Gingrich are wrong?
They both suggested that opposition is based on turf issues. How
do you respond?
Mr. BARTON. Well, I would respond, Mr. Chairman, that if you
had asked them whether there should be reorganization of the entire House or a consolidation, they would have also responded in
the affirmative to that, because they are both former Speakers and
they know that over time things grow and, as they grow, they develop some of the discontinuities that Chairman Cox alluded to. My
recollection, and I didnt read their testimony, but I did watch
snippets of it that was presented through the media, at least with
regard to the Energy and Commerce Committee, I dont remember
63
any specific failures that they alluded to in our mission statement.
So I think, you know, I wouldnt say they were wrong. I think they
were just responding kind of in a natural fashion that here is a
specific issue that is a hot issue right now. We ought to focus on
it. I think we are focusing on it through the select committee, but
I think it is an open question whether it should be made a permanent committee.
I also, before I yield to Mr. Dingell, want to respond to something
that Congresswoman Dunn said because I misresponded. I thought
the rules of the House allowed five subcommittees on each committee. The rules of the House allow five subcommittees plus an
oversight subcommittee if you choose to have it, which is what the
Energy and Commerce Committee has chosen. So her suggestion
that we create a Homeland Security Subcommittee I would support
either for my committee or for all committees that have jurisdiction
over homeland security if we could go to six authorization subcommittees plus an oversight subcommittee. I think that would be
a good idea.
Ms. DUNN. May I comment, please? That was not my suggestion.
That was my question to you if you felt that that would adequatelyI am a supporter of a standing committee.
Mr. BARTON. Yeah. But I mean I would certainly, you know, one
way to focus, in my committee on the homeland security issues,
and Mr. Cox alluded to it, would be to have a specific Subcommittee on Homeland Security and I am fine with that if I can
maintain the ones that I already have. I wouldnt want to give one
up to get that one.
Mr. COX. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes, and I am trying wrap up this panel.
Mr. COX. I would just note doing the arithmetic that if there is
a concern about Congress growing, then if we were to add a Homeland Security Subcommittee to each of the standing committees
that have jurisdiction we would quickly move from 88 committees
and subcommittees to over a hundred.
Mr. BARTON. Well, but if want to focus, you know, that is the
way to do it and you are going to getI guarantee you if yall put
that before the conference, the Republican Conference, I will let
Mr. Dingell speak for the Democratic Caucus, but if you put it before the Republican Conference the creation of an additional subcommittee on each committee is going to pass overwhelmingly because that means there is an additional subcommittee chairman or
chairwoman.
Mr. COX. But if you have over a hundred committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction over something then I think the analog to socialism is perfect. If something is owned by everyone, it is
the responsibility of no one.
Mr. BARTON. You give us that and I guarantee you we will take
ownership.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. We are going toyou have been very patient.
We are going to wrap this up. Ms. McCarthy had a final point she
wanted to make briefly.
Ms. MCCARTHY. It was just on this point that is being discussed
now, that the Commerce Committee, having vast jurisdiction already over the homeland security issues expand the Oversight Sub-
64
committee, Mr. Chairman, to include homeland security. Because
so much of it goes, comes to our committee anyway it would make
a lot of sense.
Mr. BARTON. I agree with that.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you both very much. You have been
very patient. Appreciate your testimony.
Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Davis and Mr. Waxman. We welcome the
chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform, Mr. Davis, Mr. Waxman, and you are free to proceed
with your testimony. Mr.Davis.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND
CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member

Slaughter, and on behalf of the Government Reform Committee I
want to thank you for holding these important hearings on whether
the House is appropriately organized to consider homeland security
matters or do we need to add another appendage, which in my
opinion is kind of a backsliding from where we were with the Contract with America, where we came in and we abolished committees, we didnt add committees to the House, trying to streamline
the procedures.
My friend and the ranking member, Mr. Waxman, and I are here
to testify that with positive changes the House will be organized
to ensure that Homeland Security receives the resources and scrutiny it deserves. Because the success of the Department is vital to
the continuing economic recovery and winning the war on terrorism, we all want it to succeed. Congress must provide the Department with the proper resources while at the same time maintaining aggressive oversight to ensure that this massive reorganization and commitment of resources succeeds.
We must ask if the House, as currently organized, has and will
continue to aggressively oversee this new Department. More importantly, I believe a major congressional reorganization will only
hinder oversight and legislative priorities. In the past others have
testified that without a permanent committee exclusively devoted
to DHS Congress would drop the ball. The past year and a half has
shown that this is I think wrong. There has been no lack of oversight or legislative activity to make sure that we get homeland security right.
Our committee maintains an aggressive posture when it comes
to overseeing DHS. Whether through legislation or oversight hearings the Government Reform Committee is fulfilling its role as the
primary oversight and investigation committee of the House. With
the cooperation of all of our members, our subcommittees and the
full committee, we have held numerous oversight hearings, field
visits and markup actions pertaining to the Department.
For example, the committee held oversight hearings on topics related to FEMA, TSA, first responders, critical infrastructure, visa
policy, preparedness standards, DHS financial accountability, border management, port security and product litigation management,
to name just a few. We held markups on Project BioShield, the
65
Presidential Vacancy Act and the DHS Financial Accountability
Ability Act. We are fulfilling our role and no one should question
whether DHS would escape scrutiny if there werent a committee
in Congress under the same name.
The existing committee structure has been criticized for the number of committees with jurisdiction over agencies and programs
that contribute to homeland security, but the creation of a permanent homeland security panel would only exacerbate the program
of jurisdictional overlap. Jurisdictional overlap is inherent in the
committee system. The new committee wont reduce the overlap. It
only creates many new and untested overlaps. It will not reduce jurisdiction overlap if we increase the number of committees responsible for transportation, emergency management, law enforcement,
public health, immigration and the many other matters involved in
ensuring homeland security.
As I know too well, jurisdictional conflicts happen. It is the responsibility of committee chairman to manage these conflicts.
When the overlap is well understood and tested through precedent,
committees can focus on solutions, not turf. New and undefined
overlaps too often result in turf battles that delay and even prevent
positive outcomes.
A new full Committee on Homeland Security would generate
many new jurisdictional overlaps and conflicts. Each of the conflicts
would be untested and unsettled. It is my experience that these
gray areas are the source of unproductive jurisdictional squabbles
among committees, not overlap which exists under any committees
structure.
Ensuring that DHS remains strong and that Congress is appropriately organized to oversee this Department requires only minor
adjustments. With a few tweaks the current committee structure
would be well prepared to support and oversee DHS in its critical
mission. I suggest that the House agree upon an organizational
map. You could do it similar to the Senate model. As in the Senate,
current committees would continue to oversee their legacy agencies,
while Government Reform, like Governmental Affairs in the Senate, would oversee the administration of the Departments headquarters and departmentwide policies as well as White House efforts to coordinate homeland security policy.
The Government Reform Committee already has jurisdiction over
these matters through its authority over agency organization,
human capital, IT security, Federal-State relations, procurement
and the management and efficiency of government organizations.
Reenforcement of this authority along with any clarifications between the other committees where the combination of agencies or
functions may have muddied the existing jurisdictions would preserve our present strength and let the House focus on DHS and its
mission, not turf battles.
The committee I chair was at the center of the last major reorganization in the House when Government Reform absorbed the D.C.
Committee and the Post Office and Civil Service Committee. These
moves had their doubters who most of the time thought they would
result in the neglect of those issues. I am pleased to report that
neither has been forgotten. In fact, since the reorganization the
Government Reform Committee has passed landmark legislation
66
affecting the District of Columbia, more so than when it existed as
a committee by itself. The Federal Civil Service legislation we
passed, the major civil service reform this last year for the Department of Defense, which is over half of civil service, and hopefully
with the help of many here today we are going to pass major postal
reform this year even though we dont have a dedicated committee
just for that.
Our committee is living proof you dont need a marquis committee name to make sure your agency is highlighted in the halls
of Congress. I know this existing structure works because this is
how the House oversees and coordinates our Nations drug policy,
which is alsoour committee has jurisdiction. The Office of National Drug Policy, ONDCP, created by Congress in 1988 partly
through leadership of then Government Reform Subcommittee
Ranking Member Danny Hastert, established policies, priorities
and objectives for the Nations Drug Control Program. The Committee on Government Reform holds jurisdiction over ONDCP, but
the Committees on Judiciary and Energy and Commerce oversee
the major components of national drug policy, including law enforcement and public health.
As I have worked this Congress on reauthorizing ONDCP, we
have been pleased with the working relationship among the committees involved. This model can work for homeland security as
well. This proposal would maintain existing areas of expertise and
relationships with executive branch agencies. The proposal
strengthens the parallel structures of House-Senate relations.
And, finally, by designating Government Reform as the lead committee on cross-agency proposals when no other committee could
naturally receive the primary referral ensures that homeland security efforts will be coordinated. I believe that framework will work
and that the issue of whether homeland security is adequately addressed will be protected.
In closing, I want to stress how important the issue of homeland
security is to me in my congressional district across the river from
here and to members of my committee. I am confident that if organized correctly no one will question our ability to oversee and contribute to the security of our great Nation.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM DAVIS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS, FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Slaughter, on behalf of the Government Reform Committee, I would like to thank you for holding these important hearings on
whether the House is appropriately organized to consider homeland security matters.
My friend and Government Reforms ranking member, Mr. Waxman, and I are
here to testify that with positive changes the House will be organized to ensure that
homeland security receives the resources and scrutiny it deserves. Because the success of the Department is vital to the continuing economic recovery and winning the
war on terrorism, we all want to see it succeed.
Congress must provide the department with the proper resources while at the
same time maintaining aggressive oversight to ensure that this massive reorganization and commitment of resources succeeds.
We must ask if the House, as currently organized, has and will continue to aggressively and effectively oversee this new department. More importantly, I believe
a major congressional reorganization will only hinder oversight and legislative priorities.
In the past others have testified that without a permanent committee, exclusively
devoted to DHS, Congress would drop the ball. The past year and a half has shown
67
that this is, quite simply, wrong. There has been no lack of oversight or legislative
activity to make sure that we get homeland security right.
My committee maintains an aggressive posture when it comes to overseeing DHS.
Whether through legislation or oversight hearings, the Government Reform Committee is fulfilling its role as the primary oversight and investigation committee of
the House. With the cooperation of all our Members, our subcommittees and the full
committee have held numerous oversight hearings, field visits and markup actions
pertaining to the Department.
For example the committee held oversight hearings on topics relating to FEMA,
TSA, first responders, critical infrastructure, visa policy, preparedness standards,
DHS financial accountability, border management, port security and product litigation management to name just a few. We held markups on Project Bioshield, the
Presidential Vacancy Act, and the DHS Financial Accountability Act. We are fulfilling our role and no one should question whether DHS would escape scrutiny if
there werent a Committee in Congress under the same name.
The existing committee structure has been criticized for the number of committees
with jurisdiction over agencies and programs that contribute to homeland security.
The creation of a permanent Homeland Security panel, however, would only exacerbate the problem of jurisdictional overlap.
Jurisdictional overlap is inherent in the committee system. A new committee
wouldnt reduce that overlapit would only create many new and untested overlaps.
We will not reduce jurisdictional overlap if we increase the number of committees
responsible for transportation, emergency management, law enforcement, public
health, immigration, and the many other matters involved in ensuring homeland security.
As I know only too well, jurisdictional conflicts happen. It is the responsibility of
committee chairmen to manage these conflicts. When the overlap is well understood
and tested through precedent, committees can focus on solutionsnot turf. New and
undefined overlaps too often result in turf battles that delay and even prevent positive outcomes. A new full committee on homeland security would generate many
new jurisdictional overlaps and conflicts. Each of the conflicts would be untested
and unsettled. It is my experience that these gray areas are the source of unproductive jurisdictional squabbles among committeesnot overlap, which exists under
any committee structure.
Ensuring that DHS remains strong and that Congress is appropriately organized
to oversee this department requires only minor adjustments. With a few tweaks, the
current committee structure would be well prepared to support and oversee DHS
and its critical mission. I suggest that the House agree upon a organizational map
that resembles the Senate model. As in the Senate, current committees should continue to oversee their legacy agencieswhile Government Reform, like Government
Affairs, would oversee the administration of the departments headquarters and department wide policies as well as White House efforts to coordinate homeland security policy.
The Government Reform Committee already has jurisdiction over these matters
through its authority over agency organization, human capital, IT security, Federalstate relations, procurement and the management and efficiency of government operations. Reinforcement of this authority along with any clarifications between the
other committees, where the combination of agencies or functions may have muddied the existing jurisdictions, will preserve our present strengths and let the House
focus on DHS and its mission, not turf battles.
The Committee I chair was at the center of the last major reorganization in the
House when Government Reform absorbed the DC Committee and the Post Office
and Civil Service Committee. These moves had their doubters and most at the time
thought they would result in the neglect of those issues. I am pleased to report that
neither has been forgotten. In fact, since the reorganization, the Government Reform Committee has passed landmark legislation affecting the District of Columbia,
the Federal civil service and hopefully with the help of many here today, major postal reform. My committee is living proof that you dont need a marquee committee
name to make sure your agency is highlighted in the halls of Congress.
I know this existing structure works because this is how the House oversees and
coordinates our nations drug policy.
The Office of the National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), created by Congress in
1988 partly through leadership of then Government Reform subcommittee ranking
member Denny Hastert, establishes policies, priorities, and objectives for the Nations drug control program. The Committee on Government Reform holds jurisdiction over ONDCP; however, the Committees on the Judiciary and Energy and Commerce oversee the major components of national drug policy including law enforcement and public health. As I have worked this Congress on reauthorizing ONDCP,
68
I have been very pleased with the working relationship among the committees. This
model will work for homeland security as well.
This proposal would maintain existing areas of expertise and relationships with
executive branch agencies. The proposal strengthens the parallel structure of HouseSenate relations. Finally, by designating Government Reform as the lead committee
on cross-agency proposals when no other committee would naturally receive the primary referral, ensures that homeland security efforts will be coordinated. I believe
this framework will work and that the issue of whether homeland security is adequately addressed will be protected.
In closing, I want to stress how important the issue of homeland security is to
me and to the members of my committee. I am confident that if organized correctly
no one will question our ability to oversee and contribute to the security of our great
nation.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Waxman.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have

this opportunity to come before this Subcommittee on Rules and
give you my thoughts about whether we ought to have a continuation of a Select Committee of Homeland Security or a new standing Committee on Homeland Security. All of us share the goal of
ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security operates as effectively as possible on security matters. The question is how can
the Congress promote that end in the most efficient way possible?
One of the key contributions Congress can make is conducting
oversight, and there is no question that good congressional oversight helps agencies do the job, the best job they can. The problem
we face now is that there are too many committees reviewing
homeland security matters. The Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Agriculture Committee, Judiciary Committee, the Government Reform Committee, and others all conduct
oversight of homeland security activities. Sometimes from different
perspectives, but nevertheless all these committees are potentially
involved in one way or another.
The continuation of a select or standing Committee on Homeland
Security compounds the problem. It adds another committee and
another layer of oversight. We literally have a situation where
three committees have authorities regarding every program in the
Department. One is the traditional authorizing committee, one is
Government Reform, which has governmentwide oversight responsibilities, and one is the present select committee, and that is simply too many.
Now there is a better model. The better model is what the Senate
is doing with this very same issue. There the existing committees
with relevant jurisdiction conduct oversight over the agencies in
their jurisdiction and the Governmental Affairs Committee oversees issues such as coordination of homeland security activities.
They were wise enough to figure out how to do the job of oversight
in the Senate without creating another layer of bureaucracy, setting up more committees is another layer of bureaucracy.
69
I was amused to hear Chairman Barton say that the Republican
Conference, that members there would like to create more subcommittees so there could be more subcommittee chairmen and
women. Well, to me that doesnt sound like what I thought the Republicans were all about. I thought we were supposed to be shrinking government, not expanding the number of committees and subcommittee just so members could be chairmen of committees. That
is not what our job is all about. Our job is to make sure the government functions appropriately.
Now we had a special committee create the Homeland Security
agency, and that was done in the past when legislation brought together all the different committees of jurisdiction to develop the energy policy in the 1970s. But I dont recall ever a committee being
created solely for the purpose of responding to a new Cabinet level.
The Department of Energy was created in the late 1970s. There are
five standing committees in the House that have some aspect of jurisdiction over Energy.
Mr. WAXMAN. There wasnt an energy committee created. There
was already the Energy and Commerce Committee that had its primary jurisdiction on energy issues. The other cabinet level agency
that was created was the Department of Education. Well, we didnt
create a new Committee on Education in the House, we already
had a Committee on Education in the House, and that committee
does it job. We have a Department of Health and Human Services.
Well, we have ways and means with jurisdiction over Health and
Human Services, we have the Energy and Commerce Committee
with jurisdiction over some of those issues, we have the Infrastructure Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction, and the committee we
used to call Education and Labor, whatever it is called now, they
have some jurisdiction over these matters. Should we create a new
Committee on Health and Human Services to do the job that is already being done by these other committees? It seems to me the
question answers itself.
My remarks should not be interpreted as questioning the commitment and effort of current members of the select committee on
Homeland Security. Rather, my point is that it is not in the longterm interests of the Department of Homeland Security and the
taxpayers to have duplicative congressional oversight. The continuation of a select committee or a standing committee on Homeland
Security would result in spending more money, devoting more resources to activities that other committees, other standing committees already are doing, and they are certainly competent to continue to do that work.
I urge my colleagues to consider terminating the committee on
Homeland Security and to let the committees of jurisdiction that
are the standing committees do the job of oversight to help make
sure this agency performs appropriately.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you both.
I would point out, Mr. Waxman, we were informed by some of
the experts that testified earlier before us that, after the creation
of the Department of Defense, the Armed Services Committee was
created. I think you pointed out, never has it been done.
Mr. WAXMAN. I dont know that any of us were here, but I am
certain there was maybe a committee on the war policy. So they
70
changed the name to the Committee on Armed Services in the
House. But I am not sure, and none of us were here at the time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. We werent here, but we received testimony on
that.
Mr. WAXMAN. But that is certainly an important area of expertise. And I think the history of where the committees have conducted that responsibility is clear. But to point out the other examples that we have had with energy and education, which are the
two most recent cabinet level positions.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Those are more recent. But I didnt want the
record not to reflect the creation of the Armed Services Committee
after the
Mr. DAVIS. Could we supplement our testimony on that point?
Because I think when you go back, you are going to find there was
a committee that dealt with this, as Mr. Waxman said. I didnt
bring any documentation, but
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. No, but we went through World War II without one.
Mr. DAVIS. That is our whole point.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. What Mr. Waxman said was it had never been
done.
Mr. WAXMAN. I would like to research and put an addendum in
the record, which may be an apology, because you may be right and
we are wrong.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. You are more than welcome to submit any
supplementary.
Mr. COX. Would the chairman yield?
Mr. COX. I would just point out, I think we are confusing two different concepts. One is whether or not there was a responsibility
in the Congress antedating the of a cabinet department. And the
other is whether or not our House rules have ever been changed
to give a committee of Congress primary jurisdiction over a cabinet
department.
And that has happened not only repeatedly, but it has happened
each of the last three times we have created a new cabinet department, so that the House rules specifically recognize the cabinet department in Rule 10 with respect to the Department of Energy
where primary jurisdiction is within the Energy and Commerce
Committee; with respect to the Department of Education where
primary jurisdiction is within the Committee on Education and the
Workforce; and with the Department of Defense where primary jurisdiction is within the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. WAXMAN. So I think in those cases, they designated a committee that was already in existence to be the primary committee.
And what we are suggesting is we dont need another one.
Mr. COX. It is not my time, but that would be a useful point.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. We certainly heard what you are suggesting,
and we appreciate your testimony.
Given the Government Reform Committees responsibilities for
all of the various elements of its existing Rule 10 jurisdiction, I
guess the key question or the most important question would be,
how can we best ensure that sufficient attention is being devoted
to oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and the crit-
71
ical task of overseeing and authorizing the functions of the third
largest department of the Federal Government charged with the security of our population from the domestic terrorism? That is the
key, and that is what we try to focus on in this and other hearings.
Mr. DAVIS. We have held over 35 hearings on matters pertaining
to this department this year in our committee, just for the record.
We have been active in legislative markups that affected it, on bioshield and other areas that also affect the committee. I dont think
there is any problem that they are doing it. The Senate committee
has stepped up to the same thing, I might add, without additional
staff.
Our concern is simply this: Some of the biggest issues that face
a new department that is put together with different cultures from
different agencies and the like go to human capital functions, procurement functions, bringing those together. That is what our committee deals with. That is at the core of what the government committee does. To write us out of this thing and move it over to another committee I think would be a huge error at this point. And
that is basically where the committee needs most of its oversight,
immigration.
I think the Judiciary Committee has the expertise in this. They
have been guarding law in that area for a long time. Bioterrorism,
the CDC, NIH are under the jurisdiction of Commerce. We dont
have to lose those jurisdictions by moving for a new committee
where I think we are going to have jurisdictional fights up and
down.
And, also just to go to the tendency sometimes where the committees get very cozy with the departments. Mr. Waxman and I
simply went through this with mad cow disease where dealing with
one of the local committees with oversight, very cozy with the leadership and not wanting to hold a hearing. And it turns out the
cowI mean, we got some concessions that some of the investigation we had done turned out to be correct.
So that is my observation, if you really want us to be proactive
in terms of the oversight on that. I dont think you lose a thing by
using the Senate model in this case.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Given your wide jurisdiction over other parts of the government,
how would you handle the authorization process for DHS?
Mr. DAVIS. Well, you have different authorization process. I dont
know that you would have a DHS authorization bill. We dont have
authorization bills for a lot of departments. You potentially could
do that. I would think immigration would probably stay over where
it is at this point.
But in terms of focusing on the core mission, which is what Mr.
Cox addressed, that is the thing our committee does through
GPRA, the Government Performance and Results Act, an Act
passed by this Congress where we had agencies define their mission and what were they doing to carry out that versus what were
they doing extra to that. Those are the kinds of things our committee would do. But I wouldnt expect to take CDC away from the
Commerce Committee, who has had it a long experience in oversight on that.
72
Ms. SLAUGHTER. We heard that before today on Agriculture, that
AFIS and other things have been retained in the Agriculture Department, which I believe sort of flies in the face of the idea of putting a humongous agency together in the first place. Do you believe
that creating the agency was a bad move?
Mr. DAVIS. I will give you my view. I think, I wish that we had
permanent reorganization authority, which is a bill that we are
going to be taking up later this year. That allows the executive
branch to come in with how they think an agency ought to be run,
reorganize it, and send it to Congress with an up or down vote
without amendment. Presidents from 1932 to 1984 had that authority. We didnt have it in this case. So instead of a thoroughbred
agency, since it has to go through Congress and all the jurisdictional fights, we ended up with a camel.
And I think the way it is organized right now is going to be a
continuing work in progress for many years. But I dont think the
creation of a new committee helps that. I think we are probably
better off dealing with the jurisdictions that have the expertise in
these areas and letting the government committee take the lead in
some of the aspects of bringing these areas together.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I voted against creating a new Department
of Homeland Security. I didnt see that it made a lot of sense to
take all these different functions, some of which had nothing to do
with national security, and put them in one department, but not
have intelligence in that. You have the FBI separate, you have the
CIA in a separate agency. But I lost. I voted on the losing side of
that fight. Now we have a department.
Your question was an interesting one. Who would do the authorization bill? There is not going to be an authorization bill as such
now that it is created. We dont have an authorization bill for the
Department of Health and Human Services, we dont have an authorization for other cabinet departments. But there are different
issues that come up. So we would, let us say, defer to the intelligence committee on some of the intelligence issues affecting
Homeland Security. Our committee would defer to the Energy and
Commerce Committee when it comes to those issues that are before
that committee.
But we have jurisdiction over, as Chairman Davis pointed out,
all these different governmental functions and structure and civil
service issues. And we would continue to look at that as well as our
general oversight jurisdiction which covers everything and even duplicates at the present time the oversight that the standing committees have.
So as I pointed out, we dont have oversight; the standing committees have oversight. And now we are going to create another
committee that will have oversight jurisdiction.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Well, I think what we want to do is take theirs
away. Isnt it? From the other standing committees.
Mr. WAXMAN. I think that would be a serious mistake.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Well, I agree. We would probably be hand to
hand combat, I would think.
Mr. DAVIS. Well, on procurement and civil service issues, that
would be precedential in this House, to give one agency exclusive
73
jurisdiction over those areas for their agency, and I think it would
ruin the civil service.
Mr. WAXMAN. And we havent done that for the military. There
is an Armed Service Committee that shares jurisdiction with us on
the civil service questions that affect the military. We had a bill
last year that we all went to combat over and had disagreements.
But it is important to have different committees that develop different expertise. When you have only one committeeI think that
the point has been made over and over again. When you have only
one committee, that committee tends to get to be quite comfortable
with the bureaucracy, and you dont get that kind of oversight that
you need when you have multiple committees looking at it from different perspectives. At least that is my point of view. We may have
a disagreement. But I am here just to share with you my views.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. And it is what we want. And I agree with you
thatit never occurred to me at the beginning of this that the intelligence agencies wouldnt be a part of it. It would seem to me
that they would be the backbone of it.
Mr. WAXMAN. You would have thought.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. And I was really quite struck with the fact that
they did not care to join. And I do think that that weakens the
whole Department. Nonetheless, we have it, and we do need to
know what to do with it. Thank you both very much.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Ms. Dunn.
Ms. DUNN. Thanks for being here. We are interested in getting
your perception on how this should move. Who would you say,
which committee would you say that should be the primary, the
committee of primary jurisdiction over Homeland Security?
Mr. DAVIS. I think, I mean, as in the Senate model, the Senate
Government Affairs Committee has the primary jurisdiction. Now,
when I say primary jurisdiction, we are talking about agency reorganization issues, issues that occur when you are taking 27 different agencies and 170,000 people, putting them together, keeping
them to their mission, something that Chairman Cox mentioned
earlier. That is what we do. Those are the kinds of governance
issues that we do.
When it comes to individual jurisdictional issues like the Center
for Disease Control, Immigration, some of those issues, we would
obviously defer to the committees on expertise.
Mr. WAXMAN. Could you tell me who has primary jurisdiction
over the Department of Health and Human Services under the
House rules? I know that the Ways and Means Committee has a
lot of say over the various aspects of that committees jurisdiction,
as does the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Ag Committee. I dont know what would bewhat benefit there would be
in saying any which one of those committees should be the primary
committee. They should be thethey should have jurisdiction over
those issues where they had written into the rules as their overview on those policy issues and as it affects the Department of
Health and Human Services, and that is how they interact.
So I am not convinced that we need a single primary committee
to be designated with primary jurisdiction.
Ms. DUNN. There are some people who have told our committee
in testimony, former speakers, for example, but also others includ-
74
ing the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the House intel
community, that this responsibility is of the primary importance,
like the top responsibility now of the United States Congress. Do
you believe that we can carry out this responsibility adequately
with the committee system that we have now, and bring to it adequate focus to make sure that we are taking on the responsibilities
that our constituents expect us to carry on their behalf, considering
this is something that is really quite new in our lexicon since 9/
11?
Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Dunn, I would start in saying I think you would
do a better job under the older system than the existing for this
reason: You keepthe Intelligence Committee isnt woven into the
new Homeland, Security Committee. That is a central function of
the agency, to kind of correlate some of those areas. They have all
the different intelligence agencies, but they have got to collate it
and put it together.
On issues pertaining to bioterrorism, those kind of issues, those
are issues that you need to bring the CDC in some of those areas.
Congress pays a lot of attention, they have held more hearings
this year on those issues than they ordinarily would because of the
bioterrorism effect and the homeland. It is good to have a lot of
people engaged in this, not a select group. And I think there is a
tendency when you assign a cabinet department to a committee to
get a certain coziness up there on these issues that you dont get
when you have a lot of other committees that can participate in the
process.
You are going to continue to have jurisdictional fights even as
this is envisioned, but we have precedent for a lot of these fights
at this point. This brings whole new areas of precedents. One of the
biggest controversies for this committee right now is on its civil
service aspects and its human capital issues. Are you going to give
it to that committee, or does it stay with Government Reform who
deals with this across government? Those are the kind of issues
that I think still arent addressed by setting up a new committee.
And, in fact, I think you set up some needless clashes. I mean, that
is just my reaction to it.
Mr. WAXMAN. I certainly agree with that point of view. And I
think we can do the job effectively with using the Senate model,
which is, as we pointed out, to use the existing committees of jurisdiction, not to create a new one. If every time we have a new problem in this country we create a new committee and overlapping jurisdictions, it seems to me that there is no end to it. And I think
we ought to decide what is the rational way to handle this thing
without spending taxpayers money.
We have got to use that moneywe have got to spend less
money here so we can give more tax breaks to billionaires. And,
therefore, I dont want us to waste that money on another standing
committee called Homeland Security if it is not going to give us
any more benefit in dealing with the oversight that Congress
should be exercising. Of course, I say that tongue in cheek.
Mr. DAVIS. I wanted to clarify that. I am not for protecting billionaires. Well, they all live in your district.
75
Mr. WAXMAN. I also dont want the deficits that we are going to
see with this attitude of let us just keep spending and keep borrowing.
Ms. DUNN. You are staying right on message, Ranking Member.
I think the comment that is obvious on your comment that why
start a new committee for every problem that comes along. This is
a unique problem and it is a serious problem, and it could very well
be the most serious problem we have ever faced in the history of
our Nation, and I think it is very important to have a strong response. And I would simply ask you, as a follow-up, which committee would be the coordinating committee of all the responsibilities? For example, as we try to establish inner communication
among agencies, the sort of thing that is necessary that we felt we
had a lack of under 9/11?
Mr. DAVIS. That is under the purview of Government Reform. All
government organizational issues come under the Government Reform Committee. That is traditionally what has happened. So on
those kind of issues where you dont need specific expertise but
really the expertise in governance, those are the issues we deal
with every day because we have jurisdiction and oversight over
every agency of government in calling attention to those kind of
things.
You dont necessarily make the problem better by throwing a
committee at it. In some ways, you can make it worse. And that
isI mean, I guess if I say anything to you, we need to think very
carefully about by adding another committee on here on top of everything else, are you discouraging other committees from having
oversight, from taking an interest in this, taking an outside perspective, by putting it within a committee? I think this could work
very well under the Senate model. And I usually dont say that, but
I think in this particular case it works.
Ms. DUNN. And I would say, Mr. Chairman, on the other hand
I think it works far better when you have a committee of jurisdiction with focus on the problem being the committee in charge working with committees of other jurisdictions in combined efforts on
authorization bills, for example. Thank you.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you both very much.
I believe we have on behalf of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, Mr. Mica. Welcome. The ranking member Mr.
Oberstar will be coming?
Mr. MICA. I think he is on his way. But if you wanted, I could
proceed.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you for being here, and we welcome and
look forward to your testimony.
Mr. MICA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Slaughter and members of the committee.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Oberstar, please, welcome.
76
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN MICA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. MICA. Mr. Oberstar and I are pleased to be here to share our
views about the future of the Homeland Security Committee with
you today.
Last year, I did not believe a Homeland Security Committee was
necessary for the House to use to specifically address terrorism.
Not much has happened since that time to change my mind. Any
time you combine 170,000 Federal employees and some 22 agencies, it raises my concern and eyebrows.
Some have argued that a separate committee focused solely on
Homeland Security is necessary to address terrorism. This assumes
that the standing committees are incapable or uninterested in oversight and producing effective legislation. It also presumes that a
new committee with little subject matter, expertise, or institutional
knowledge can produce better Homeland Security legislation. I am
afraid this argument is flawed, and the evidence points to exact opposite conclusion.
The standing committees have thefirst of all, the standing committees do have the expertise to address terrorism. We had been
focused on the terrorist threat long before the country woke up to
terrorism on September 11th, and the standing committees have
drafted almost all of the Homeland Security legislation. Several
chairmen and ranking members have testified the House needs the
standing committees expertise to address terrorism. Their advice
should not be taken lightly for they know their issues better than
anyone.
This isnt about turf, it is, in fact, about which committees and
what organization can best prepare our country for terrorism.
Members cant be experts on everything. We all know that. And
that is why we have in Congress committees. And that type of expertise takes years and years and decades to develop. The Senate
recognizes this fact, and it has not changed its existing committee
structure.
To use aviation as an example, I can safely say that nobody in
the House knows more about aviation or aviation security than our
subcommittee and its members. Just between the members that we
have on the committee now, I will bet we have close to 50 years
experience with aviation issues, not to mention the expertise of a
staff that has dealt with these issues and actually drafting most of
the legislation that deals with terrorist threat in aviation and
transportation.
It should be no surprise that a thorough understanding of the
aviation system is required to produce effective aviation security
legislation. The aviation system is based on a careful balance of
highly complex regulations, procedures, infrastructure, engineering.
And this system in fact has produced the worlds safest aviation industry. Preserving that balance is impossible without the expertise
that comes from working on these issues for years.
And I tell you, I have been on that subcommittee for 12 years,
I have had the honor to serve for 4 years as the Chair. I served
under Mr. Oberstar when he chaired that subcommittee. And we
77
may or not always agree, Mr. Oberstar and myself, but I am telling
you that we know these subjects unlike anyone else in the House,
and you lose that expertise if you move this jurisdiction away.
The problem has never been a lack of focus or interest by the
standing committees. Rather, the missing ingredient was a national consensus that terrorism should be a top priority. Congress
as a whole reflected the national will and has been unable to make
the tough choices terrorism required. And that, we know, is a part
of our history, unfortunately, today.
9/11 changed that, and within days or a few weeks the standing
committees had legislation ready. Back in 1990, we mandated
background checks for aviation personnel, began deploying bomb
detection devices at our airport; we built FEMA, which helped New
York and Washington respond to 9/11 and much of the rest of the
country. We created TSA, fortified cockpit doors, armed pilots, put
marshals back in the sky, developed a whole host of comprehensive
approaches not only to aviation, but also to transportation security.
We stabilized the aviation industry, passed the Maritime Security Act, and created port security grants.
In a few days, we will introduce legislation that will protect airliners from another threat, and that is one of shoulder-launched
fired missiles.
The standing committees have always led the way on terrorism
and will continue to do so. Legislative jurisdiction should not under
any circumstances be wholly transferred from the standing committees to a permanent Homeland Security Committee. This would severely limit the Houses ability to produce effective terrorism legislation.
In closing, there is no substitute for expertise, institutional
knowledge, and experience. You need all of that to get results. And
the standing committees and their staffs with years and years of
expertise again looking at systems rather thanand the whole
problem that we face and challenges that we face rather than little
parts of it is the type of and depth of knowledge and experience
that we should have.
I would like to turn now to Mr. Oberstar, and I am sure he has
comments.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS, FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA, AND CHAIRMAN,
COMMITTE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
share my views about the future of the Select Homeland Security Committee with
you.
Some have argued that a separate standing committee, focused solely on homeland security, is necessary for the House to perform its oversight role on the new
Department of Homeland Security. This assumes that the standing committees
arent up to this important task; that somehow the standing committees are either
incapable or uninterested in oversight and producing effective homeland security
legislation. t also presumes that a new committee, with little subject matter expertise or institutional knowledge can produce better legislation than the standing committees.
This argument is flawed, and the evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion.
An fact, only the standing committees have the expertise and institutional knowledge necessary to address terrorism. Other than the Homeland Security Act and its
technical corrections bill, the standing committees have drafted every single piece
of homeland security legislation. And we were focused on the terrorist threat long
before the country woke up to terrorism on 9/11.
78
The standing committees have always led the way on terrorism, and they still do.
The Senate recognizes this fact, and has not changed its existing committee structure.
As most of you know, I did not believe a Homeland Security Committee was necessary for the House to address the terrorist threat last year, and not much has
happened since then to change my mind.
Homeland security is an important issue and terrorism is a serious threat, but
the standing committees are best prepared to address these threats. The standing
committees have the Member expertise, institutional knowledge, and a proven track
record of homeland security legislation.
Member expertise and institutional knowledge are absolutely essential to producing effective legislation. Members cant be experts on everything. Thats why we
have committees. And that type of expertise takes years and even decades to develop.
The homeland security role of the agencies that make up the department is not
a separate and distinct function from their traditional missions; rather, it can only
be effectively accomplished within the context of those missions.
It should be no surprise that a thorough understanding of the aviation system is
required to produce effective aviation security legislation, or that one needs to understand the pharmaceutical industry and our health care system to draft an effective bioterrorism bill. Only members with a thorough understanding of these traditional missions will be able to craft effective legislation that addresses the homeland
security aspect of these agencies.
To use aviation as an example, I can safely say that nobody in the House knows
more about aviation. . .. or aviation security, than Subcommittee Chairman Mica
and Ranking Member Oberstar. Collectively those two Members have close to fifty
years experience with aviation.
The U.S. aviation system is based on a careful balance of highly complex rules,
regulations, procedures, infrastructure, and engineering. This system has produced
the worlds safest aviation industry. Preserving that balance is impossible without
the expertise that comes from having dealt with these issues for many years, as the
members of the Transportation Committee have.
Aviation safety and security are closely linked, especially in such areas as air traffic control, aircraft maintenance, missile threats, passenger control, and aircraft operating procedures. Even minor policy changes can have wide-ranging negative impacts on other aspects of aviation.
The point Im making with aviation is true in other areas as well. The agencies
traditional and homeland security missions are intertwined, and you need to understand one to effectively address the other.
While you may be able to draw a distinction between these missions in the House
Rules, it doesnt exist on a Coast Guard cutter patrolling our coasts or on the street
with first responders. In the real world, those missions are linked, and our policy
in Washington should reflect that reality.
In addition to having the expertise to address terrorism, the standing committees
have focused on this threat for years.
At this point, I would like to read part of a statement that was given by a colleague of mine on the House floor. The issue at hand was preparing our first responders for a terrorist attack.
The pictures of that awful day are a sobering reminder of the new threats of evil
that Americans face, but they also remind us of how grossly unprepared our Nation
was and still is to respond to such a disaster.
This bill will not prevent a terrorist attack. However, it will help us prepare for
the inevitable and ensure that our emergency personnel have the right training and
equipment to save lives.
Chairwoman Tillie Fowler of our Emergency Management Subcommittee made
those remarks on July 25th, 2000. The House passed the Preparedness Against Terrorism Act that day, by unanimous voice vote, but it never made it out of the Senate.
The standing committees have a long history of focusing on terrorism and crafting
legislation to address it. The problem has never been a lack of focus or interest by
the standing committees; rather, the missing ingredient was a national consensus
that terrorism should be a top priority. And Congress, as a whole, reflected the national will and was unable to commit sufficient resources or make the tough policy
choices terrorism required.
9/11 changed that, and within days or a few weeks the standing committees had
legislation ready. This was possible because the standing committees had worked
on these issues for years. They knew what the major problems were and how to
solve them.
79
The Transportation Committee has a long and proven record of protecting the nation from terrorism. For your review, I have included a list of bills produced by our
committee with my testimony. They range from the Aviation Security Act of 1989
to the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Authorization Act of 2004.
Similarly, the other standing committees have produced a long list of bills protecting the country from terrorism.
In short, the standing committees have the expertise and institutional knowledge,
theyre focused on the threat, and they have moved virtually all of the homeland
security legislation.
If the Rules Committee, the Leadership, and the House ultimately decide to have
a permanent Homeland Security Committee, then so be it. It wont be the first time
theyve ignored my advice, but please dont ignore the expertise of the standing committees. The House and the nation need them to meet the challenge of terrorism.
If the House must have a permanent committee, then a select committee with
oversight jurisdiction could focus the Houses oversight over the Department without
diminishing its ability to produce effective legislation.
If the House creates a permanent committee with legislative jurisdiction, then it
must preserve the standing committees jurisdiction to ensure their expertise is utilized in drafting homeland security legislation.
While not ideal, shared jurisdiction is quite common and manageable in the
House. The Parliamentarian has already testified that the Speaker has all the authority he needs to manage overlapping jurisdiction. In this case, the negative procedural aspects of shared jurisdiction are far outweighed by the substantive requirement to produce effective legislation.
Likewise, the perceived burden of having DHS report to multiple committees is
far outweighed by the need for congressional expertise and effective legislation.
Most departments report to multiple committees without impact on their ability to
fulfill their missions.
Exclusive legislative jurisdiction should not be transferred from the standing committees to a permanent homeland security committee. This could severely limit the
Houses ability to effectively address terrorism through legislation.
In closing, let me say that addressing terrorism is first and foremost a question
of substance, not process. We must have the right Members and committees working
on the problem, and then make sure the process enables them to get the job done.
There is no substitute for expertise, institutional knowledge, and experience. You
need them to get results, and the standing committees are the only place where that
depth of knowledge and experience exists.
The stakes are too high to cast them aside.
Thank you.
The following is a list of major terrorism legislation produced by the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure:
The Aviation Security Act of 1989
The Aviation Security Act of 1990
The Railroad and Transit Sabotage Prevention Act of 1995
The Federal Protective Service Reform Act of 1999
The Preparedness Against Terrorism Act of 2000
The Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000
The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001
The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001
The Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act of 2002
The Extended Unemployment Assistance Act of 2002
The Federal Property Protection Act of 2002
Title 14 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
The Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002
The Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2003
Over-the-Road Bus Security and Safety Act of 2003
Title 6 of the Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act of 2003
The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Authorization Act of 2004
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Oberstar.
80
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES OBERSTAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, AND RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCUTE
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the Chair
of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Mica, for a splendid presentation. Chairman Young and I have concurred in the views just expressed and the views that I will express.
As Chairman Mica said, I spent a great deal of time on aviation
issues, and in my role as chair of the Investigations and Oversight
Subcommittee held first hearings in the House in closed session, I
would say, on aviation security in 1987 and 1988, and in the aftermath of Pan Am 103, at the request of the Bush administration,
introduced legislation, created a commission, a Presidential Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism, on which I served and
the ranking member of the full committee at the time, Congressman John Paul Hammersmith of Arkansas and Senators DAmato
and Lautenberg, as well as three public members appointed by the
President.
We followed the route of Pan Am 103, we talked to all the international security experts in the European Community and in the
UK, and all the way through Scotland Yard to a constable at
Lockerbie, and crafted legislationalso from our own national security interests. We crafted legislation that is the basic bill on aviation security that formed this Nations view of matters, until the
major transformation and the aftermath of September 11th.
Regrettably, not all of the recommendations of the Commission
were fully enforced and carried through by the various agencies of
the Department of Transportation.
The point is, it began with our committee, Aviation Security. And
when September 11th struck, as Chairman Mica said, we took this
whole issue to a much higher level where most of us members of
the Pan Am 103 Commission wanted to go but couldnt because of
various institutional resistance.
The point is, you bring to bear the experience, the history, the
knowledge, the understanding of multiplicity of security issues to
bear on the issue before you as a member of the standing committee.
In the aftermath of the aviation security bill, we worked together
on our committee to craft the maritime security, which was called
the port security bill. And we took many of the experiences from
aviation and applied them to ports. Again, what was missing from
the port security bill was a mechanism for funding the port security initiatives that were necessary, unlike aviation where we do
have an aviation security fee that provides a steady stream of funding. Again, had our committees experience and recommendations
been followed, there would have been a port security fee applied
and a revenue stream for ports to carry through.
So, now your select committee is in the process of deciding where
to go in the future; and with Chairman Mica, I urge you to consider
this wealth of expertise and continuity of service and understanding of substantive issues in security and the interrelationship
between safety matters and security. We drew considerably on
aviation safety in crafting aviation security, layering redundancy,
81
backup systems in order to develop a sound safety and security system.
Our committee also has jurisdiction over the Coast Guard. The
Coast Guard has been absorbed into the Department of Homeland
Security despite the objections of Chairman Young and myself. We
met with the President, appealed to him to keep the Coast Guard
out of the Department of Homeland Security. Why? Because Coast
Guard has responsibilities not directly related to security: Commercial safety inspections, licensing of mariners, registering vessels,
maintaining buoys, navigation aids, recreation boating recalls, and
search and rescue functions. We pointed out, who is going to delineate for the Coast Guard when a search and rescue mission morphs
into or becomes diverted to a security mission? That is a matter
that our committee needs to understand, needs to deal with, because we under the interrelationships. We have the staff, we have
the institutional memory, we have the understanding to deal with
those.
FEMA is another one. FEMA deals with disasters of all kinds,
both natural disasters and manmade such as September 11th. We
felt that FEMA should be kept separate, but if not, at least our
committees jurisdiction should prevail both with Coast Guard and
with FEMA. We believe that we understand the interrelationship
of various functions of the agencies of which we have jurisdiction
and how best to coordinate security and safety and other mainline
missions of the various agencies that have been subsumed into
Homeland Security.
Some security measures in aviation will have an adverse impact
on travel times. Secretary Mineta has said he wants world class security with world class service. How to get there? I think our committee understands how to do that. We have contributed a great
deal of time to the deliberation on these issues. And while we
might start out with differing viewpoints, we generally come to a
consensus position on the underlying legislation and then work to
ensure that it is well carried out.
So I urge this committee to keep in mind this body of expertise,
that not only ours but other authorizing committees, standing committees have in matters such as the one you are considering and,
more importantly, the interrelationship with other functions of
these departments and agencies that are not security but may have
relationship to security, and let us continue to attend to the needs
and craft the legislation and shape the future missions of these
agencies in a way that will be supportive of security but also respectful of the historic functions of say, Coast Guard, aviation,
FEMA, and our maritime system. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you both.
Mr. OBERSTAR. And Ranking Member Slaughter.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES L. OBERSTAR
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Slaughter, and Members of the Committee, Im
pleased to have this opportunity to discuss with you how we should organize our
Committee structure to deal with the new Department of Homeland Security (the
Department).
During my 29 years in Congress I have given high priority to security, particularly the security of our transportation system.
In 1988, after the terrorist attack on Pam Am Flight 103, I authored legislation
creating the Presidents Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism. I was priv-
82
ileged to serve as a Member of that Commission. When the Commission completed
its work, I introduced legislation embodying its recommendations, and these recommendations were the basis for the landmark Aviation Security Improvement Act
of 1990.
Following the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, I was actively involved in developing
the Aviation & Transportation Security Act of 2001, which transferred security responsibilities from the airlines and private contractors to the Federal Government.
I was actively involved in developing the Maritime Transportation Security Act of
2002, which established a new security system for vessels and facilities along the
navigatable waters of the United States.
Todays hearing focuses on the future role of the Select Committee on Homeland
Security. Your Committee provided badly needed oversight as the new Department
of Homeland Security began the difficult task of moving and integrating scores of
government departments, with more than 180,000 employees. The Select Committee
did a commendable job of overseeing the process of organizing the new Department,
but the decisions on policy should remainas it currently doeswith the Committees that have the history and expertise in these areas.
Recently, there have been proposals to expand the jurisdiction of the Select Committee, to give it primary jurisdiction over all legislation affecting the Homeland Security Department and all of the agencies incorporated in the Department. I strongly oppose this change because I believe it would undermine our effectiveness in
overseeing the Departments and its agencies.
A first difficulty is that the agencies making up the Department have many responsibilities that are not related to security. I will focus on agencies within the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committees jurisdiction; I expect that the other
Committees with jurisdiction over Homeland Security issues will do the same for
their agencies.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (T&I Committee) has legislative responsibility over several agencies with both security and non-security functions that have been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. For example, the Coast Guard has numerous responsibilities that are not directly related
to security. The Coast Guard conducts commercial safety inspections; it licenses
mariners; it has a system for registering vessels; it establishes and maintains buoys
and other navigation aids, and it has responsibility for recreation boating recalls.
The issues involving these responsibilities are complex, having evolved over many
years. The T&I Committee has the Member expertise, the staff and the institutional
memory to deal with these issues. I believe that the quality of Congressional oversight and legislation on these issues would be diminished if a new Committee was
simply given responsibilities for all these issues. It could take years for the new
Committee to develop the institutional background and expertise that currently resides in our Committee.
The T&I Committee also has legislative responsibility over the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was transferred to the Department of
Homeland Security and split in two. FEMA has the responsibility to prepare for and
respond to disasters of all kindsboth natural, such as hurricanes and floods, and
manmade. Since FEMAs creation in 1979, the Transportation Committee has prepared and reported numerous pieces of legislation designed to further FEMAs allhazards mission. I am concerned that this history and experience would be lost if
oversight of FEMA is permanently transferred to the Select Committee, and that,
in a Committee focused on terrorism and security issues, FEMAs traditional, and
critically important, mission of preparing for and responding to natural disasters
may not receive the attention and oversight that they deserve.
Our Committee is also the best equipped to deal with security issues affecting
transportation. As I have already mentioned, our Committee developed the landmark Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990 (P.L. 101604), which mandated
background checks for airline and airport employees and the deployment of bomb
detection equipment for baggage at our nations airports. During the 1990s, our
Committee continued to respond to the changing security needs through oversight
and legislation. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, the T&I Committee
drafted and marked-up the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001
(ATSA). ATSA established a new Transportation Security Administration (TSA),
Federalized the screening workforce, and required the screening of all checked baggage to protect against terrorist threats.
While TSA was transferred to the newly created Department of Homeland Security, our Committee retained its jurisdiction over TSAs transportation security activities. Since September 11th, our Aviation Subcommittee has held 16 hearings focusing on all aspects of security, including the deployment and use of security technology, general aviation, checked baggage screening systems, the computer assisted
83
passenger pre-screening system, flight deck officer program, defense systems against
missiles, and the financial impact of security on the aviation industry. Clearly our
Committee has the expertise and the commitment to deal with aviation and other
transportation related security. It would take a new Committee years to develop the
background and expertise necessary to effectively deal with these issues.
Moreover, it is important to have a single Committee balance the needs of security with those of safety, and the efficiency of our transportation system. The safety
and efficiency of our transportation system are the responsibility of the Department
of Transportation and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure oversees
these programs.
To illustrate these interrelationships, some aviation security decisions have safety
implications, and there is a need to balance possible security benefits against possible safety risks. For example, there may be safety risks if pilots are armed and
fire shots which damage the aircraft. Similarly, if equipment is added to the body
of aircraft to counteract missiles fired from the ground there may be an effect on
aerodynamics and safety.
There is also a need to balance security needs with the continued viability of our
transportation system. Some security measures will add greatly to the time required
for passengers to travel, or limit the ability of our transportation system to provide
for the efficient movement of cargo. These needs must be balanced with security
benefits and weighed against the costs of benefits and alternative measures. Aviation is an $800 billion sector of the U.S. national economy and the cornerstone upon
which all other sectors rely to make economic progress. The opportunity, both in the
U.S. and abroad, to travel for business has fostered a tremendous growth in electronics and aircraft manufacturing, communications, and tourism, which supports a
$1.6 billion sector worldwide.
Much of our economy depends on a just in time delivery system using all modes
of transportation. If security measures undermine the effectiveness of this system,
factory lines may shut down and retail stores may find it difficult to obtain the
goods that Americans need in their daily lives. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has a long history of dealing with the tradeoffs between safety, security and economics. Again, I am concerned that a new Committee would lack the
background and expertise to most effectively deal with these issues, and that we
could lose the expertise that has developed over the years, or in may case, the nearly three decades of working with these issues. It is not enough to say that Members
with particular areas of expertise will have an opportunity to be heard on these
issues. The most effective way to influence policy is to be part of the debate and
discussion in the early stages of policy formation; simply voting yes or no when legislation makes it to the House floor is generally not sufficient participation to craft
policy.
Supporters of consolidating all jurisdiction over the Department in one congressional committee argue that it is inefficient and distracting for the Department to
have to deal with several committees. These arguments ignore the fact that the system of Committees we have established in the House is not based on an exclusive
one to one relationship between each Committee and a cabinet agency; rather our
Committee system is based on subject matter such as, science, small business, government reform, international relations, or infrastructure. These issues are spread
over a number of different cabinet agencies.
In short, we have developed a system in which each cabinet agency is within the
jurisdiction of several congressional committees. I have attached a chart to my testimony that lists which House Committees oversee the different cabinet agencies. It
indicates that most departments are responsible for reporting to at least 10 congressional committees. A number of departments have different committees overseeing
major portions of their responsibilities. Keeping the status quo for the Department
of Homeland Security would not place the Department in a different position than
other cabinet agencies.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Slaughter and Members of the Subcommittee,
I strongly believe that congressional role in security will be most effective if we continue the Committee jurisdiction which is now in place.
AGENCY:
HOUSE COMMITTEES HAVING JURISDICTION:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
- Agriculture Committee
- Resources Committee
- Government Reform Committee
- Financial Services Committee
- International Relations Committee
84
- Small Business Committee
- Select Com. On Homeland Security
- Budget Committee
- Appropriations Committee
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
- Energy & Commerce Committee
- Ways & Means Committee
- Science Committee
- Judiciary Committee
- Transportation & Infrastructure Com.
- Budget Committee
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
- Armed Services Committee
- Veterans Affairs Committee
- Education & the Workforce Committee
- Intelligence Committee
- Budget Committee
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
- Science Committee
- House Administration Committee
- Budget Committee
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
- Science Committee
- Budget Committee
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
- Science Committee
- Select Com. on Homeland Security
- Budget Committee
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
85
- Science Committee
- Budget Committee
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSE AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
- Budget Committee
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
- Science Committee
- Justice Committee
- Budget Committee
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
- Veterans Committee
- Budget Committee
Appropriations Committee
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
- Science Committee
- Budget Committee
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
- International Relations
86
-
Financial Services Committee

Intelligence Committee
Armed Services Committee
Resources Committee
Science Committee
Judiciary Committee
Transportation & Infrastructure Com.
Energy & Commerce Committee
Small Business Committee
Ways & Means Committee
Government Reform Committee
Select Com. on Homeland Security
Budget Committee
Appropriations Committee
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
- Science Committee
- Education & Labor Committee
- Budget Committee
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
- Budget Committee
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANs ADMINISTRATION
- Budget Committee
* Resources used: Congressional Quarterlys Washington Information Directory,
Agencies Congressional Testimony and phone calls to Agencies Congressional Affairs offices.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Mica, you made emphasis on aviation, of

which you both have tremendous expertise in that area. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 revealed, among other things, a lack
of integration between Federal agencies involved with aviation security and those involved with border and immigration issues.
Could you educate us on what your committee has done to address
the integration of aviation security with other relevant Homeland
Security missions?
Mr. MICA. Well, that is a good example, Mr. Chairman.
87
The Homeland Security agency thatour department we created
really doesnt do much to protect us. In fact, I think it has bogged
the process down for the most part. It is at best an ineffective cumbersome additional layer of bureaucracy.
Let me give you a good example. What say do you have over the
State Department? None. Who issued the visas for the terrorists?
The State Department. Who got the informationwho should have
had the information about bad guys and gotten it to the State Department employees who were issuing the visas? That would be the
CIA. You dont have any say over the CIA, the State Department;
you dragged in Secret Service, but you dont have the FBI included.
What is the purpose of this Homeland Security committee?
Shouldntand the Department? Shouldnt it be, first of all, prevention? And then, secondly, it should be coordination of all of the
Homeland Security things that protect us. And I submit it doesnt
do it.
Just in the aviation area, it has created another layer of bureaucracy. I havent been able to get a damned answer out of anybody
in Homeland Security since they took over. In fact, now you have
this game of Under Secretary or assistants to Tom Ridge, and then
you have Ridge up here. Try to get something done with TSA, and
it is almost impossible to get anyone to move because of the new
layers of bureaucracy that we go through.
So I am telling you that rather than improve the situation, I
think it has complicated the situation and we are less safe as a result of the new bureaucracy and impediments that have been in
place.
If the committee is looking for something to do, look at coordinating some of these government activities.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Let me supplement, if I may, the Chairmans response in two points. In the report of the Presidential Commission
on Aviation Security and Terrorism, the Pan Am 103 Commission,
we recommended the establishment within the Executive Branch of
a central entity whose job would be to coordinate intelligence gathered at home and abroad, and to disseminate that intelligence on
aviation security matters to all relevant agencies. We also proposed
the establishment within the Department of Transportation of an
Assistant Secretariat for Aviation Security. That latter was objected to by the administration, so Mr. Hammersmith and I agreed
on an advisor to the Secretary, an assistant to the Secretary For
Aviation Security.
Second, and we were way ahead. Had that recommendation been
implemented, there would have been coordination of information
from all of the relevant security and intelligence agencies in advance of September 11th, and the ability to evaluate and disseminate information properly.
Secondly, in the transportation security bill that we wrote in our
committee, we required at thebecause that was our jurisdiction,
Department of Transportation, coordination among all the modes of
transportation for security purposes. It would be up to thewe anticipated it would be up to the, if there were a Department of Security, to coordinate with the intelligence agencies. But we foresaw
that need, and we crafted the language to require coordination
within the Department of all the modes on all aspects of transpor-
88
tation security so that there would be cross-fertilizing, if you will,
one another.
Mr. MICA. Might I just add something here. We crafted in the
original TSA bill, we worked on this together, exactly what Mr.
Oberstar said. We saw that you needed a coordination of information about bad guys and intelligence. That is one thing that was
lacking. That was in the TSA bill. When you created the Homeland
Security bill, it was transferred over there. So what we started was
transferred over there. They have since created, I guess, an agency
to do something on that. We had them in last week. They still dont
have a watchlist, they still do not have a coordinated list that we
asked for when we created the original TSA entity. And who is in
charge of that? Are you in charge? Is Homeland Security in charge
of that?
You see, what we have created hasnt gotten us to where we
should have been a year ago. It actually delayed the process, and
now it is sort que pasa as far as who is responsible.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mrs. Slaughter.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I just have one question I would like to ask of
both of you. If the legislative authority for DHS is given to a committee, standing committee, how would you deal with the authorization of, let us say, Coast Guard and FEMA which has both the
DHS responsibilities as well as domestic responsibilities of other
types?
Mr. MICA. Again, I think you need to go back and look at the
core of how we created Homeland Security. It should be for prevention, it should be for coordination. Coordination across the board.
And then for oversight. I think those are the important missions.
Leave the standing jurisdiction with the committees and their expertise, and your folks areyour folks mission or the folks on this
committee, if we have a committee, a select committee or whatever
it is, standing committee, is a coordinating effort to see that things
are moving forward, or at least some better oversight of what has
been created and pushed into Homeland Security.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I would supplement that comment and in support
of it by saying that not all cabinet departments have a single authorizing committee over all the jurisdiction within that department. For example, within DOT in the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration where we do the roadway rules for road
physical safety matters, the Energy and Commerce Committee has
jurisdiction over the vehicle that goes on that roadway. And not all
cabinet agencies have a single authorization bill for the entire department. We do a separate authorization within our Committee
for FAA, a separate one for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, we are doing a separate authorization for the Federal
Highway and Transit Administration. We do a separate authorization bill for pipeline safety and so on. I need not cite all of them.
So in some cases there, as in the case of highway safety on vehicle side, we share that with the Energy and Commerce Committee
with whom we work, we share some aspects of pipeline safety with
the Energy and Commerce Committee with whom we work those
matters out. So I think leaving the authorization process in the
hands of the standing committees has worked very well. It also
provides multiplicity of oversight.
89
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you both.
Mr. COX. Thank you.
I want to congratulate both of you for giving very cogent testimony, and thank you for being here and for the work that went
into preparing the testimony for the rules subcommittee. As you
know, the Chairman of the subcommittee has done a lot of work
over a period of a year and a half really examining this question
from a big picture standpoint. And the contribution that you have
made today I think is very, very helpful. And I agree with much
of it.
In particular, Chairman Mica, I agree with your dichotomy between the functional responsibility of the standing committees that
have long existed in the House to deal with all the pre-9/11 real
world, and the industries that are allocated committee by committee within their respective jurisdictions. We will hear from the
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee shortly that he supports the creation of a permanent committee, provided that the jurisdiction of Ways and Means with respect to Customs, specifically
the Customs missions as they relate to trade and revenue is preserved. And that makes sense if you have got a focus on Homeland
Security, because Homeland Security is not about trade, except
with a really expansive and I think dangerous definition.
It is not about revenue. And that is what Ways and Means is all
about. We may have a more difficult nut to crack with aviation
simply because the mode of attack on 9/11 was airplanes, and as
a result Congress rather rapidly passed what we thought was remedial legislation. But it may not provide the model for what we
want to do everywhere. I mean, we may have learned some things
about our response that we wish we could improve upon. And I
would hope that it would be the responsibility, the continuing responsibility of the Transportation Infrastructure Committee to be
responsible for those things.
Specifically, I would hope that even though we deregulated aviation in 1978, as you know, it is heavily regulated, and I would hope
it would be the continuing responsibility of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure to be responsible for regulation
of that industry. I would hope that it would be the continuing responsibility of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to look
after regulation of the nuclear industry and the chemical industry,
and so on, all the way through the Congress, because that expertise
has been developed over a long period of time and because it involves so much more than Homeland Security.
So your formula is one that at least insofar as I understand your
presentation of it agrees with mine, and that is, that you have got
a Department of Homeland Security that is focused on prevention,
protection, and response, and is not going to become the regulator
of every aspect of American life; it is not going to become the regulator of every aspect of American commerce. But, as I have said,
before other panels have testified today, I think there is a risk the
Department could morph into those things.
And that is one of the reasons that we want very, very strenuous
oversight from the Congress that created it so recently, because if
the Department, which surely is going to exist indefinitely, if the
90
new cabinet department history suggests they dont go away, is
going to grow. And if it is going to grow and last indefinitely, then
it needs to stay focused, and it needs to stay focused on protecting
Americans and our security and not get into all these other areas.
And we will lose our competitiveness in all these industries if we
regulate them not with a view to the big picture, which includes
competition of global commerce, job creation, investment, in the
case of transportation safety and all these other things.
If we have on the blinders of security and that is all, and then
we becomewe, the Department of Homeland Security in this case,
become the regulators of all these industries, then the regulation
will suffer, the industries will suffer, the country will suffer, and
it wont work. So I think that dichotomy makes a great deal of
sense. And it is just as important that we circumscribe the mission
of the Department of Homeland Security as it is that we respect
the traditional jurisdictions of the committees. And I think they go
hand in hand.
But I would appreciate any further comment you want to make
on that. I am just trying to, I guess, express my gratitude for and
agreement with much of what you said.
Mr. OBERSTAR. If the Chairman permit. Chairman Young was
particularly insistent on addressing vigorously the Coast Guard
matter, and it falls in line with what you have said, Chairman Cox.
I would call your attention to the authorizing language for the U.S.
Coast Guard. It is what I call an itinerant agency. It started out
as the revenue cutter service in 1789, the oldest agency of the Federal Government. But the authorizing language says or refers to
the agent in conferring power: The Secretary of the Department in
which the Coast Guard resides. Every other authorization refers to
the Secretary.
FAA, we mean by that, the Secretary of Transportation. But the
Coast Guard has moved around so many times. But when it has
moved from an independent entity to the Naval Department, and
then to the War Department and then to the Commerce Department, and to the Treasury Department, and then back to Commerce and then to the Department of Transportation, it has moved
intact. Jurisdiction over its functions was not shared among committees of either the House or the Senate. And that is what Chairman Young wants to see, is this jurisdiction remains intact and as
you suggested. So we can address all these other responsibilities of
the Coast Guard in the context of security and weave security into
the total role of the Coast Guard.
Mr. MICA. If I may. There are some functional responsibilities
that Homeland Security, the Department has inherited that they
are responsible for, and that is important and I think your committee should look at some of those things.
Let me say that I have great concern about the Homeland Security Committee and also the Department we created. It has huge
gaps in it. For example, let me give you just two practical examples
that I have worked on this week. Biometric standards. And Ms.
Slaughter talkedwe were talking about, you know, what happened before September 11th. We still do not have an acceptable
biometrics standard that is acceptable by all agencies. I have 328
agencies that have various firecarrying firearms on airplanes. I
91
have no biometric identification standard. What is interesting, this
week I found out State Department through their Visit U.S.A., is
developing a biometric standard to be put in passports and visas.
Who the hell is coordinating this stuff? We are 2 years out. We
dont have an ID card for people who work at an airport because
nobody will make or coordinate a decision. And I have got one
agency hung out here making those kinds of decision. And I am
thinking, well, if they adopt that and it doesnt go with this, somebody needs to be in charge of this stuff, folks.
This morning I had a briefing with the CIAI cant go into all
the details, but we are concerned with the terrorist threat. They
blow some more planes out of the sky. You aint seen nothing compared to what happened at the economy on 9/11. And this is the
kind of threat that we deal with. I dont deal as much with it as
much with Mr. Oberstar as I do with the Ranking Member of the
Aviation Subcommittee, but we talk about this all the time.
As of this morning, when I talked to CIA, FBI still is out of the
loop on a lot of the terrorist threat. I cant go into specifics here.
Who the hell is coordinating this stuff? And I am just chairman of
aviation, so I am looking at a little bit, and this one doesnt know
what the other one is still doing.
So you have this committee, if we have a select committee on a
permanent committee, it has some important responsibilities of coordinating Federal agencies, some that were left out here, that we
pieced this together. So you have an important responsibility. And
then coordinating some of these things amongand there is turf
among the committees and the jurisdictions that they havein seeing that this all comes together. Without being expertise, putting
together expertise that each committee, standing committee has
and all of that.
So coordination is important. It is lacking. And your jurisdiction,
I am here to tell you, you are not looking at enough of the picture
and Homeland Security I dont think is. Sorry. Frustrating.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Further questions?
Mr. COX. I appreciate that, and my red light is on. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Well, Mr. Mica has made a series of extraordinarily important points that are very helpful to us.
Ms. Lofgren Thank you both for
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Just one other question before you go.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Because I agree with you that the Agency is not
working well. We dont have a threat assessment after all this
time, and they are waiting for each State to make them own and
go over them to make sure they are accurate. So it could be a year
or more.
But the one thing that is most troubling, I just got a notice that
the governor of my State has managed to get some money from
somewhere, 500,000 to give one of my small counties on the border
that protects one of thethe only power system in the United
States. And yet I think in your committee we cant get the grant
money out for first responders. So can we make a complaint about
that as well, and tell me where in the world that money is and
what we plan to do about that?
92
Mr. OBERSTAR. That goes back to my comments about FEMA,
that I didnt think it was an appropriate step to take FEMA into
the Department of Homeland Security because it would be buried
in with a whole group of other agencies and its response to natural
disasters confused without any clear delineation lines a responsibility for counterterrorism actions. And the funding has indeed gotten merged with the other programs. And I think if you look at the
total funding for first responders, particularly firefighters, you will
find that funding level is less than when we started because of the
fundability of dollars within that department, and it has been
moved around.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Well, FEMA responds to national emergency
and they pay money out, but for some reason, the money to these
first responders, which has been paid out by them and that they
longingly wait for reimbursement just doesnt come. And we were
wondering if you could, and your committee seems to be where it
is bottled up, what you can do about it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. We can certainly work together with the majority
to inquire into that matter.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I can promise you that I dont think any of us
go home to find anything more disconcerting than the fact that
budgets are broken or the money that they have spent is more than
they can afford and have no way to cover it. And we just really
have to deal with that. That is as frustrating to me as the fact that
we have no threat assessment, which makes no sense to me.
Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentlelady yield for justI dont have
a question. I do think the question you have asked is an important
one, and obviously no one committee has all the responsibility as
collectively the government has fallen short and we need to fix it.
I just wanted to note, if I could indulge the committee, that I have
another committee meeting at 5:00 over in the Capitol that I cannot avoid. And I see the Chairman of my other committee is here,
and I want to assure the Chairman that I have read every word
of his testimony and beg his forgiveness for having to leave.
Thank you.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you. Thank you both very much.
It is our privilege to welcome the chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
Mr. Chairman, welcome. We look forward to your testimony. Of
course your entire testimony will be part of the record, and we look
forward to studying it. If you could perhaps, as we have been asking witnesses, to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES SENSENBRENNER, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am very happy to summarize my testimony. But first let me explain the props that are in front of me.
This is the work product of the Judiciary Committee since September 11th relative to Homeland Security Activities and other
matters within the jurisdiction of the committee. We have this
stack of hearings, this stack of legislative reports on bills that have
become law, and this stack of oversight reports that were either
93
done directly by the committee, by the General Accounting Office,
or by the inspector generals of various agencies.
The Judiciary Committee, I think, has an unprecedented work
product in dealing with these issues that are within our jurisdiction.
I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee on Rules to testify on the topic you have under discussion. I believe that, given
our track recordand you see the paper there, and a lot of hours
were put into developing that paperthat the Judiciary Committee
should retain its jurisdiction over all the matters it currently it
has. While I am not opposed to a Committee on Homeland Security
as such, I believe that the proponents of such a committee have the
burden of proving that a distinct Homeland Security Committee is
an overall benefit to Congress and to our country. To date, I do not
believe that burden has been met.
The Committee on the Judiciary has actively participated in the
response to the 9/11 attacks. This is entirely appropriate because
our jurisdiction includes the judiciary and judicial proceedings,
civil and criminal, espionage and counterfeiting, civil liberties,
immigration and naturalization, and subversive activities affecting the internal security of the United States.
I believe that the Judiciary Committees record demonstrates
that we are best able to meet that challenge in those areas that
have been traditionally within our jurisdiction. We have the expertise, we have the staff, we have been active, and we have produced
results.
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security touches on
the jurisdiction of the committee on the judiciary in three principal
areas: Law enforcement agencies at DHS, Federal and State law
enforcement training, and immigration. The committee has unique
expertise in each of these areas, and it should continue to exercise
jurisdiction over them.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The first aspect of the Homeland Security
Act that implicates the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary is the transfer of law enforcement agencies and their training
activities. The HSA transferred several criminal and law enforcement agencies to DHSthe Secret Service, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the Customs Service, the Transportation
Security Administration, the Federal Protective Service and the
Coast Guard.
The Committee on the Judiciary has general jurisdiction over the
Secret Service and the successors to the INS. It has jurisdiction
over the successors to the Customs Service, TSA, FPS, and the
Coast Guard to the extent that these agencies enforce criminal law
and exercise criminal law enforcement powers. The committee has
jurisdiction over the functions of the former National Infrastructure Protection Center, the Domestic Energy Response Team and
the law enforcement training activities of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and the Office of Domestic Preparedness.
The Committee on the Judiciary has had jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement since 1880. This tradition largely derives from
the jurisdiction over the judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil
and criminal, and subversive activities affecting the internal security of the United States. The committee has played the lead
94
role in the House in criminal law enforcement policy. We have an
extensive record of legislative and oversight activity that is set
forth at in full in my written statement. Our committee has the expertise and experience in those areas, and it simply cannot be
matched by a new committee, with a short history and a new staff.
There is more to law enforcement and training than just security. There is an important balancing to be done between security
and civil liberties. It is dangerous to put that balancing task in a
committee, the primary focus of which is security. I fear that civil
liberties interest will be sacrificed.
Finally, I believe that the Committee on the Judiciary should retain jurisdiction over the Department of Justice, its prosecutorial
activities, and its primary law enforcement agencies, including the
FBI. Jurisdiction over the law enforcement agencies in DHS should
remain in the same committee as the DOJ law enforcement agencies. There should be one unified approach that takes into account
the complex balancing act that must occur.
Having some agencies under the jurisdiction of a committee that
has traditionally carefully balanced civil liberties concerns with law
enforcement concerns and having others under a committee that is
focused solely on security is a prescription for disaster.
The Committee on the Judiciary has had jurisdiction over immigration and naturalization since 1946. Since that time, the committee has played an integral role over immigration policy. It has
essentially created modern immigration law. It has an extensive
record of oversight and legislative activity that is set forth in great
length in my written statement.
As the record in my written statement shows, the Committee on
the Judiciary has unparalleled experience and expertise in the immigration area and has demonstrated its ability to identify and
remedy the vulnerabilities in our immigration system that expose
our nation to risk. For decades it has done this work. Since 9/11,
it has responded to the call to further strengthen our immigration
policy.
There is another reason why immigration jurisdiction should remain with the Committee on the Judiciary. Although countering
the terrorist threat is of significant importance in implementing
our immigration laws, it is certainly not the only issue. Rather, immigration involves much more than homeland security, reuniting
families, providing needed workers for American businesses, offering havens to refugees, and deporting those aliens who have broken
our laws.
Security and legal immigration must be balanced. We must use
our immigration enforcement powers to both protect our people
from those who break our laws as well as to facilitate the admission of lawful entrants.
Another complexity in immigration policy is that authority over
immigration is spread across four departmentsHomeland Security, Justice, State, and Labor. The Judiciary Committee currently
has jurisdiction over each of those components as well as over other
agencies of limited jurisdiction that are charged with carrying out
our immigration laws.
The variety of concerns involved here cries out for the experience
and expertise of the committee that I chair. This committee has
95
long had the responsibility of balancing immigration, law enforcement, terrorism, and civil rights issues involved. A committee narrowly focused on security with a much shorter history is not the
best place to try to balance the many complex interests involved.
Rather, the Judiciary Committees experience in dealing with the
various immigration components counsels in favor of its continued
jurisdiction.
I also want to address the argument that the DHS cannot function effectively if it must report to multiple committees.
First, DHS reports to several committees now; and while there
is always room for improvement, the committee operation is effectively functioning now.
Secondly, every agency reports to at least four committeesa
House authorizing committee, the House Appropriations Committee, a Senate authorizing committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee. Moreover, many existing agencies report to more
than one authorizing committee in the House. All of these agencies
are able to function effectively within these arrangements.
Third, the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Committee
on Homeland Security have already shown an ability to work together effectively on projects of mutual interest. We have already
had one joint hearing, and another one will be held tomorrow. We
are currently working on first responder legislation. Regardless of
how this matter is resolved, if there is a Committee on Homeland
Security, either select or permanent, I expect this working relationship to continue.
In short, the DHS is functioning effectively under the current
committee system, and it can continue to do so in the future.
However the question regarding the future of the House Homeland Security Committee is resolved, I emphatically believe that
the Committee on the Judiciary should retain jurisdiction over all
the matters it now has. This is what we have done. It aint broke,
and it doesnt need fixing. We have the experience and the expertise. Over the years, we have shown the ability to apply the unified, balanced approach that these issues require; and this successful formula should not be altered.
Thank you.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES SENSENBRENNER
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee on Rules to testify concerning Homeland Security Jurisdiction: The Perspective of Committee
Leaders. To state my position briefly, I believe that the Committee on the Judiciary
should retain jurisdiction over all matters that it currently has. In addition, while
I am not opposed to a Committee on Homeland Security as such, I believe that the
proponents of such a committee have the burden of proof, and that burden has not
yet been satisfied.
Now let me explain that in more detail. As you know, Rule X sets forth the jurisdictional parameters of the various committees of the House. In general, I believe
that Rule X is working well. However, the challenges brought on by the murderous
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 require us to reexamine all that we are
doing, including the operation of Rule X, to ensure that we are doing all that we
can to protect our national security.
The Committee on the Judiciary has actively participated in the response to the
9/11 attacks and the new world that we face. That is entirely appropriate because
our jurisdiction includes: the judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and criminal;
. . . espionage and counterfeiting; civil liberties; immigration and naturalization; and subversive activities affecting the internal security of the United States.
96
See generally Clause 1(k) of Rule X. Among other things, the Committee was heavily
involved in the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act.
I believe that our record demonstrates that we are best able to continue to meet
the challenge in those areas that have traditionally been within our jurisdiction. Let
me now discuss that in more detail.
I. THE DEPARTMENT
OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
On November 25, 2002, President Bush signed the Homeland Security Act
(HSA) creating the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by combining
numerous existing agencies that deal with various aspects of homeland security.
Pub. L. No. 107296. Section 1503 of the HSA provided that it is the sense of Congress that the House and the Senate should review their respective committee structures in light of the creation of the Department. In addition, 4(b)(3) of House Resolution 5 requires the Select Committee to conduct a study of the operation and implementation of the House Rules with regard to homeland security.
The creation of DHS touches on the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary
in three principal areas: immigration, law enforcement agencies at DHS, and federal
and state law enforcement training both at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center (FLETC) and through grants to state and local law enforcement administered by the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). The Committee has unique
expertise in each of these areas, and it should continue to exercise jurisdiction over
them.
II. IMMIGRATION
The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over immigration and naturalization under clause (1)(k)(8) of Rule X. The HSA transferred the functions of
what had been the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to DHS and divided those functions between what are now known as the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), the Bureau of Immigration and Citizenship Enforcement
(ICE), and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). See HSA
401 et seq.
A. HISTORY
Beginning in 1893, the House had a standing Committee on Immigration and
Naturalization. That committee had general jurisdiction over immigration and naturalization matters, but between 1893 and 1906, it also shared some matters in this
area with the Committee on the Judiciary. In the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946, the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization was abolished, and its jurisdiction was transferred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Since that time, the Committee on the Judiciary has had exclusive jurisdiction
over immigration and naturalization matters, and it has played an integral role in
immigration policy. Specifically, the Committee has played a major role in a number
of major immigration bills that have created and recreated modern immigration law:
the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act
Amendments of 1965, the Refugee Act of 1980, the Immigration Reform and Control
Act of 1986, the Immigration Act of 1990, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
In addition, since 1946, it has held hundreds of legislative and oversight hearings
on these matters. Indeed, the Committees Subcommittee on Immigration, Border
Security, and Claims recognized the threat posed by alien terrorists well before 9/
11. Two particularly notable hearings that foreshadowed the attacks were entitled
Terrorist Threats to the United States on January 26, 2000, and Law Enforcement Problems at the Border Between the United States and Canada, Focusing on
the Issues of Drug Smuggling, Illegal Immigration, and Terrorism on April 14,
1999.
B. THE RECORD SINCE 9/11
Currently, the Committee deals with most immigration matters in its Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. The Subcommittees initial
investigation of the September 11 attacks established that alien terrorists have
studied our immigration system and they have identified and exploited weaknesses
in that system in planning and carrying out their attacks. For that reason, the Subcommittee has focused special attention on the legislative, procedural, and technological vulnerabilities in our nations immigration system, so that those
vulnerabilities can be identified and remedied. The Subcommittee has also worked
97
to ensure that our immigration enforcement officers have the resources and authority to protect the United States from those aliens who would come to our country
to harm the American people.
Since 9/11, the Subcommittee has conducted 35 hearings on immigration matters.
Among the most important of these are hearings entitled: US VISIT: A Down Payment on Homeland Security on March 18, 2004; Funding for Immigration in the
Presidents 2005 Budget on March 11, 2004 and February 25, 2004; War on Terrorism: Immigration Enforcement Since September 11, 2001 on May 8, 2003; Department of Homeland Security Transition: Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement on April 10, 2003; The Immigration and Naturalization Services
Interactions with Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet on October 9, 2002; The Role of
Immigration in the Department of Homeland Security on June 27, 2002; The Risk
to Homeland Security From Identity Fraud and Identity Theft on June 25, 2002;
The INSs March 2002 Notification of Approval of Change of Status for Pilot Training for Terrorist Hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi on March 19,
2002; The Implications of Transnational Terrorism for the Visa Waiver Program
on February 28, 2002; and Using Information Technology to Secure Americas Borders on October 11, 2001.
The Committee has also conducted effective oversight through other means. For
example, a Committee oversight letter to the former INS requesting the immigration file of Hesham Hedayet, who killed two and wounded several others at Los Angeles International Airport on July 4, 2002, revealed that the INS had failed to investigate the possible terrorist connections of this asylum applicant who claimed
that he was suspected of terrorism in his home country. Committee requests
brought this issue to the attention of the Attorney General, who ordered INS to review all existing asylum files to ascertain whether other individuals may be
present in the United States who have admitted that they have been accused of terrorist activity or terrorist associations. Such a review had not been previously undertaken despite other aliens having been able to use the asylum system to plan
and carry out terrorist attacks in the United States, including Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing, and Mir Aimal Kansi, who killed
two CIA employees outside CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
A Committee request for information about the INSs erroneous waiver into the
United States of four Pakistani nationals, who were crewmen on a vessel that
docked in Chesapeake, Virginia and who later absconded, led to the issuance of an
order that all INS employees follow agency directives. The Committees subsequent
request for those directives helped spur the consolidation of those directives for the
use of INS employees. Prior to this incident, those directives filled roughly one-half
dozen boxes . . . and several volumes of electronic materials. Today, most of this
information has been consolidated and updated electronically and is available to employees of INSs successors at headquarters via CDROM and the intranet, and we
understand that in the near future all internal directives will be accessible to all
employees including those in the field.
The Committees investigation and requests for information into the activities of
John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, convicted in connection with sniper
shootings in the Washington, D.C. area in October 2002, has revealed loopholes in
the policies and procedures for readmitting U.S. citizens to the United States when
they return from countries in the Western hemisphereloopholes that could be exploited by alien terrorists and criminals. The Committee is evaluating possible legislative fixes to these problems.
Committee oversight of the detention and release of alien criminals brought the
problem of alien criminal recidivism to the attention of the INS. In working for the
passage of Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
the Committee dramatically increased the number of criminal aliens detained and
deported by the INS. The Committees continued attention to the threat posed by
alien criminals has contributed to a restructuring of staffing of the Institutional Removal Program, and a reassessment of the entire manner in which ICE identifies
criminal aliens in the United States. When this restructuring is completed in 2005,
ICE should be able to identify many, if not most, aliens in criminal detention in the
United States.
Nor has our oversight work been limited to simple letters to the agencies. We
have also requested a wide variety of General Accounting Office and Inspector General investigations to support oversight on Homeland Security and Immigration topics.
Committee hearings and oversight investigations in 2001 determined that one of
the root causes of weak internal enforcement against immigration absconders was
the breakdown of voluntary alien registration record updates at the INS. Voluntary
status updates by registered aliens have been required by law since the Alien Reg-
98
istration Act of 1940 introduced the first national requirement that all aliens in the
United States be registered with the government. It required registration,
fingerprinting, and reports of changes of address, but fell into disuse in the 1990s.
To confirm and document our findings, on April 10, 2002, we requested and received the following report from GAO: Homeland Security: INS Cannot Locate
Many Aliens Because It Lacks Reliable Address Information dated November 2002.
The report detailed INSs negligence with regard to address and status updates.
With the report in hand, we scheduled a series of high level meetings with immigration officials in December, 2002 and in January, 2003. As a result, INSs successors
at DHS agreed to reinvigorate their enforcement of the registration law, and told
us that the GAO study provided valuable guidance that would be used both to address policy and to improve management of information technology to update and
maintain alien registration address and status records.
In 2001, I became deeply concerned after Committee hearings revealed indifferent
oversight by the Department of Justice of INSs systems planning, procurement, and
project management that led to failures in INS enforcement systems. I requested
GAO to investigate DOJs oversight of INS with regard to four specific systems used
to track non-immigrant entry and exit information (Automated I94 system), alien
criminal records (ENFORCE), criminal alien fingerprints and photos (IDENT), and
alien identity cards and Border Crossing Cards (ICPS).
The resulting report, Information Technology: Justice Plans to Improve Oversight
of Agency (INS) Projects dated November 2002, has been extremely helpful not only
to continuing oversight by this Committee, but also to the appropriators as they
evaluate costs and benefits and agency performance at DHS, where these immigration functions are now located.
In 2002, Judiciary subcommittee hearings regarding identity theft and the ease
with which the 9/11 terrorists were able to obtain drivers licenses using fraudulent
information led to our recognition that a key factor in confirming identity is whether
the states employ information available from the Social Security Administration
(SSA). After staff investigations determined weaknesses with the SSA process, I
requested that the GAO investigate, resulting in the study Social Security Numbers: Improved SSN Verification and Exchange of States Driver Records Would Enhance Identity Verification dated September 2003. The study led to three important
recommendations that, if implemented by SSA, would lead to a reduction in drivers
license fraud.
The Committees oversight of both law enforcement information sharing and compliance with the Privacy Act led me to request that the GAO investigate whether
complaints by the federal and state law enforcement agencies regarding the SSAs
lack of cooperation are valid. Because SSA did not have a clear or consistent policy,
I asked GAO to describe SSAs disclosure policy for law enforcement and how it
compares with the Privacy Act and the policies of other federal agencies and to
evaluate SSAs actual sharing of information with law enforcement. The resulting
study Disclosure Policy for Law Enforcement Allows Information Sharing, but SSA
Needs to Ensure Consistent Application, dated September, 2003, included convincing evidence that SSA has not done enough to educate law enforcement agencies
and its own employees about disclosure policies. More importantly, the SSA Commissioner, as a result of this study, agreed to update its policy manuals to clarify
the rules for SSA law enforcement disclosures.
We plan to continue to pursue oversight of the SSAs responsiveness to the conclusions of both of these reports because of the critical importance of SSA records with
regard to prevention of immigration fraud and identity theft. The SSAs policies and
practices are particularly important with regard to enforcement of employer laws
barring employment of illegal immigrants. As part of our ongoing oversight into federal agencies failure to enforce employer related immigration laws, on June 26,
2003 together with Representative Shaw of the House Subcommittee on Social Security, I requested a GAO report addressing SSAs management and policy practices
for employers who employ large numbers of illegal aliens. The study is looking at
SSAs records of erroneous or fraudulent W2 and W4 earnings statements submitted by employers, as reflected in the Suspense Files for Earnings associated with
invalid Social Security Numbers.
I also asked GAO to look at whether SSA has effective procedures to prevent
aliens and identity thieves from fraudulently obtaining SSA cards. Ongoing meetings with the GAO investigative team indicate that there are numerous problems
with SSAs policies that the Committee plans to examine in 2004 in the context of
taking concrete steps to reduce illegal immigration and identity fraudtwo issues
that are intrinsically linked.
Within the context of the Committees oversight of problems with SSA benefits
fraud, in 2003, I became concerned about the SSAs announced intention of con-
99
cluding an Agreement with Mexico regarding totalization, and requested the GAO
to evaluate whether the SSA was accurately estimating the cost of the anticipated
agreement. The GAO report, Social Security: Proposed Totalization Agreement with
Mexico Presents Unique Challenges dated September, 2003, concluded that the
SSAs estimates did not take into account the millions of Mexicans who have earned
social security quarters working illegally in the United States. This Committee
continues to conduct active oversight on the potential downstream effects of this
Agreement, with regard to the potential it may have for increasing illegal immigration from Mexico once the totalization agreement provides assurance that illegal
workers will receive Social Security benefits they are now denied. The Committee
plans to continue to work with the House Subcommittee on Social Security to conduct active oversight of the Totalization Agreement practices of the SSA to prevent
such agreements to become incentives for illegal immigration.
Our plans for the remainder of the 108th Congress regarding immigration enforcement include following up on anticipated results from a variety of other pending requests to GAO. One such project addresses overall statistical information on
the number of illegal aliens in the United States, from a request dated April 16,
2002. This request has already produced testimony addressing the significant number of illegal immigrants who enter this country legally, but then overstay their
visas to remain here indefinitely. The GAO research team anticipates delivery of a
report in the next several months addressing the visa overstay problem more completely.
A request by Ranking Member Conyers and me to the GAO for an investigation
regarding INS procedures for passenger transit and security at airports on July 12,
2002, led to a report which we used to meet with airport security officials regarding
the need to improve the design of airports regarding the control of arriving international passengers. The report was not produced for public access because the security weakness disclosures might afford terrorists vital information.
Members of the Committee became concerned about news accounts of the issuance
of consular identification cards by several nations to their citizens residing illegally
in the United States and the policy position of the U.S. Department of State that
it was powerless to prevent the issuance of these cards. The House passed a provision that would require the Department of State to actually regulate the issuance
of such cards by foreign countries.
I requested that GAO gather information on the use of consular identification
cards on April 29, 2003. The Committee plans to use this information to assist in
legislative deliberations and in oversight of the Department of State. In particular,
the Committee plans to examine whether the issuance of consular identity cards
contributes to additional illegal immigration and whether reported loose practices
by foreign nations may actually result in criminals who are not actually citizens of
the issuing countries assuming false identities. Many States have revised their laws
regarding the use of consular identity cards to bar the cards as valid identification
for obtaining drivers licenses, citing testimony by FBI and DHS officials at hearings
conducted by Judiciary Subcommittees in 2003.
Concerned about reports of state budgets being overburdened by the cost of illegal
immigration, in December, 2002, I requested a GAO study of the state costs of educating illegal alien school children. That studys release is due within the next several months, and it will figure into this Committees plans to examine the previously
undisclosed costs of the federal governments failure to enforce immigration laws.
The Committee has also requested the assistance of a number of the Offices of
Inspector General (OIG) of federal agencies to address homeland security issues.
For example, beginning in 2001, the Committee requested a series of briefings from
the Inspector General of the SSA regarding: (1) how terrorists associated with the
9/11 attacks were able to obtain valid social security numbers that they then used
to create fraudulent identities; (2) how the SSA could improve controls over Social
Security numbers to guard against criminal and terrorist use of SSNs; (3) how the
SSA could improve information sharing and prosecutorial cooperation with federal
law enforcement, especially with regard to the increasing number of criminal organizations that obtain valid SSNs through fraud for resale to illegal aliens.
Since the establishment of the DHS OIG in 2003, the Committee has requested
a series of investigations of alleged mishandling of detained illegal aliens that led
to the release of criminal aliens who went on to commit aggravated felonies, such
as murder, rape and kidnapping. These DHS OIG investigations are now ongoing,
some of which will lead to public reports. The Committee has also asked the DHS
OIG to look into alleged mishandling of equipment pertaining to improved border
security and into DHSs internal investigative units charged with identifying and
prosecuting corruption by DHS employees.
100
The Committee has generally had a particularly active relationship with the DOJ
OIG, leading to investigations highly relevant to immigration, border security, and
information sharing among federal agencies pertaining to terrorist watch lists.
Among the more prominent of public reports that were generated as a result of
Committee requests are:
A series of reports addressing the lack of integration between the INS (now
ICE) and FBI fingerprint systems, among which the most notable are: IDENT/
IAFIS: The Batres Case and the Status of the Integration Project (March 2004) and
The Rafael Resendez-Ramirez Case: A Review of the INSs Actions and the Operation of Its IDENT Automated Fingerprint Identification System (March 2000).
A May 2002 report entitled, The Immigration and Naturalization Services
Contacts With Two September 11 Terrorists: A Review of the INSs Admissions of
Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi, its Processing of their Change of Status Applications, and its Efforts to Track Foreign Students in the United States.
Follow up March, 2003, Followup Review on The Immigration And Naturalization Services Efforts to Track Foreign Students in The United States Through The
Student And Exchange Visitor Information System, (March 2003).
INSs Use of Re-employed Annuitants (2002).
A follow-up review on the visa waiver programand a series of other INS programs that affect national securityaddressing weaknesses in programs previously
identified that could facilitate illegal entry of criminals and terrorists into the
United States (December 2001).
An Investigation of the Immigration and Naturalization Services Citizenship
USA Initiative (July 2000).
In addition, since becoming Chairman of the Committee, I have made eight trips
to border areas within the United States and our consular offices and embassies
overseas to learn personally how our immigration laws are being implemented.
These trips include: California, Michigan, Florida, Texas, the United Kingdom,
France, Thailand, Mexico, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Belgium.
While the Committee has worked closely with the agencies over which it has oversight to craft responses to the vulnerabilities in our immigration laws and their implementation, there are limits to administrative action. For this reason, where necessary, the Subcommittee has drafted and worked to enact legislation to address the
most serious immigration issues facing our country.
For example, the USA PATRIOT Act was the initial response to the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, and it included a number of important tools to the federal government to
combat alien terrorists. Before passage of the PATRIOT Act, there was no general
prohibition against an alien contributing funds or other material support to a terrorist organization. The PATRIOT Act provides that an alien is inadmissible and
deportable for contributing funds or other material support to an organization that
has been designated as a terrorist organization by the Secretary of State, or for contributing to any non-designated terrorist organization, unless the alien can demonstrate that he did not know and should not reasonably have known that the funds
or other material support or solicitation would further terrorist activity.
The PATRIOT Act also provides a mechanism whereby the Attorney General can
certify an alien as a suspected terrorist and detain him for up to seven days before
placing him in removal proceedings or charging him with a crime. If no charges are
filed by the end of this period, the alien must be released. Otherwise, the Attorney
General shall maintain custody of the alien until the alien is removed from the U.S.
or is found not to be inadmissible or deportable.
The HSA included a version of the Committees INS restructuring legislation. This
legislation created a framework for handling the enormous task of keeping terrorists
and criminals out while also treating legal aliens with the courtesy and respect they
deserve.
The INS restructuring legislation was no small effort. Rather, it was the culmination of years of work by the Committee. The Immigration and Naturalization Service had been a beleaguered bureaucracy for decades. Appropriators continually increased the INSs budget, hoping that additional resources were what was needed
to solve the agencys shortcomings. Just in recent times, the INSs budget increased
from $1.4 billion in fiscal year 1992 to $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2002. Notwithstanding this budgetary expansion, the INSs performance did not improve.
The magnitude of the INSs problems was extraordinaryit had a backlog of millions of applications to be adjudicated, forcing aliens trying to play by the rules to
wait in limbo for years. Millions of illegal aliens resided in the United States. Hundreds of thousands of criminal and deportable aliens ordered removed by immigration judges had absconded. Much of the INSs failure stemmed from the conflict between its enforcement and service missions.
101
The Immigration Act of 1990 established the U.S. Commission on Immigration
Reform to review and evaluate our immigration system. The Commission, chaired
by the late Barbara Jordan, concluded that the INS suffered from mission overload.
The Commission explained that the INS was required to give equal weight to more
priorities than any one agency can handle: [i]mmigration law enforcement requires
staffing, training, resources, and a work culture that differs from what is required
for effective adjudication of benefits or labor standards regulation of U.S. businesses. The agency moved from one crisis to the next, with no coherent strategy
of how to accomplish both missions successfully. Time and time again it attempted
to cure itself with internal reorganizations that cured little and often made the patient worse.
In 1995, the Judiciary Committee began to examine management problems in the
INS and radical proposals to break apart and remake the agency. In February,
1995, the Immigration Subcommittee held a hearing on management practices at
the INS. In May, 1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing examining alternative proposals to restructure the INS. In July, 1998, the Subcommittee for the first time
approved legislation to break apart the enforcement and service functions of the
INS.
Representative Hal Rogers, then chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, introduced this legislation. Mr. Rogers
worked closely with Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith to fundamentally reform INS. The Committees goal was finally achieved last Congress.
I was scheduled to introduce the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act when September 11 intervened. However, after a delayed introduction, the House approved my legislation in April, 2002 by an overwhelming margin.
This bill would have broken the INS apart into a Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and a Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, both within the Department of Justice. Then President Bush decided to seek creation of a Department of
Homeland Security. When the HSA was sent to the President for signature in November, 2002, it included the bifurcation of immigration functions that the Committee had been seeking for so longonly now within the newly created department. The Committee is proud of this accomplishment and wants to assist the new
immigration agencies in fulfilling their promise.
The Committee was also instrumental in passing the Enhanced Border Security
and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 which took several steps to tighten our border
and visa policies including: requiring biometric identifiers (i.e., fingerprints, retinal
scans, etc.) for visas; requiring biometric scanners at all U.S. points of entry; requiring DHS to implement an entry-exit tracking system; strengthening the reporting
requirements for the foreign student tracking system; providing DHS and consular
officials access to the databases of U.S. law enforcement and the intelligence community; authorizing an additional 200 immigration investigative personnel and 200
immigration inspectors for each of the next 5 years; and providing a pay raise and
additional training for immigration personnel, including Border Patrol agents.
Finally, the Committee reported H.R. 1954, to provide various immigration benefits to members of the Armed Forces fighting in Iraq and their families. A version
of this legislation was incorporated in the Department of Defense authorization bill
for FY 2004.
Going forward, the Judiciary Committees immigration oversight will continue to
focus on making America safer. The terrorist threat against us is composed almost
entirely of persons who came to the United States from abroad. We cannot ignore
the link between our immigration system and our vulnerability to terrorism. It is
not just a matter of fixing the student visa program or the tourist visa program.
Every aspect of our immigration system has been used by foreign terrorists to gain
access to, and a safe haven in, the United States. Let me cite a report issued by
the Center for Immigration Studies that tracked how 48 foreign-born militant Islamic terrorists, including the 9/11 hijackers, entered the U.S. over the last decade.
The Center found that:
[The terrorists] used almost every conceivable means of entering the country.
They have come as students, tourists, and business visitors. They have also been
[legal permanent residents] and naturalized U.S. citizens. They have snuck across
the border illegally, arrived as stowaways on ships, used false passports, and have
been granted amnesty. Terrorists have even used Americas humanitarian tradition
of welcoming those seeking asylum.
The Committee will work continuously to ensure that no aspect of our immigration system can be used by terrorists to strike at America.
The Committee will also strive to ensure that the great promise of a restructured
immigration service is fulfilled. The Committee is concerned about the continuing
poor manner in which legal immigrants are treated by CIS. The backlog of applica-
102
tions waiting to be adjudicated has exceeded the six million mark. This disrupts the
lives and dreams of aliens who are playing by the rules and deserve to be treated
better. Committee oversight will focus on righting this wrong.
The Committee also will continue to apply stringent oversight to DHSs efforts to
enforce our immigration laws. The Committee will continue its ongoing supervision
of DHS initiatives to curtail immigration fraud, to ensure that all deportable criminal aliens are identified, detained, and removed, to secure our northern and southern borders from illegal aliens and alien terrorists, to prevent illegal aliens from
finding employment in the U.S., and to ensure that aliens ordered removed are actually removed.
More specifically, for the balance of the 108th Congress, a major activity will be
oversight of DHSs compliance with the Border Security Act and the USA PATRIOT
ACT. We plan hearings that address the complex and intertwined requirements to
establish clear requirements for security upgrades to U.S. passports and visas, as
well as to nations whose citizens may enter the country without visas under the
Visa Waiver Program (VWP).
The first of these hearings will examine the capability of VWP countries to meet
two deadlines that become effective on October 26, 2004: (1) the countries must
issue tamper resistant machine readable passports after that date; and (2) their
passports must contain a biometric identifier in a form that can read by U.S. inspectors. The Committee will also make an assessment of DHSs preparations for reading the new passports and for reading the new biometric, tamper resistant visas
that the State Department is scheduled to begin issuing in advance of the deadlines.
The Committee plans an additional hearing that will examine whether the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security have met the requirements
of the Border Security Act with regard to establishing a clear set of standards for
machine readable travel documents based on the National Institute of Standards
and Technologys research and recommendations. Further, the hearing will address
what kind of notice should be provided to foreign countries who have publically
state that they will try to comply with the U.S. deadlines.
Another hearing planned for late in the 108th Congress will address DHSs deployment of identity card scanners at more than one hundred ports of entry to validate the identities of foreign travelers who present the border crossing cards, by
testing the biometric photo and fingerprints stored on the card against the bearer.
This important milestone, first set by the 1996 Act, was further specified in the Border Security Act. The DHS Executive Director of Border Security and Facilitation
testified before the Subcommittee last week that CBP will deploy these scanners beginning in June, 2004, and will have inspectors trained in using them well before
the October 26th deadline. The Committee will assess DHSs compliance with this
deadline, and its effect on identifying imposters and protecting our country from
criminals and terrorists attempting to use fraudulent information to enter the
United States.
Major oversight objectives planned by the Committee for the remainder of the
108th Congress and the 109th Congress are to examine the nexus between money
laundering and the financing of large scale alien smuggling into the United States,
as well as how money laundering here continues to fund terrorism throughout the
world. Within that context, the Committee plans to address the organization of
DHSs Office of Inspector General to ensure that the process of assembly of auditors
and inspectors to compose this new office has not led to gaps in performance audits.
Importantly, the components of the Treasury OIG which have traditionally audited
the Secret Service with regard to money laundering and counterfeiting investigations were transferred to the DHS OIG. The Committee plans to assess whether the
DHS OIG is performing its required role of assessing the performance of DHS
money laundering investigators. This plan aligns with the GAO study request I
made in December, 2003 to study the Department of Treasurys remaining money
laundering enforcement team and its coordination with DHSs ICE. The GAO is
tasked to identify faster and more effective means to bring Treasurys capabilities
to bear in money laundering. This study will also address whether the Treasury is
directing the Internal Revenue Service and other Treasury agencies to use the PATRIOT Act provisions to share information to pursue terrorist and alien smuggling
organizations.
In the 109th Congress, the Committee also plans to use information derived from
a GAO study request I made in November, 2003, to look at Treasurys enforcement
of money laundering prevention provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Although Treasurys role is often overlooked by others, it contributes both to DOJ and to DHS efforts to prevent terrorist acts here in the United States. It is the Treasury which
has the predominant authority with regard to gathering and assessing Suspicious
Activity Reports (SARs) provided by banks. We intend to examine whether Treasury
103
is effective in telling banks what to look for with regard to potential terrorist or
alien smuggling money laundering. We will also examine whether Treasury is providing useful sorting and filtering of the thousands of reports so that DOJ and DHS
enforcement officers can take timely action to prosecute criminals and prevent terrorist acts.
In the remainder of the 108th Congress and the 109th Congress, we intend to look
intensively at whether the Internal Revenue Service is performing its mission to enforce immigration laws, including specifically INA provisions that apply to the IRS.
To assess what the IRS is doing as a basis for this oversight, Rep. Hostettler, Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, requested that the GAO evaluate the IRS
pilot penalty program for employers who are problem filers of wage reports. We
want to know whether the IRS has the resources and the will to enforce employer
penalties, or whether that function should be transferred through legislation to a
more aggressive agency.
In the remainder of the 108th Congress and the 109t h Congress, we will conduct
active oversight into the cost of incarcerating alien criminals and the potential role
of local law enforcement in assisting federal agencies with the prosecution of criminal aliens. To that end, I requested the GAO to prepare a detailed study of the number of criminal aliens incarcerated in federal and state correctional facilities, the
types of crimes they committed and the costs of incarceration. This oversight is consistent with the Committees concerns about unrecognized costs of illegal immigration and the need to bring more resources into coordination with DHSs mission of
internal immigration law enforcement. We intend to use information from this study
to hold one or more hearings on the scale of the criminal alien problem and what
needs to be done about it through targeted legislation.
C. JURISDICTION
OVER IMMIGRATION
SHOULD REMAIN IN
JUDICIARY
THE
COMMITTEE
ON THE
As the foregoing record shows, the Committee on the Judiciary has unparalleled
experience and expertise in the immigration area, and it has demonstrated its ability to identify and remedy the vulnerabilities in our immigration system that expose
our nation to risk. For decades, it has done this work. Since 9/11, it has responded
to the call to further strengthen our immigration policy.
But there is another reason that immigration jurisdiction should remain with the
Committee on the Judiciary. Although countering the terrorist threat is of significant importance in implementing our immigration laws, it is not the only issue. In
fact, only a small fraction of aliens in the United States have any connection to terrorism. Rather, immigration involves much more than homeland securityreuniting
families, providing needed workers for American businesses, offering haven to refugees, and deporting those aliens who have broken our laws. Lawful immigrants to
the United States should not be viewed by the American people as a threat to be
contained, and our country cannot afford to be viewed as an unwelcoming host to
those who would come here lawfully to make a contribution to our way of life. Immigration is Americas past, present, and future.
Two projects in which the Committee has played a leading role illustrate this
need for balance. In the mid-1990s, Committee members became concerned about
the admission and presence of alien students in the United States. In 1996, the
Committee worked to secure passage of a provision for a tracking system for such
students during their stay in the United States. Administrative delays and competing interests slowed the development of that system.
The Committees foresight on this issue became all too clear following 9/11 when
it was revealed that the pilot who flew American Airlines Flight 11 into the Pentagon was an alien student who failed to show up at school, and that two of the
other pilots received visas to take their flight training in the United States. The
Committee again pushed, through the PATRIOT Act, for full implementation of that
system.
Recognizing the possible delays that such a system could pose and the economic
and academic value of foreign students to the United States, the Committee worked
closely with INS, and then with DHS, as it implemented that program to ensure
that the concerns of students and schools, as well as national security concerns,
were considered during the design and deployment of the system. Committee staff
met with school administrators and associations for feedback during the development of the system, now known as SEVIS. The Committee held two separate oversight hearings during the development and implementation of that system, to allow
school officials and the Justice Departments Inspector General to confront government officials with their concerns and complaints about the system.
104
Finally, the Committee pressed DHS to start collecting the fee required for funding of that system; the Department issued a proposed rule for collection of that fee
in October 2003, and final regulation is pending. Once DHS starts collecting that
fee, it will save the American people an estimated $50 million in enforcement costs
that they currently pay. All in all, notwithstanding some bumps in the road, I believe that SEVIS has been a success and that this system has made the United
States safer without imposing an onerous burden on either foreign students or
American schools. The Judiciary Committees balancing of the needs of both security
and the needs of the students and the schools has played no small role in that success.
Likewise, the Committee was concerned about tracking of non-immigrant aliens
in the United States. Section 110 of IIRIRA required the development of an entryexit system that would track non-immigrants who overstayed their visas. Active
oversight by the Committee following IIRIRA determined that virtually no progress
was made to plan for needed improvements in legacy systems to improve entry inspections, and no progress at all was made to establish exit controls for travelers.
This led to the Committees initiative to establish the Data Management Improvement Act of 2000 (DMIA), which further amended section 110 to require the basic
system to collect electronic data on the arrival of aliens with the capability of
matching that data with an aliens departure data. The DMIA did much more than
establish the requirementit also required INS to establish a DMIA task force to
include other federal government agencies, state and local government representatives, and private industry groups representing businesses. DMIA charged the Task
Force with intensively studying the problems and issues related to establishing a
comprehensive entry exit system and publishing the results. The Committee pursued aggressive oversight with the INS to get the Task Force established and operating, participating in meetings and site visits as the required DMIA work was undertaken.
In late 2001, recognizing the continued delays by the Department of Justice, including INS, and the Department of State in sharing information and the failures
to coordinate data between entry systems and visa systems, I drafted the Enhanced
Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 to mandate improvements in
data sharing, entry controls, and international travel documents. Working with
other Members of the House and with the Senate, hard deadlines were established
by which real change had to be completed.
Since the Act became law, the Judiciary Committee has aggressively worked to
ensure that all elements of the federal government were working together to meet
the Acts requirements. The Committees work entailed hundreds of hours of meetings pursuing the detailed plans, pilot programs, technology tests, and procurement
actions necessary to get the job done. It included meetings with the National Institute of Standards and Technology team, coordinating with industry and government
to establish practical standards for biometric identifiers in documents, and meeting
with federal government delegates to the International Civil Aeronautics Machine
Readable Travel Document groups to insure that there was parallel progress at the
international level. Both in 2003 and 2004, the Committee hosted briefings for Congress by the DMIA task force, the most recent of which was a March 15, 2004 presentation to which staff of the Select Committee on Homeland Security was invited.
These two examples show the need for balance between security and facilitating
legal immigration. It was to balance out immigration enforcement and services that
the Committee proposed splitting those functions which had long been joined in the
former INS. We must use our immigration enforcement powers to protect our people
from those who break our laws. We must also, however, continually exert our best
efforts to facilitate the admission of lawful entrants.
Another complexity of immigration policy is that authority over immigration is
spread across four departmentsHomeland Security, Justice, State, and Labor.
From the issuance of a visa to removal from the United States, an alien could interact with no fewer than nine components in those four departments. The Judiciary
Committee currently has jurisdiction over each of those components, as well as over
other agencies of limited jurisdiction that are charged with carrying out our immigration laws. Even with the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, the
Attorney Generals opinion with respect to all questions of law involving the Immigration and Nationality Act is controlling, and he has final authority over the decisions in our nations immigration judiciary system.
The variety of concerns involved in these many conflicting and overlapping interests cries out for the experience and expertise of the Committee on the Judiciary.
This Committee has long had the responsibility for balancing the immigration, law
enforcement, terrorism, and civil rights issues involved. A committee narrowly focused on security and with a much shorter history is not the best place to try to
105
balance the many complex interests involved. Rather, the Judiciary Committees experience in dealing with the various immigration components should tip the scales
in favor of its continued jurisdiction.
III. LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
AT
DHS
Another aspect of the HSA that implicates the jurisdiction of the Committee on
the Judiciary is the transfer of law enforcement agencies. The HSA transferred several criminal law enforcement agencies to DHS: the Secret Service, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS), the Customs Service, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal Protective Service (FPS), and the Coast
Guard. The Committee on the Judiciary has general jurisdiction over the Secret
Service and the successors to the INS. It has jurisdiction over the successors to the
Customs Service, TSA, FPS, and the Coast Guard to the extent that these agencies
enforce criminal law and exercise criminal law enforcement powers. The Committee
also has jurisdiction over the functions of the former National Infrastructure Protection Center, which was formerly part of the FBI, and the Domestic Emergency Response Team, which formerly advised the FBI when there was an emergency.
A. HISTORY
The Committee on the Judiciary has long had jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement. This tradition largely derives from the Committees jurisdiction over the
judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and criminal under clause (1)(k)(1) of Rule
X and subversive activities affecting the internal security of the United States
under clause (1)(k)(18) of Rule X. The Committee has had jurisdiction over criminal
law under the House Rules since 1880. It acquired jurisdiction over subversive activities when the Committee on Internal Security was abolished in 1975.
In that period, the Committee has played the lead role in the House in criminal
law enforcement policy. For example, the Committee was instrumental in passing
the most important terrorism bill to become law before 9/11, the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which was Congresss response to the murderous terrorist attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City.
Over the more than 100 years of its jurisdiction in this area, the Committee has
held hundreds of legislative and oversight hearings on these matters. Indeed, the
Committees Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security had begun
considering the terrorist threat even before 9/11 holding hearings entitled: The
Threat Posed by the Convergence of Organized Crime, Drug Trafficking, and Terrorism on December 13, 2000, Breaches of Security at Federal Agencies and Airports on May 25, 2000, Prohibition on Financial Transactions With Countries Supporting Terrorism Act of 1997 on June 10, 1997, and The FBI Investigation into
the Khobar Towers Bombing in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia and the Foreign Investigative Activities of the FBI in General on February 12, 1997.
Since 9/11, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security has
held 29 hearings on law enforcement matters. Among the most important of these
are hearings entitled: Law Enforcement Efforts Within the Department of Homeland Security on February 3, 2004, Homeland Security-the Balance Between Crisis
and Consequence Management through Training and Assistance (Review of Legislative Proposals) on November 20, 2003, Terrorism and War-Time Hoaxes on July
10, 2003, The Proposal to Create a Department of Homeland Security, on July 9,
2002, The Risk to Homeland Security From Identity Fraud and Identity Theft on
June 25, 2002, the Antiterrorism Explosives Act of 2002 on June 11, 2002, and
the Homeland Security Information Sharing Act on June 4, 2002, the Cyber Security Enhancement Act on February 12, 2002, the Implementation Legislation for
the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the
International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism on November 14, 2001, and the Anti-Hoax Terrorism Act of 2001 on November 7, 2001.
In addition to these hearings, the Judiciary Committee, in the spirit of cooperation, has held a joint hearing with the Select Committee on Homeland Security on
the Terrorism Threat Integration Center (TTIC) on July 22, 2003, and jointly sent
letters with post-hearing questions to the relevant agencies on the implementation
of TTIC. Tomorrow, on March 25, 2004, the Judiciary Committee and Homeland Security Committee will hold another joint hearing. This one will focus on the integration of terrorism watchlists at the Terrorism Screening Center.
The Committee on the Judiciary has also conducted oversight through other
means. It has sent two major oversight letters to the Attorney General on the imple-
106
mentation of the USA PATRIOT Act. These letters were aimed at ensuring that the
Department of Justice maintains a proper balance between security and civil liberties in implementing the Act.
The Committee has also closely monitored the activities of DHS recently sending
letters to Directors of ICE and FPS regarding their law enforcement missions at the
Department of Homeland Security. The Committee will soon send a letter to FLETC
on its law enforcement mission. Additionally, it has sent a letter to the Federal
Communications Commission and will soon send a letter to DHS regarding the Administrations efforts to ensure the ability of first responders to communicate with
one another with interoperable equipment. I have also traveled to New York personally to observe the operations of the Secret Service there.
In addition, the Committee has requested several GAO reports in this area including: Combating Terrorism: Funding Data Reported to Congress Should be Improved dated November 2002; Social Security Administration: Disclosure Policy for
Law Enforcement Allows Information Sharing, But SSA Needs to Ensure Consistent
Application dated September 2003; and Firearms Control: Federal Agencies Have
Firearms Controls, But Could Strengthen Controls in Key Areas dated June 2003.
The Subcommittee has played a central role in passing legislation in response to
the 9/11 attacks. The Committee reported out the legislation that became the USA
PATRIOT Act in a 360 bipartisan vote. That Act was Congresss initial response
to the 9/11 attacks. It provides new tools for law enforcement and for improved information sharing among Federal agencies to address terrorist threats. It also authorizes the sharing of information between the intelligence and law enforcement
communities and makes it easier to begin investigations of foreign intelligence subjects.
The Subcommittee has also moved a variety of other legislative responses to the
attacks. It reported implementation legislation for the International Convention for
the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the
Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism that became law on June 25, 2002. This
legislation helped to implement treaties the U.S. and dozens of others countries
have signed to suppress terrorist bombings and the financing of terrorism.
Several other pieces of legislation developed by the Subcommittee were incorporated into the HSA. They include: the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2002
that enhanced protections against cyber attacks by terrorists; the Homeland Security Information Sharing Act that enhanced intelligence and law enforcement information sharing among federal, state, and local governments to help protect against
terrorist attacks; and the Anti-Terrorism Explosives Act of 2002 that places common
sense requirements on those purchasing, transporting, or using explosive materials.
The Committee is continuing this work with the Anti-Hoax Terrorism Act and legislation to adequately fund first responders.
Some additional oversight efforts in the law enforcement area that the Judiciary
Committee plans to pursue in the near future include border corruption, financing
of terrorism activities, transportation security, and background checks for security
personnel and others that affect the national security or public safety.
First, the Committee will be looking at corruption of government officials on the
border. The Committee is concerned by reports of bribes of officials who allow contraband and persons to be smuggled into the United States. The Committee has already sent oversight requests in this area and plans to a review this problem further. Second, the Committee will be holding hearings on how terrorists are financing their activities, what law enforcement is doing to stop that financing, and
whether law enforcement needs further legislative support. Third, the Committee is
reviewing transportation security and container security issues, e.g., H.R. 4008, the
Anti-Terrorism Protection of Mass Transportation and Railroad Carriers Act of
2004, was referred solely to the Judiciary Committee. This legislation would increase penalties for terrorism against mass transportation and railroads and enhance law enforcement tools to combat and prevent such attacks. Fourth, the Judiciary is examining the various laws authorizing criminal history background checks
and new legislation to provide such background checks for private security guards.
C. CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
AT
DHS
The Committee on the Judiciary has long been the authorizing committee for the
Secret Service. Indeed, the Committee reported the first modern authorization of the
Secret Service in 1951. Pub. L. No. 8279. It has remained the authorizing committee for the Secret Service since that time.
The HSA provided for the Secret Service to become a separate agency within
DHSi.e., it is not within any of the directorates of DHS. See1703 of the HSA.
It has two missions: law enforcement, particularly with respect to counterfeiting, a
107
matter within the Committee on the Judiciarys jurisdiction, and the protection of
the President, the Vice President, their immediate family members, and others.
The HSA also established the Border and Transportation Security Directorate
(BTS), and it is responsible for maintaining the security of our nations borders
and transportation systems. BTS is comprised of law enforcement and other employees from the former INS, the former Customs Service, TSA, FPS, and the Coast
Guard.
CBP consists of elements of the former INS and the former Customs Service. In
addition to its immigration responsibilities, CBP plays a critical role in confronting
the law enforcement challenges facing our nation. CBPs Interdiction and Security
(Outbound) enforces criminal export laws and regulations that prevent weapons of
mass destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists. As part of this responsibility, the agency interdicts illicit proceeds from narcotics and other criminal activities in the form of unreported and smuggled currency.
Another new agency within BTS is ICE, which is the largest investigative arm
of DHS. It also includes elements of the former INS and the former Customs Service. Assistant Secretary Michael J. Garcia, then Acting Assistant Secretary for ICE
stated that [t]hrough this reorganization, ICE is building a foundation to become
one of the worlds preeminent law enforcement agenciesone that provides unparalleled investigation, interdiction, and security services to the public and to our partners at DHS. Department of Homeland Security announcement entitled ICE Announces Agency Reorganization Plan dated May 16, 2003. Outside of its immigration role, the responsibilities of ICE range from law enforcement intelligence work
to investigating child pornography.
TSA is also part of BTS. TSAs primary mission is to provide for the security of
the civil aviation system, including all domestic cargo and passenger air transportation, as well as the civil aviation infrastructure. TSA has authority to receive, assess, and distribute intelligence information and assess threats to transportation facilities. 49 U.S.C. 114(f).
TSAs budget request described part of its mission as ensuring that it builds a
strong enforcement presence on-site at the nations commercial airports. TSA negotiates long-term agreements with state and local enforcement agencies to provide
uniformed officers at passenger security checkpoints.
TSA includes the National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program to provide
local law enforcement officers with the right equipment, technical assistance, and
partial reimbursement costs for security. It also supports Federal Flight Deck Officer training for pilots at FLETC to train pilots on the use of firearms.
FPS is responsible for law enforcement protection of federal employees and property. According to its web page, the mission of FPS is to provide law enforcement
and security services to over one million tenants and daily visitors to all federally
owned and leased facilities nationwide. FPSs protection services focus directly on
the interior security of the nation and the reduction of crimes and potential threats
in federal facilities throughout the nation.
The Coast Guard is also a law enforcement agency with a mission divided into
four major rolesmaritime law enforcement, maritime safety, marine environmental protection, and national defense. The Coast Guards law enforcement functions include maritime narcotics enforcement. See 46 U.S.C. App. 1903, 14 U.S.C.
89, 16 U.S.C. 2409.
At a February 3, 2004 hearing before the Judiciary Committees Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Admiral Thomas Collins testified that
the Coast Guard has extensive regulatory and law enforcement authorities. He further stated that Maritime Safety and Security Teams of the Coast Guard have provided critical port security, deterrence, and response capability. These efforts include the use of canines and divers to detect narcotics and explosives hidden on
board vessels. Interdiction of narcotics is a primary law enforcement mission of the
Coast Guard both directly and through law enforcement partnerships.
The National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) was created in May of
1998 through Presidential Decision Directive 63 as an interagency center housed at
the FBI Headquarters. At the FBI, NIPC served as the focal point for the governments efforts to warn of, and respond to, cyber threats. NIPC was also part of the
FBIs Counterterrorism Program the mission of which was to detect, deter, prevent,
and swiftly respond to terrorist actions that threatened U.S. national interests at
home or abroad. Briefing Book of General Information on the FBI, (2000) at 84. The
FBI used NIPC to assist in the coordination of ongoing computer crime investigations and identification of threats against the nations critical infrastructure. The
HSA transferred NIPC to the Department of Homeland Security and it was placed
into the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Division (IAIP). The
functions of NIPC have been assumed into various components of IAIP.
108
The HSA transferred the Domestic Emergency Support Team (DEST) from the
Department of Justice to the Department of Homeland Security where it is now referred to as the Domestic Emergency Response Team. DEST was an interagency
team responsible for providing the FBI, the lead Federal agency for crisis management, with expert advice and support concerning the U.S. Governments capabilities
in resolving the terrorist threat or incident. When such a threat or incident occurred, this rapidly deployable interagency team was activated to provide crisis and
consequence management assistance, technical or scientific advice, and contingency
planning guidance tailored to situations involving chemical, biological, or nuclear
weapons. The DEST was managed by the FBIs Critical Incident Response Group.
Its mission was to provide expert advice and assistance to the FBI On-Scene Commander related to the capabilities of various federal agencies depending on the type
of terrorist attack. This task force was not an office and did not have assets or resources. Its sole responsibility was to advise the FBI during the response to an attack.
In short, the Committee on the Judiciary has general jurisdiction over the Secret
Service and the successors to INS (ICE, CBP, and CIS). It has jurisdiction over the
successors to the Customs Service, TSA, FPS, and the Coast Guard to the extent
that they enforce criminal laws and exercise criminal law enforcement authorities.
It also has jurisdiction over the functions of the former NIPC and the former DEST.
D. JURISDICTION
OVER THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AT

IN THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
DHS SHOULD REMAIN
The Committee on the Judiciary has a long and vast history of jurisdiction over
law enforcement agencies. It has the expertise and the experience in these areas.
That expertise and experience simply cannot be matched by a new committee with
a short history.
As with immigration, there is more to law enforcement than just security. There
is important balancing to be done between security interests and civil liberties interests. Indeed, during consideration of the HSA itself, the Committee reported several
civil liberties provisions, including heightened whistleblower protections, a more
independent Inspector General at DHS, and the creation of a privacy officer to ensure against the unauthorized disclosure or dissemination of personally-identifiable
information. The Committee on the Judiciary has been at this balancing task for
years. It is dangerous to put that balancing task in a committee the primary focus
of which is security. I fear that civil liberties interests would be sacrificed.
Finally, I believe that under any scenario, the Committee on the Judiciary will
retain jurisdiction over the Department of Justice and its primary law enforcement
agencies, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. In addition, the
Committee on the Judiciary will retain jurisdiction over the various prosecutorial
activities of the Department of Justice. Jurisdiction over the law enforcement agencies in DHS should remain in the same committee as the DOJ law enforcement
agencies. There should be one unified approach that takes into account the complex
balancing that must occur. Having some agencies under the jurisdiction of a committee that has traditionally carefully balanced civil liberties concerns with law enforcement concerns and having others under a committee that is focused solely on
security is a prescription for disaster. Jurisdiction should be based on functionnot
agency carrying out the function.
IV. LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING
AT
DHS
The HSA transferred two major law enforcement training programs to DHS:
FLETC and ODP.
A. HISTORY
The Committee on the Judiciarys history of jurisdiction over law enforcement
training derives from the same sources and has the same history as its jurisdiction
over law enforcement agencies. See III.A, above. Before 9/11, the Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security had considered the predecessors to ODP
within broader oversight hearings on May 15, 2001 and July 22, 1999.
As noted above, since 9/11, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security has held 29 hearings on law enforcement matters. Several of these have
included discussion of law enforcement training. A three-part hearing on the effec-
109
tiveness of the Office of Justice Programs, which then included ODP, occurred on
March 5, 7, and 14, 2002. More recently, the Subcommittee has conducted hearings
on Law Enforcement Efforts Within the Department of Homeland Security on February 3, 2004, and Homeland Security-the Balance Between Crisis and Consequence Management through Training and Assistance (Review of Legislative Proposals) on November 20, 2003, both of which dealt with law enforcement training.
I have traveled personally to Vermont to observe the training of law enforcement
agents there.
Due to press reports of mismanagement of first responder grants, on January 21,
2004, the Committee on Judiciary sent letters to the Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security and the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland
Security requesting a review. It appears that this letter has been effective. According to a FCW.com March 9, 2004 article, Officials from the Homeland Security Departments Office of Domestic Preparedness are putting in place several policies to
oversee and enforce how state and local agencies are spending their federal funding,
according to an ODP official.
Right now, the Committee on the Judiciary is working with this Committee on
Chairman Coxs first responder funding bill, H.R. 3266. We are not in total agreement on all of the issues, but we have reached agreement on many of our differences
and we will continue to work cooperatively to produce a good bill in this critical
area.
Additionally, the Committee is reviewing all law enforcement training, including
homeland security training, provided by all Federal law enforcement agencies. The
Committee is also examining the training and authority of public and private uniform security officers protecting Federal buildings and critical infrastructure. As
part of this review, the Committee has written oversight letters to FLETC and FPS.
C. THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER
According to the FLETC web page, the stated mission of FLETC is to serve as
the Federal governments leader for and provider of world-class law enforcement
training. We prepare new and experienced law enforcement professionals to fulfill
their responsibilities in a safe manner and at the highest level of proficiency. We
also ensure that training is provided in the most cost-effective manner by taking
advantage of economies of scale available only from a consolidated law enforcement
training organization.
D. THE OFFICE
FOR
DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS
Until passage of the HSA, the Office for Domestic Preparedness was an office
within the Department of Justice responsible for establishing domestic preparedness
programs and activities to assist state and local governments to prepare for, and
respond to, terrorist incidents, including attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. The Judiciary Committee, through the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act,
authorized the Office (formerly the Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support of the Office of Justice Programs) in the Department of Justice. The
Committee on Judiciary changed the name of this office to the Office for Domestic
Preparedness, in the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act and further authorized the ODP to assist states and localities.
E. JURISDICTION
OVER
LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING AT DHS SHOULD REMAIN

THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
IN
The Committee on the Judiciary should retain jurisdiction over law enforcement
training for much the same reasons that it should retain jurisdiction over law enforcement agencies. It has the experience and expertise in this area. Training, like
other law enforcement activities, requires a careful balancing of interests that a
committee focused solely on security is not likely to handle well. Other law enforcement agencies will remain with the Committee on the Judiciary under any scenario,
and the training of those agencies, as well as the DHS agencies, should remain
under one committee that can provide a unified, balanced approach.
With respect to ODP, under any scenario, the vast majority of grants to state and
local law enforcement agencies will be made through the Office of Justice Programs
and that Office will remain with the Committee on the Judiciary. It makes no sense
to split off one grantmaking office, ODP, and give it to another committee. Again,
we need a balanced, unified approach in this area.
110
V. DHS CAN FUNCTION EFFECTIVELY WHILE REPORTING
COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTION
TO
MORE THAN ONE
Some argue that DHS cannot function effectively if it must report to multiple
committees. I disagree for a variety of reasons. First, DHS reports to several committees now, and while there is always room for improvement, it is functioning effectively now.
Second, every agency reports to at least four committees: a House authorizing
committee, a House appropriations committee, a Senate authorizing committee, and
a Senate appropriations committee. Despite this, most of our agencies function effectively. Moreover, many existing agencies report to more than one authorizing committee now. For example, the Secret Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives always reported to the Committee on the Judiciary when
they were at the Department of Treasury while the rest of the Department generally reported to the Committee on Ways and Means. The Federal Trade Commission reports to the Committee on Energy and Commerce for its consumer protection
mission, but to the Committee on the Judiciary for its antitrust mission. The Commerce Department reports to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Science,
Resources, and the Judiciary. The Energy Department reports to the Committees
on Energy and Commerce, Science, and Armed Services. All of these agencies are
able to function effectively within these arrangements.
Third, as outlined above, the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Committee on Homeland Security have already shown an ability to work together effectively on projects of mutual interest. We have already had one joint hearing, and
another one will be held tomorrow. We are currently working together on first responder legislation. Regardless of how this matter is resolved, if there is a Committee on Homeland Security, either select or permanent, I expect this working relationship to continue. In short, DHS is functioning effectively under the current committee system, and it can continue to do so in the future.
VI. CONCLUSION
I believe that the proponents of a Committee on Homeland Security, select or permanent, in future Congresses have the burden of proof, and to date, they have not
carried it. However that question is resolved, I emphatically believe that with the
Committee on the Judiciary should retain jurisdiction over all the matters that it
now has. We have the experience and the expertise. Over the years, we have shown
the ability to apply the unified, balanced approach that these issues require. For
those reasons, I believe we should retain our jurisdiction over these matters.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, in your testimony you talk

about what you consider to be Federal law enforcement agencies,
the Legacy agencies of Customs and INS now, and the Customs
and Border Protection and the immigration and enforcementthe
citizenship and the immigration services, the Legacy agencies and
the TSA and the FPS, which is the Federal Protective Service and
the Coast Guard.
However, the Department of Homeland Security and its agencies
are not just solely law enforcement agencies. Rather, as the act
itself describes, these agencies must work to prevent terrorist attacks and reduce the Nations vulnerability to terrorism. These
agencies have a much broader mission than just law enforcement.
Are you arguing that, for example, on the Customs, Border Protection and the ICE are actually law enforcement agencies and
therefore you should have sole jurisdiction over those agencies because you have jurisdiction over the Federal law enforcement?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Certain functions of the Customs Service
have always been under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, and certain functions have not. My testimony argues in
favor of keeping the existing arrangement as it is. We on the Judiciary Committee dont want to deal with the enforcement of the tax
laws or the tariff laws. The Ways and Means Committee has had
jurisdiction over that. But in terms of the actual arrest of people
111
who are smuggling, Judiciary has had jurisdiction and done oversight over that, and I think it should remain that way.
Similarly, we have had general jurisdiction over the INS and its
successor agencies.
I dont think you can separate some enforcement functions from
some service functions. The people who check passports at the
ports of entry dont actually enforce a law until they think that
somebody is trying to break the immigration laws. On the other
hand, what types of visas there are that are stamped in those passports and presented to immigration inspectors at the ports of entry,
is a part of the immigration jurisdiction that has nothing to do
with law enforcement. It has something to do with terrorism.
But to put whether or not applicants for visas ought to be interviewed and put that in one committee while putting the underlying
law on who qualifies for a visa in another committee would make
no sense. In terms of doing the oversight, too many cooks will spoil
the broth.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Sensenbrenner, I dont have any questions.
Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. It was most enlightening.
Thank you.
Mr. COX. Thank you. I wanted to be sure to be here so I could
on the public record thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for the extraordinary working relationship that the Judiciary Committee has established with the Select Committee during
the 108th Congress. I agree with the representation that you have
laid before this subcommittee about the volume and quality of work
that the Judiciary Committee has done and about the importance
of maintaining the Judiciary Committees central roles in each of
these areas of expertise, because so much of it is irreplaceable and
simply couldnt be replicated from scratch or otherwise we would
attempt to do so.
Prior to your arriving, I had the opportunity to make a point
with other chairmen about my concern, first for the importance of
the mission of the Department of Homeland Security, which is protecting us all from annihilation at the hands of terrorists, but, derivative of that, the importance of keeping the Department of
Homeland Security focused on its mission. I believe there is an opportunity for the Department of Homeland Security to be distracted from that mission by either expanding its current role beyond what it already is with respect to many parts of our social life
in America, or by essentially taking on other functions that follow
from Congress having put more in the Department, perhaps, than
was necessary strictly for purposes of fighting terrorism.
So I think that defining the mission of the Department and specifically defining homeland security, something Chairman Goss
mentioned in his testimony, is just as important as our allocation
of responsibility within the Congress.
To the extent that we lose sight of the essential mission of homeland security in the Department, we are going to create even more
overlap and conflicts among standing committees of jurisdiction
here in the Congress.
112
Conversely, if we have a good, clear, sharp focus in the Department of Homeland Security, what we are trying to accomplish
there, the basis for creating that new Department, then we will
have fewer conflicts as we try to oversee that Department here in
the Congress.
I also want to congratulate the Judiciary Committee and your
leadership of it, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for your emphasis on the importance of and authorization process for the Department of Justice. It is one of the major responsibilities of Judiciary, and it is one
of the reasons I think that a homeland security committee could
meet the burden that you place before it of helping make the country safer and of keeping the Department of Homeland Security focused on its mission.
I think there needs to be a committee whose primary responsibility it is to look after what is the biggest reorganization of our
Federal Government since the creation of the Department of Defense, but I take very, very seriously and understand very clearly
the caveats that you have laid out about duplication of jurisdiction.
You are absolutely right that every committee haspardon me
every Cabinet department has at least four committees that it has
to report to. The problem that we have with Homeland Security is
that number is up to 88, and it needs some simplification.
I think that what we could best benefit from at this point, in addition to your testimony, which has been very clear and helpful, is
perhaps the help of the professional staff, unless you care to answer it off the cuff, on a question of the Homeland Security Act
itself. Because at least in this Congress that lies within the oversight of jurisdiction of this Select Committee. I would ask specifically which things that have been tentatively placed by the Congress within the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security do you think should be excised, if any, and if you are so inclined, are there things that were left out of the Homeland Security
Department thank you ought to have gone in?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, let me say, first of all, Mr. Chairman,
that I appreciate your comments about the work the Judiciary
Committee has done. And it is not just the chairman. It is all the
members of the committee and the staff.
To answer your question specifically about whether we need to
make changes in the Homeland Security Department creation act,
I think it is too early to say. It has been a major reorganization
of government agencies. I think the Department has been slower
in getting up and running than all of us had hoped when it was
created.
The best example, I think, is the fiasco of the first responder
grants. There is over $5 billion in the pipeline and our first responders are waiting to get that money to do what that money is
supposed to do in terms of training and equipment and making us
better able to respond to a terrorist strike.
I dont think that there is a problem in the law on this. I think
there is a problem in the implementation of the law, and this is
perhaps where the Homeland Security Committee can do a good job
in doing oversight and getting on the back of those who have
caused this backlog and to get the money flowing as the Congress
intended it to do.
113
As you know, I do believe that authorization bills ought to be
passed. The DOJ authorization bill that the President signed in
November of 2002 after being passed by a voice vote in both
Houses was the first DOJ reauthorization in 23 years. We have another one out of the committee, and I hope to have that on the floor
relatively soon. We have still got some rough edges to negotiate
out, but I intend to continue doing this.
Finally, I was present for the tail end of the testimony of the representatives from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee where they talked about biometrics in travel documents,
specifically U.S. passports and visas. That was a part of the Visa
and Border Security Act which the Judiciary Committee wrote,
which was unanimously passed in both Houses and signed by the
President May of 2002. The State Department was given some
deadlines on this. They dont like them, and we will be hearing
from the Secretary of State and I believe Secretary Ridge after the
Easter break on why they need more time to get this done.
I can tell you that with the U.S. VISIT program, with the pictures and the fingerprint scans, within the first month when visa
holders were required to do that, there were 30 people against
whom criminal warrants were pending that tried to get into the
United States using forged travel documents that were apprehended, and 6 of those 30 were wanted for murder. So the Visa and
Border Security Act I think is not only making our borders more
secure, but finding some people that law enforcement has been
looking for for a while.
Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you.
Chairman Sensenbrenner, as always, your testimony has been
very impressive.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I want to add my commendation to the work
of your committee, because it is not only evident but it is well
known and it is important, and so I simply wanted to add my commendation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. No comment. I am going to ask Zoe Lofgren, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, if she has bet all the props.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, I will put on the record that I have.
But even though I presided over most of that or made the request,
these reports in particular, Representative Slaughter, have really
given the bureaucracy their marching orders on where things are
wrong and how to correct them. No executive branch agency likes
oversight being done, regardless of who is the President, who is the
Secretary, and who is in Congress, but I think the framers made
our oversight functions as important as giving us the power of the
purse, because if the agencies dont spend the money we give them,
wisely and appropriately, then egg is on our face as well as theirs.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you very much. We are waiting for the
chairman of the Ways and Means committee.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Welcome the chairman of the Ways and Means
committee, Mr. omas, my good friend. Thank you for being here
this afternoon, and we look forward to your testimony.
114
Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr.Chairman. I would ask unanimous
consent that my written testimony be made a part of the record.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Without objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM M. THOMAS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Mr. THOMAS. Just briefly to comment on the question in front of

us. Many of us are on committees. I have the privilege of chairing
the Ways and Means committee, which is the oldest committee.
One of the first functions established by the government, as you
might guess, was the Customs Service to be able to raise revenue
to run the country.
As the economy of the world has gotten more complex, the job
of Customs has become more complex. I find it rather interesting
at this point in the countrys history that we have gone through
oh, just pick it up from the Civil War periodthe Civil War, Spanish American war, World War I, World War II, the Korean War,
the Vietnamese war, and no one ever thought of the restructuring
as we are talking about doing today.
I agree that the threat to national security is somewhat unique
versus those earlier historical periods, but these sorts of threats
not to diminish the threattend to be cyclical or periodic, and I am
a little concerned that we are talking about a fundamental restructuring not only of the committees of jurisdiction perhaps, because
all we do is monitor what the executive branch does to a very great
extent, but the way in which duties that have been developed over
two centuries would be mixed and handled.
I will say that we were as cooperative as I think we could have
been in trying to merge the commercial concerns that run through
the executive department of the Treasury with the genuine concern
that our border security was threatened because you had a number
of different individuals performing distinct and different duties at
the border without overall coordination.
What has occurred in terms of the coordination of activities at
the border I think was overdue, and it probably took a crisis such
as this to require the rethinking and the integration of those border duties.
I just have to tell you that the period in which we have negotiated with the homeland security structure has been one that I
fully anticipated. That is, when your primary title is security, you
make decisions differently than beings who are in the process of attempting to facilitate commercial intercourse and have been doing
it for several hundred years. The question of whether or not a potential threat to, say, a port or an airport would require it to be
shut down oftentimes is on the teeter-totter between public security
and freedom. Those people who have security in their title hastily
move to make sure that the place is secure.
You will recall around the Capitol that if we had no movement
whatsoever, our security would be much higher. In discussing with
the Sergeant At Arms and others, I said, well, gee, if we were
never here, we would be even more secure, so that if we werent
here and we did nothing, we would have maximum security. The
problem is we wouldnt get much done.
115
So this relationship is one that will always be in need of observation, oversight and adjustment.
We had a period where seniors in this country had a number of
needs that werent being met. We had some Federal programs for
them, but many of their real needs werent being met. The House
in its wisdom created a committee called the Committee on Aging.
It had no legislative jurisdiction, but it had the ability to focus concerns about a distinct group, seniors, so that the committees of jurisdiction could carry out changes in the law in a more coordinated
way through the general observations of the Committee on Aging;
and I think the Committee on Homeland Security would be a similar structure if it were to work most successfully.
The idea of focusing on security and having that as your primary
concern, not even necessarily having the ability to legislate in the
area but the ability to coordinate those efforts with those committees of jurisdiction, I think would make some sense.
You are always going to have a bit of edge and conflict where security wants to trump the legitimate other functions, but having an
understanding and a need to continue to coordinate is I think a
very useful and necessary role that the Committee on Homeland
Security could perform. I dont know that you necessarily have to
have a jurisdictional structure. I dont know that you necessarily
have to have the legislative capability. What you need is the focus
on a problem by virtue of the committees name Homeland Security and the need to maintain coordination among those other
committees of jurisdiction.
So I come down on the side of I think it was overdue. I think
what we have done was a useful and needed step. I would be very
concerned if we created a Committee of Homeland Security and
gave them control from a security point of view of all of the key
points of commerce, not just on our borders but internally, because
I know the decision that would be made more often than not, the
answer would be to stop, slow down, shut down commerce that is
necessary.
So the function could be one of coordination, of concern, of observation, of assistance, but I would be strongly opposed to a committee that was created with jurisdiction in ways that would interfere with a structure that has been successful through a number
of other threats to our security and has worked marvelously in coordinating those activities over the last 200 years of the Customs
office and duty and service.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM M. THOMAS
TESTIMONY OF BILL THOMAS
Chairman Diaz-Balart, Ranking Member Slaughter, and Subcommittee members,
thank you for inviting me to testify on the role of the Select Committee.
The Committee on Ways & Means has oversight responsibilities over all functions
relating to customs and customs administration, including tariffs and import fees,
classification, valuation, special rules for imports, and special tariff provisions and
procedures. These functions cover most of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and a substantial part of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The oversight of the Committee on Ways & Means has a long history. The Customs Service was the first agency of the federal government to be created over 220
years ago to collect revenue and to ensure that imports flow smoothly across the
border. Today, Customs collects more than $20 billion in revenue each year.
116
Over the years, Customs has taken on many other functions because of its unique
border presence. Fighting against illegal drugs, transshipped t-shirts, and Rolex
knockoffs are just a few of these other functions. In the wake of the terrorist attacks
on the United States, the role of Customs in guarding our borders against chemical,
biological, and conventional weapons has become more prominent.
While I supported the creation of the new Department, I was concerned that this
move could damage the critical trade function of Customs. To address those concerns, I worked with many of you, Mr. Rangel, the Administration, and the Senate
to transfer customs functions to the new department but, at the same time, to maintain statutory revenue authority within Treasury and to prohibit consolidation, discontinuation, or diminishing of customs functions, resources, or staffing.
It is my understanding that this arrangement has functioned fairly smoothly, but
I believe that continued oversight by the Committee on Ways & Means is necessary
to constantly reinforce the importance of trade functions. Consider this example: At
a recent briefing, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection presented us with
its mission statement. The first three bullet points were entirely devoted to security.
Trade concerns were not mentioned until the fourth point, and even there, the focus
was on enforcing laws rather than facilitating trade, stating We steadfastly enforce
the laws of the United States while fostering our nations economic security through
lawful international trade and travel.
I know it is only natural that when a Departments central mission is homeland
security, the agencies of that Department will be judged on their ability to support
that central mission and will shift their focus accordingly. However, with international trade comprising nearly 25% of our gross domestic product, CBPs mission
to move goods across the border in a smooth, efficient, and predictable manner cannot be accorded a mere minor roleinstead, it is a vital part of our economic
strength and viability. For that reason, continued active oversight by Ways &
Means is essential.
Oversight by Ways & Means is also important for reasons of competency. The tremendous range of functions that the border agency performs requires enormous
technical expertise not only of the customs officials themselves, but also within
Ways & Means. Relying on our expertise, we have exercised considerable oversight
on customs matters since the Customs Service was incorporated into DHS, such as:
Coordination with the Administration to draft an Executive Order giving the
Homeland Security Department general authority over Customs revenue functions
but allowing the Treasury Department to retain final authority over regulations concerning Customs revenue functions, and the authority to review, modify, or revoke
specified determinations or rulings.
Markup and passage of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act,
legislation which makes significant changes to certain Customs rules.
Passage of legislation to temporarily extend customs user fees, and examination
of whether the level of such fees is commensurate with the level of services provided. Tracking the user fees in the new Department to ensure that they are used
for commercial functions is required by our World Trade Organization obligations.
Passage of legislation addressing textile transshipment, including allocation of
funding for 70 new positions, travel, training, and outreach, and a GAO audit of textile transshipment monitoring.
Oversight of highly technical customs classification decisions, based on the over
800-page Harmonized Tariff Schedule.
Oversight of the development of the Automated Commercial Environment,
which is designed to fully automate the process of moving goods across the border,
a massive undertaking that will not be completed until 2007. The General Accounting Office has issued over a dozen reports on various aspects of this system.
Finally, the Committee plans to hold a hearing on Customs-related issues in the
spring in preparation for our legislation to reauthorize Customs functions.
The Select Committee on Homeland Security has been a useful coordinator of the
efforts and oversight of the many committees that have some role in the Department of Homeland Security and can continue to play an important coordinating role
with respect to the work of these committees. However, oversight over the customs
functions performed by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement should remain with Ways and
Means as the Committee with jurisdiction over the underlying laws. Accordingly, I
support making the Select Committee permanent only if we are assured that the
ability of Ways & Means to carry out its customs oversight functions would not be
jeopardized. The focus of the Select Committee on Homeland Security has, quite appropriately, been on security issues and not the perhaps more mundane, but still
critical, trade and revenue functions. We provide that expertise and oversight.
117
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. You say in your written testimony that you
also appreciateyou state that you would support a permanent
Committee on Homeland Security as long as the Ways and Means
Committee could retain the facility to carry out its Customs functions.
I guess what I would seek from you is a clarification on what you
consider Customs oversight functions and whatif you could give
us some specificity, some specific roles that you would envision for
a permanent homeland security committee in those areas.
Mr. THOMAS. Well, obviously, if I envision a permanent homeland
security committee but not with the jurisdiction of Ways and
Means, and every other committee that had jurisdiction asserted
the same thing, what you would create would be a committee that
had the theme, much like the Committee on Aging, of homeland security. That would be their focus, and they would be working on
coordinating to make sure that things worked.
I would be very concerned if you created a committee of homeland security with jurisdiction and you provided the Customs duties to that committee, moving them out from under Treasury, in
which the committee makes a decision and has the total capability
of making a decision of shutting down a port because there was a
telephone call and the port was shut down for 4 days and the argument was that it was for national security. It would have a devastating effect on the economy of this country if that were the way
in which decisions were to be made.
So I am very concerned about losing the knowledge and the ability in a continually growing, complicated area of intercourse. It is
not bright-lighted. It is not a big area, but, boy, is it necessary to
function smoothly as the worlds largest importer and the worlds
largest exporter. The point at which those activities occur have to
be allowed to go forward in a very smooth and efficient manner,
with the full understanding of the concerns of security today different than previously, that we are more than willing to take into
consideration on a negotiated basis with Treasury retaining the
structure that it has, with the ability to consult and make adjustments. That is where we are today. That arrangement seems reasonable to me.
But if the option of a permanent committee on homeland security
is to take jurisdiction from other committees and put it together
under the rubric of security and expect, for example, the Customs
fees and duty collection function to continue would be rather naive.
They would be submitted to security restrictions which I think
would make it virtually impossible for them to do their historic job.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Thomas, I have no questions, but thank you
very much for very interesting testimony. I appreciate both hearing
it and reading it. Thank you very much.
Mr. THOMAS. Thank you.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Chairman Thomas. Thank you
very much.
The hearing record will remain open for 10 days to allow for additional testimony and questions. I thank all of the members who
sat through the questions, of course all those who testified, and at
this point we hereby are endingI hereby end this hearing.
118
[Whereupon, at 5:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
ADDITIONAL PREPARED STATEMENTS
THE HONORABLE SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, CHAIRMAN, OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. The Science Committee
played a central role in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
and we have vigorously exercised our oversight since its creation.
The Science Committee contributed to every title of the Homeland Act, but we are
especially proud of having created the Science and Technology Directoratean entity that was missing from the Presidents original proposaland most of the language in Title III came directly from the legislation reported by our Committee. We
also wrote the language in Title III creating the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, which was added after the House passed its initial version
of the bill.
We have actively overseen the new Department, paying special attention to the
Science and Technology Directorate, cybersecurity, programs for firefighters and
visas for scientists. Some of our Committee staff are dedicated almost exclusively
to overseeing the Department, and we have had numerous hearings on, and including, the Department. For example, at our annual full Committee hearing that looks
at proposed R&D spending across the Federal Government, Under Secretary Chuck
McQueary is one of our witnesses.
We have worked closely with Chairman Thornberrys subcommittee on your Select
Committee, and our staffs have frequently met jointly with Homeland officials. We
have discussed holding joint hearings.
So it is without any animosity and with the utmost respect for the Select Committee that I turn to the primary questions you have posed to me. And I hope no
one will take any offense at the directness of my answers.
I do not believe the House needs a committee devoted exclusively to Homeland
Security. In fact, I believe that such a committee is likely to prove counter-productive. Let me explain why.
First, I think that Republicans are rightly proud that we reduced the size of
House staffs and the number of Committees when we became the majority. Since
1995, weve recognized the need for some increases, but creating a new Committee
would be a wholesale reversal. At a time of budget deficits and spending freezes,
this seems unwise.
It seems especially unwise because there is no demonstrated need for a permanent committee. There are two opposing sets of arguments for such a committee
the first is that the existing committees wont give homeland security the attention
it deserves, and the second is that the existing committees will pay too much attention, thereby tying down the new Department, like Gulliver, with 88 Lilliputian subcommittees.
Both of these seem plausible in theoryeven though theyre contradictorybut
neither has proven to be the case in fact. Standing Committees, like ours, have exercised rigorous oversight without having tied down the Department with conflicting
demands. Moreover, there are ways to deal with turf issues without creating a
new Committee, which Ill get to in a moment or so.
But the main reason not to create a permanent Homeland Committee is that it
will impede, not assist, proper Congressional oversight. How could that be? Well,
in at least two ways.
First, homeland security is not a single task, but a collection of tasksand each
task needs to be looked at in the context of how the Federal Government as a whole
is carrying out that job. For example, we cant evaluate what the Homeland Department is doing in science and technology without a full understanding of what the
Federal Government as a whole is doing in that area. The same is true for transportation, emergency response, cybersecurity, indeed for each and every responsibility
of the Departmentand even more so for DHS responsibilities unrelated to its
homeland mandate. The only way to properly oversee DHS is through the standing
Committees that have the government-wide purview and expertise to assess the Departments work in context.
Second, its an unfortunate fact of institutional life that Committees can tend to
become captives of the agencies they oversee. This would be especially unfortunate
in the case of DHS, which we gave unusual latitude in the Homeland Act. A Committee whose entire existence depends on a single Department is more likely to become a captive of that Department. Congress is much more likely to rigorously exer-
119
cise its oversight of DHS if we do so through a variety of Committees, none of whose
existence depends solely on DHS.
But then how to prevent a hopeless proliferation of Committees pestering DHS?
There are many options, but I would suggest giving primary legislative jurisdiction
over each directorate of DHS to the appropriate standing Committee and having the
Committee on Government Reform exercise its traditional jurisdiction across the
agency.
Such a system would be clear and would save DHS from Congressional chaos
while still subjecting the Department to strong oversight by Committees with broad
expertise in the departments functions. There may be other ways to achieve that
goal, but a permanent Homeland committee is not one of them.
Let me close by saying that I know that any testimony by any chairman against
a new Committee can be dismissed as petty turf fighting. I hope the arguments Ive
made today make clear that protecting turf is not my motivation.
And I would point out that with term limits, testifying on the basis of turf is especially pointless. Chairs only have their turf for a relatively short period of time;
were talking here about changing Congress for years to come.
Finally, I would say that in the writing of the Homeland Act and in overseeing
the DHS, the House has been remarkably, even uncharacteristically, free of turf battles. Thats a tribute to the Committees and especially to the Leadership. I think
a sensible system of DHS oversight can continue that peaceable and collegial situation. A new permanent Committee is more likely to create turf battles than prevent
them.
I urge this Subcommittee to take these arguments seriously. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
THE HONORABLE BART GORDON, RANKING MEMBER, OF THE COMMITTEE
ON SCIENCE
Thank you for inviting me to testify regarding changes to Rule X and the future
of the Select Committee. The growing pains of the Department have been echoed
to a lesser degree by some of the experiences of the Select Committee. That is understandable. Growing a Committee from scratch is an appreciably difficult task. I
think that Chairman Cox and Ranking Member Turner have done an excellent job
at their core task of keeping track of the progress the new Department has made
in establishing itself and carrying out the terms of the law creating the Department.
All of the Members and staff of the Select Committee are to be congratulated.
Now we begin to wrestle with the tough question of how we go forward as an institution. It seems to me that the core rationale for the creation of the Select Committeeoversight of the messy and tumultuous process of bringing a new department into beingis eroding by the day. Beyond that core rationale, there seems to
be one central argument for keeping the Select Committee: it will enhance the efficiency of the workings of the House. I believe that claim is based on a faulty understanding of the House, its Committee structure and operations. In fact, I think the
effect of maintaining the Select Committee would have a generally deleterious effect
on the House for reasons that I will elaborate upon.
My testimony is informed by having been a Member of Congress for twenty years,
and from sitting on two Committees that share jurisdiction with the Homeland Security Committee. I can say from experience that the Homeland Security-related jurisdiction of both the Commerce Committee and the Science Committee, where I
have the honor of being the Ranking Minority Member, can be more than adequately covered by those Standing Committees.
In fact, both Committees have been active in tending to their oversight responsibilities related to Homeland Security. I believe they would be even more active in
the future were the Select Committee not in place.
The jurisdiction of the Science Committee involves the work of the Under Secretary for Research and Development. The creation of that office, and the entire
R&D title of the organic act, was the product of the Committee on Science. Those
provisions were not in the original proposal that came from the White House, but
were added by my Committee under the leadership of Chairman Boehlert. Mr.
Armey and Ms. Pelosi both endorsed retaining those elements in the final bill. It
is hard to imagine a more fundamental argument for jurisdiction, or competence to
cover it, than the fact that we created the organic language based on our own Committees expertise in the area.
The core logic for creating the Select Committee was the need for specific, ongoing attention to the Executive as the new Department was brought together. That
process is well underway now so the logic for the Select Committee begins to slip
120
away. The standing Committees are more than capable of handling, as they have
continued to oversee, the activities of this newest established Department.
But one also hears that even with the Department becoming established, the need
for the Select Committee continues. The core claim is that the Select Committee will
enhance the efficiency of the House. This is a curious claim. There is only one condition under which maintaining the Select Committee might enhance our efficiency
that being that all other standing Committees be stripped of their legislative and
oversight jurisdiction over Homeland Security. I will return to why such a step
would be a folly, but will first address what inefficiencies attach to keeping the Select Committee without stripping all other Committees of their jurisdiction.
The first flavor of an efficiency argument is that having the Select Committee will
enhance the Houses ability to handle authorizing legislation. This is an ill-considered argument. Simply designating a lead Committee from among the standing
Committees is a perfectly reasonable solution. That is the solution the Senate settled upon. The Senates reaction to the creation of the Department was to designate
the Government Affairs Committee as the lead for handling legislation related to
the Department, but standing Committees retained their discrete expertise and responsibilities. Any legislation coming out of the House that hopes to survive the
Senate process will have to take that into account.
Further, the underlying premise of those who worry about the need for a lead
Committee is that we will move reauthorizations for the entire Department all in
one move. The huge, multi-function, multi-Committee bill that created the agency
is unlikely to be repeated in future authorizations for a variety of reasons, not least
of which will be the need to give somewhat more frequent legal guidance to this
emerging agency and the difficulty of negotiating such a huge package either
through the House Committee process or, just as importantly, the Senate Committees of jurisdiction.
My own suspicion is that the authorizations we move will be more along functional or sub-agency lines. The current standing Committees with their legislative
jurisdictions will be more than adequate for handling such legislation. I can imagine
an R&D authorization that could move as a stand-alone bill; or a customs piece or
an immigration service piece; or a coast guard authorization. Such targeted authorizations seem a far more reasonable expectation for future legislation than an Omnibus authorization.
If we do need to do a more sweeping authorization, the Speaker has plenty of
tools to deal with the current overlapping jurisdictions. In such an event, it would
be easy enough to adopt the Senate model and designate one Committee as the lead
and let other Committees get referrals as their jurisdiction is engaged. This is how
we handle all major pieces of authorization. Frankly, unless Rule X is amended to
strip all the Standing Committees of their legislative responsibilities for the functions that have been rolled into the new Department, this is what would happen
if the Select Committee was made permanent and given legislative authority. Such
a step would add one more Committee to the mix for referralsthe very opposite
of the stated goal of achieving efficiencies.
Another argument for the need to have a Select Committee rests on the claim that
such a Committee will streamline the oversight process on the Hill. This is usually
attached to some claim that the Department has to answer to dozens upon dozens
of Committees and Subcommittees of the House and Senate. It always baffles me,
absent stripping the Standing Committees of their jurisdictions, how adding a Committee and its requisite Subcommittees would do anything but inflate the number
of Committees with jurisdiction; a counterintuitive outcome to the claim that the Select Committee represents an efficiency enhancement.
Further, the notion that an agency answers to multiple Committees as an unnecessary burden on both the Executive and Congress always confuses me. The Science
Committee in the House shares jurisdiction with at least 8 other House Committees
on Energy Department issues. Other Committees, such as International Relations
or the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence may also have reason to take
testimony from the Department of Energy. There is a similar array of Committees
in the Senate with some claim on the Department. Yet in his over 3 years in office,
Secretary Abraham has only come to the Hill 27 times since his confirmation hearing. I can only recall the Secretary appearing before the Science Committee on one
occasion, and on that occasion he was testifying in support of the Presidents energy
initiative. It doesnt seem to me as if these multiple, overlapping jurisdictions are
creating an unnecessary burden on the leadership of the Department of Energy, nor
do I expect it would for the Department of Homeland Security.
Let me return to the one method by which retaining the Select Committee could
lead to a streamlining of work for the House, that is: through a complete re-writing
of Rule X to center all legislative and oversight responsibility in the hands of this
121
one Committee. I dont believe anyone is advocating this, and the problems with
such a step are probably manifest to all. However, I seriously believe that is the
only way to gain any efficiency.
If we strip the standing Committees of their legislative and oversight responsibilities efficiency will be purchased at the price of sacrificing our existing expertise.
That expertise resides in the Standing Committees. The Department was not made
of whole cloth. It is instead largely a bundle of pre-existing agencies and programs
brought together because they broadly share in the mission of protecting our borders. The Committees of the House have generally overseen those programs from
Administration to Administration stretching back over long years. Expertise on the
programs at the Department of Homeland Security resides today in the same Committees that helped in the creation of that Department, and it would be foolhardy
to diminish their role in the future work of the Department.
The whole philosophy of organizing the House into Committees of jurisdiction
rests upon a belief that the activities of the Executive, and the challenges to our
nation, are so diverse that we must develop very specific expertise to be an effective
partner and watchdog of the Executive. Members serve on just a few Committees
in their tenure in the House, no matter how long, and the professional staffs of
those Committees largely stay on with each change in Chairman or Ranking Member because the institutional knowledge that resides in the staff is indispensable to
the House in carrying out our Constitutional functions. To strip standing Committees of their jurisdiction in pursuit of some chimera of efficiency would undercut the
source of strength that resides in the Committee structure.
There is another, more philosophical objection to the pursuit of efficiency by the
House. In the debate surrounding the proposed Constitution, the Federalists clearly
viewed efficiency, energy, action as an attribute to be attached to the Executive.
However, the legislature was to be a deliberative body designed to examine, challenge, consider.
In Federalist #70, Alexander Hamilton directly addresses these differing natures.
As to the legislature, he wrote, (P)romptitude of decision is oftener an evil than
a benefit. The differences of opinion, and the jarring of parties in that department
of the government, though they may sometimes obstruct salutary plans, yet often
promote deliberation and circumspection, and serve to check excesses in the majority (The Federalist Papers, edited by Clinton Rossiter, p. 427).
It is against the nature of the House, against the intent for how we should conduct business, that we pursue efficiency as an over-riding goal in how we organize
our business. I would argue that clear lines of legislative jurisdiction for the Standing Committees, and clear guidance from the Speaker, will be more than adequate
efficiency when it comes to moving legislation. When it comes to oversight, I think
a little obscurity is a good thing to create a sense of competition among the Committees in examining the workings of the Department, challenging the claims that come
up to us and in asking hard questions. More oversight is better than less oversight,
and you purchase that through the inefficiency of multiple Committees having a
stake in the Departments operation.
This last observation opens the door to the possibility that a Select Committee
for Homeland Security limited to oversight alone might be an enhancement of the
powers of the House. After all, it would add one more Committee into the mix that
could watch the Executive in this very important area. I truly believe that the current array of Standing Committees is more than adequate to create an environment
for aggressive oversight if Congress is of a mind to engage in that duty. If Congress
is not interested in carrying out that function, no number of Committees, no matter
how large, will be sufficient to spur the work forward.
I thank the Subcommittee for considering my testimony and your time.
THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, CHAIRMAN, AND THE HONORABLE TOM
LANTOS, RANKING MEMBER, OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
Thank you Mr. Chairman. We appreciate your accepting this statement for consideration by the Subcommittee on Rules.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the legislation creating the Department of Homeland
Security has created a major reorganization of the U.S. Government. When that legislation came before the Committee on International Relations, however, the Committee had only a relatively small aspect of that reorganization: the relationship between the Department of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Mr. Chairman, the immigration function, prior to the creation of the Department
of Homeland Security, was shared between the Department of States consular service and the Department of Justices Immigration and Naturalization Service. The
122
Committee on International Relations was regularly involved in overseeing the activities of the Consular Affairs Bureau at the Department of State and providing
authorities and authorization of its activities, such as the application of visa policy
implementation of programs related to international abductions of U.S. children and
the implementation of the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption.
The International Relations Committee was also involved in decisions regarding
the designation by the Secretary of State of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO5),
a provision contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the impact
of such designations on other areas of international affairs legislation, such as prohibitions on dual-use exports to FTOs and on U.S. assistance. In addition, there are
a number of other immigration-related authorities committed to the Secretary of
State by the 1NA. The Committee conducted oversight over virtually all these areas.
In this context we worked closely with the Judiciary Committee on these matters,
particularly where there was joint jurisdiction.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 continues to provide for substantial authority within the Department of State. Under that Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security has authority over visa policy, has the authority to refuse visas, and can develop training programs for consular officers. In addition, the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 maintained certain immigration authorities exclusively under the Secretary of State and kept the Bureau of Consular Affairs and all overseas consular
officers in the Department of State.
In this context, the Committee on International Relations maintains a significant
interest in the continued oversight of these activities. In addition to any number of
briefings and hearings in these areas since the enactment of that statute, the Committee has exercised legislative jurisdiction over a number of consular issues, particularly through the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2004
and 2005. We continue to have an abiding interest and expertise in all the issues
that we described above relating to the Department of State.
We would oppose any effort to transfer jurisdiction over the Bureau of Consular
Affairs or the Committees role in the Secretarys authority over immigration activities to any other committee, whether it to be a new standing committee on homeland security or to any other standing committee.Assuming that such a transfer
does not happen, when it comes to the question of amending Rule X of the House
to create such a standing committee, the Committee on International Relations
could undoubtedly adapt to such a new situation. If such a committee is created and
includes jurisdiction over the immigration function, we are sure that the Committee
could work with a new standing committee in a way similar to how it works with
the Judiciary Committee. If such a committee was created through an amendment
to Rule X, we would also strongly recommend that, in order to clarify the relationship between the two committees, the jurisdiction of the Committee on International
Relations should be clarified by specifically adding the Department of State to the
matters for which the Committee on International Relations is responsible.
We are cognizant of the many competing concerns which must be weighed in the
course of this study of the future of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
The primary consideration should be to establish the most efficient oversight, investigative, and legislative processes. However, we would be remiss if we did not raise
some concerns regarding the creation of a new standing committee on the basis of
efficiency. There is, of course, logic in centralizing all oversight of the new Department in one committee, an effort which would have obvious benefits. We need to
recognize, however, that currently the several committees that have jurisdiction
over the Department of Homeland Security have a wide range of highly-skilled and
experienced members and staff who have developed real expertise in the particular
areas under their jurisdiction, including immigration, customs, safety of life at sea
and other functions which now reside in Department.
The creation of a standing committee with new members and staff risks losing
this valuable expertise. Indeed, over the short or medium term, the creation of a
single standing committee may actually reduce the ability of the House to properly
oversee this new Department just as it continues to face the normal challenges from
the reorganization. One option that the Committee may want to consider is postponing the decision to create a new standing committee on homeland security until
the beginning of the 0th Congress, giving the current structure two more years to
help oversee the Department as it works through these challenges. In any case,
careful consideration must be given to finding ways to preserve the current expertise if the creation of a new standing committee is to be given serious consideration.
123
THE HONORABLE MICHAEL G. OXLEY, CHAIRMAN, AND THE HONORABLE
BARNEY FRANK, RANKING MEMBER, OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE
COMMITTEE
OF
ON
REPRESENTATIVES
FINANCIAL SERVICES
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
March 22, 2004
The Honorable Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Chairman
The Honorable Louise Slaughter, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Rules
Committee on Homeland Security
2244 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Diaz-Balart and Ranking Member Slaughter:
Thank you for your recent invitation to appear before the Subcommittee on Rules
on the effect of the Rules of the House on consideration of homeland security matters. While we will not be appearing before the Subcommittee, we have enclosed our
joint written statement on the subject, and would appreciate it being made a part
of the hearing record.
Again, we appreciate the invitation to testify, and look forward to working with
you as the Subcommittee continues its work. Should you or your staff have any
questions, please contact either of us, or Mr. Hugh Halpern of the Majority staff at
extension 57502, or Mr. Jaime Lizarraga of the Minority staff at extension 54247.
Yours truly,
MICHAEL G. OXLEY
Chairman
BARNEY FRANK
Ranking Member
JOINT STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL G. OXLEY AND RANKING
MEMBER BARNEY FRANK BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
MARCH 24, 2004
Chairman Diaz-Balart, Ranking Member Slaughter, and Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate this opportunity to offer our views on the future of the
Select Committee on Homeland Security. Our comments for the Subcommittee will
not address the issue of whether the Select Committee should be added to the list
of permanent standing committees of the House in the 109th Congress or beyond;
rather, they will lay out the important work done by the Committee on Financial
Services in the post9/11 era, and express our view that any changes to Rule X
should permit our committee to continue our work on those issues.
THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Established in the 107th Congress, the Committee on Financial Services represents the latest effort on the part of the House to rationalize Rule X with the evolution of the modern economy. With the passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the ongoing modernization of the financial services industry, the House recognized the
need to merge the jurisdiction of the old Committee on Banking and Financial Services with jurisdiction over securities and exchanges and insurance previously exercised by the Committee on Commerce. This combination was intended to better reflect the realities of the marketplace, and we believe that our track record demonstrates the wisdom of that decision.
In the 3 short years since the Committee came into existence, we have been forced
to respond to a series of crises which threatened the economic well-being of the Nation. The Committee was only 9 months old when Manhattan was attacked on September 11, 2001. Yet the Committees oversight and coordination played an important role in ensuring that banks never closed, the money supply was safe, and the
124
capital markets reopened within days of the attacks, despite many of those markets
being based within blocks of Ground Zero.
In the weeks following the attacks, the Committee authored legislation to assist
the Department of the Treasury and law enforcement to track and shut off the
sources of terrorist financing and to provide a temporary Federal backstop to ensure
that businesses could continue to get insurance coverage for acts of terrorism. The
most recent piece of financial services legislation responding to the September 11
attacks was enacted last year, ensuring that payments can continue unimpeded,
even if the transportation system is crippled.
At the same time, the Committee was forced to respond to a crisis in confidence
created by a series of corporate scandals, further undermining the resilience of our
capital markets. The Committee responded on several fronts, culminating in enactment of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, and recent work to address abuses found in the
mutual fund industry.
All of these activities occurred outside of the Homeland Security Act and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), yet no one would argue that they were any
less important to the long-term security of the Nation, or that they should have occurred in any other venue.
CREATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
During the consideration of the legislation to create DHS, Chairman Armey of the
first Select Committee solicited the views of the committees of jurisdiction. Chairman Oxley and then-Ranking Member LaFalce submitted their views on HR. 5005,
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (see attachment). In that letter, they identified
several agencies either within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial services or which have important roles with regard to matters within the Committees
jurisdiction. While the attached letter discusses the programs in more detail, they
are briefly described below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers 3 programs
which fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services: (1) the National Flood Insurance Program, (2) the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, and
(3) the Defense Production Act (DPA). The first 2 programs fall within the Committees jurisdiction over public and private housing (ci. 1(g)(8), Rule X), and the Committee is explicitly given jurisdiction over defense production (cl. 1(g)(2), Rule X).
While each of these programs is related to FEMAs core mission of preparation,
response, and prevention of disasters, they are relatively small elements of the
agencys portfolio. For instance, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program places
FEMA in a coordination role with charitable third-parties to ensure that food and
shelter resources can be dispatched where they are needed most. Similarly, FEMAs
role under the Defense Production Act is to coordinate Federal agencies decisions
regarding transportation services and the availability of civil defense resources in
times of national emergency, while other agencies such as the Department of Commerce and the Department of Defense implement other aspects of the DPA. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), while wholly administered by FEMA, is a
program which permits homeowners to purchase flood insurance, a product private
insurers refuse to provide due to problems with the traditional economics of insurance underwriting when applied to flooding. Unlike much of the post disaster aid
provided by FEMA, NFIP is a premium-supported system, with the full faith and
credit of the United States providing the ultimate backstop. The programs primary
purpose is to ensure that home buyers can obtain the insurance demanded by lenders when the property is located within a flood plain.
United States Secret Service
While the Secret Service and its activities do not fall directly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services, its origins in the Department of the
Treasury and mission have led to its historic close working relationship with this
Committee, its predecessors, and other financial regulatory agencies. Since the Secret Services founding in 1865, it has been the primary protector of the Nations
currency, and has developed extensive expertise in the protection of the Nations
payments system. This mission was expanded with the passage of the Omnibus
Crime Control Act (Public Law 98473) which gave the Service jurisdiction over
crimes involving credit cards, identity theft, and computer crime. This jurisdiction
was expanded again in 1994 when the Service was given additional jurisdiction to
investigate fraud against financial institutions.
125
RECENT ACTIVITY IN THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
INVOLVING DHS FEMA
FEMA Programs
The transfer of FEMA to DHS has not affected the legislative or oversight activities of the Committee on Financial Services. During the last session of the 108th
Congress, the Committee reauthorized the Defense Production Act. On March 19,
2003, a witness from DHS appeared alongside witnesses from the Department of
Commerce and the Department of Defense at a hearing on reauthorization of the
DPA. The Committee reported legislation reauthorizing the DPA on April 2, 2003
(H.R. 1280; H. Rept. 10856). The DPA was reauthorized through September 30,
2008 with enactment of the companion legislation from the Senate (S. 1608; Public
Law 108195).
Similarly, the Committee reported legislation reforming and reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program. The Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2003 (H.R. 253;
H. Rept. 108266) passed the House on November 20, 2003 by a record vote of 352
yeas and 62 nays, and is currently pending in the Senate. The Committee has also
had to shepherd a number of short-term extensions of the program in the 108th
Congress (See H.R. 11, H.J. Res. 2, H.R. 2555, 5. 1768).
Secret Service
While the Committee has not reported legislation giving new responsibilities to
the United States Secret Service since its transfer to the Department of Homeland
Security, the Committee continues to enjoy a close working relationship with the Secret Service as it oversees the safety and security of the Nations currency. The Secret Service worked closely with the Treasury Departments Bureau of Engraving
and Printing (BEP) in the design of the new $20 bill released last year, and is continuing its work with the redesign of the $50 and $100 bills, scheduled for release
in 2004 and early 2005. With the Secret Service on the front lines of the battle
against currency counterfeiting, their expertise is essential in the BEPs efforts to
design currency which thwarts counterfeiters using increasingly sophisticated and
readily-available technology.
OTHER HOMELAND SECURITY-RELATED ACTIVITIES IN THE 107TH AND
108TH CONGRESSES
One of the primary lessons of the post9/11 era is that homeland security is not
a monolithic concept. DHS was designed to be multi-disciplinary, incorporating elements to address border and transportation security, emergency preparedness and
response, and critical infrastructure protection. Yet, while DHS is one of the lead
agencies in the Nations fight against terrorism, it does not carry out that fight
alone.
One of the key elements in stopping terrorist attacks before they begin and catching the perpetrators in their aftermath is tracking terrorist financing. The Committee has engaged in vigorous oversight of the Department of the Treasury, the
lead agency in this effort, as well as all of the other financial regulators to ensure
that terrorist financing activities cannot escape detection, and that our financial
system is not abused by terrorists.
Similarly, while DHS is the coordinating agency in the protection of the Nations
critical infrastructure, the Department of the Treasury and the other financial regulators, including the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
FDIC, and others, have the day-to-day responsibility for securing the payments system and capital markets against all manner of attack. The rapid recovery of the
capital markets and limited disruption of the banking and payments system was
one of the great success stories from the events of September 11.
The Committee on Financial Services has pursued a legislative and oversight
agenda intended to reinforce those elements in the tracking of terrorist financing
and protection of our critical financial infrastructure, while seeking improvement in
those areas where weaknesses have been found. What follows is a brief description
of the Committees activities in this regard.
Money Laundering and Tracking Terrorist Financing
What began as an effort to track the activities of drug traffickers and organized
crime has evolved into one of the most essential tools in the war on terrorism. The
Committee and its predecessors have held a long-standing interest in the matter,
and it has been the subject of legislative and oversight activities since the early
1980s.
Jurisdictionally, money laundering and terrorist financing enforcement efforts fall
into two categories: (1) criminal enforcement provisions, which fall within the juris-
126
diction of the Committee on the Judiciary, and (2) coordination and regulation of
activities at financial institutions, securities firms, and other financial intermediaries to track and reduce money laundering, which fall within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Financial Services.
The Department of the Treasury has long been the central coordinating authority
in the effort to track and disrupt the money flows to terrorists and criminals. Since
the establishment of the Committee on Financial Services in the 107th Congress,
it has held a number of hearings on the subject, including:
Internet gambling and its use as a money laundering conduit (7/11/2001);
The design and security of the Nations currency (7/24/2001);
Dismantling the financial infrastructure of global terrorism (10/3/2001);
Preventing identity theft by terrorists and criminals (11/8/200 1);
Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act and investigating patterns of terrorist financing (2/12/2002; 9/19/2002);
Recovering monetary assets stolen by dictators (5/9/2002);
Progress since 9/11 in tracking terrorist financing (3/11/2003);
Freezing, seizing, and repatriating funds stolen by Saddam to Iraq (5/14/2003;
3/18/2004); and,
The Hamas asset freeze and other efforts to curtain terrorist financing (9/24/
2003);
Additionally, the subject of terrorist financing and efforts to curtain money laundering are often the subject of questions during Chairman Greenspans twice-yearly
appearances on the state of monetary policy and the economy, as well as during routine oversight hearings on the other financial regulators.
Legislatively, the Committee has also been active in efforts to curtain money laundering. The most substantial effort in this regard was the Financial Anti-Terrorism
Act of 2001 (H.R. 3004, 107th Congress), enacted as title III of the USA PATRIOT
Act (Public law 10756). This measure contained a wide-variety of provisions addressing activities commonly associated with money laundering. It gave the Treasury Department important new authorities to reduce the traditional avenues of terrorist financing, such as hawala and other informal money-transfer systems which
operate outside of the traditional banking system.
Additionally, the Act strengthened already existing elements with the Treasury
Department to ensure that they were suited to the job of tracking terrorist financing. Most notably, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) was elevated from an office to a bureau within the Treasury, and it was given significant
new standing and resources. FinCEN draws on the expertise of a number of different agencies to serve as an early warning system for terrorist financing, attempting to discover efforts by criminals and terrorists to move money through the
system before it can be used to finance criminal acts. The Committee continues to
closely monitor FinCENs progress, and is actively engaged in making its efforts successful.
Similarly, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is an entity within the
Treasury Department which receives regular scrutiny from the Committee. OFACs
mission is to freeze, seize and assist in the repatriation of foreign assets found in
the U.S. banking system. OFAC and FinCEN, when taken together, are the frontline organizations in the Nations battle against money laundering, representing the
consolidation of expertise on the matter.Critical Infrastructure of the Nations Financial System
One of the lessons arising from the events of September 11 was the importance
of protecting the critical infrastructure of the Nations financial system. The planes
which hit the World Trade Center were a direct attack on the Nations capital markets. The New York and American stock exchanges were temporarily shut down
after the attacks, and a number of large market-makers, clearing operations, and
other financial intermediaries were actually located within the towers themselves.
However, the New York Stock Exchange was only closed for 4 business days, and
the market infrastructure demonstrated an astounding degree of resilience given the
magnitude of the destruction.
Much of the credit goes to preparations made by the financial services sector in
their effort to avoid problems associated with the Y2K bug. During those efforts,
many of the exchanges, firms, and financial institutions took the opportunity to
build redundancy and backup systems, and perfect their disaster recovery procedures. Those efforts were invaluable in ensuring that the quick recovery of the markets.
However, those same events revealed other weaknesses in the system which the
Committee continues to pursue. While critical infrastructure protection has many
common elements across industries, such as the need to protect important telecommunications or transportation arteries, the financial services sector has dem-
127
onstrated that if other assets peculiar to that industry arent protected, the results
can be disastrous. By way of example, after the completion of a sales transaction
for equities, the transaction goes through a clearing process which can take up to
5 days. If the records of those transactions are lost during the clearing process, literally billions of dollars could disappear from the economy in the blink of an eye.
In the event of an emergency, the markets and their associated sales and clearing
systems must be shut down in an orderly process so as to minimize the potential
economic effects of a catastrophic failure.
Through a pattern of cooperation with the financial regulators and their regulated
firms, the Committee has had a record of successful identification of problem areas,
and efforts are under way to address those flaws. For instance, on February 12,
2003, the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored
Enterprises held a hearing entitled Recovery and Renewal: Protecting the Capital
Markets Against Terrorism Post 9/11. This hearing featured the testimony from the
General Accounting Office (GAO) highlighting their work on the financial services
critical infrastructure issue, entitled Potential Terrorist Attacks: More Actions
Needed to Better Prepare Critical Financial Markets (GAO as well as other testimony from the Securities and Exchange Commission, the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, and the Bond Market Association. The Committees efforts to address problem areas is ongoing both in public and non-public oversight efforts.
Through the work of this study and the Committees other work on the subject, it
is apparent that a high level of expertise in the operation of the markets is necessary to protect its unique infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE
Most of the preceding material described the Committees interaction with DHS
on those programs within its jurisdiction and the Committees other activities which
might be characterized as related to homeland security. However, as you can see
from those descriptions, our work has focused on the aspects of homeland security
which are financial in nature, and essential to the proper functioning of the financial services sector.
In general, should the House decide to add the Homeland Security Committee to
the roster of standing committees of the House, we believe that those matters that
currently fall within the Financial Services Committees Rule X jurisdiction are distinct enough so as to avoid any interference with the current or future work of the
Homeland Security Committee. The Committee on Financial Services and its predecessors have a demonstrated expertise in the increasingly complex financial services
sector which we should be permitted to continue to exercise.
Specifically, should the House decide to reorganize Rule X to better define the
Homeland Security jurisdiction in the House, we recommend:
1. Programs administered by FEMA which currently fall within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Financial Services should remain within its jurisdiction. Those
programs include the Defense Production Act (which FEMA shares with the Departments of Defense and Commerce), the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, and
the National Flood Insurance Program. All of these programs are directly related
to the core jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services, in either the areas
of housing or defense production, price controls, or industrial policy. The Committees legislative efforts on these matters have not been impeded by the transfer of
FEMA to DHS. Similarly, other committees have always been FEMAs authorizing
committees, and their efforts have similarly been unimpeded.
2. Jurisdiction over money laundering and terrorist financing should remain with
the Committee on Financial Services. Despite the importance of money laundering
and terrorist financing regulation to the efforts to protect the homeland, those programs are closely related to the regular operations of financial institutions and similar firms. The Department of the Treasury continues to be the lead agency in tracking, freezing, seizing, and repatriating illegal financial assets, and the Committee
on Financial Services should maintain its traditional role in overseeing those operations.
3. Any grant of critical infrastructure protection to a Committee on Homeland Security should only be general While there is a role for a committee to play in formulating overall critical infrastructure protection policy, the oversight of specific
sectors should remain with the committees of jurisdiction. This is similar to the
grant of jurisdiction over insurance to the Committee on Financial Services, where
the Financial Services Committee is granted jurisdiction over insurance, generally,
while other committees have jurisdiction over health insurance, crop insurance, and
other similar matters. In the case of the Committee on Financial Services, oversight
128
of the critical infrastructure efforts specific to the financial services sector should
remain with the Committee on Financial Services.
We hope that you have found these explanations and recommendations helpful in
your deliberations. We stand ready to assist the Subcommittee and the Select Committee further should you require our assistance.
ATTACHMENT
U.S. HOUSE
COMMITTEE
OF
ON
REPRESENTATIVES
FINANCIAL SERVICES
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
July 11, 2002
The Honorable Richard K. Armey, Chairman
Select Committee on Homeland Security
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Armey:
The terrorist attacks of September 11 demonstrated the need for improved security and prevention measures to combat acts of violence against U.S. citizens. The
Financial Services Committee has contributed to the fight against terrorism by cutting off funding for organizations that finance terrorist activities and strengthening
existing money laundering laws through the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 10756). Additionally, the Committee has sought to prevent catastrophic economic losses from
such attacks through the passage of the Terrorist Risk Protection Act (H.R. 3210).
The Financial Services Committee has done an extensive review of its jurisdiction
as it relates to the Presidents proposal to create a Department of Homeland Security (H.R. 5005). The Committee strongly supports the efforts of the President and
the Select Committee on Homeland Security to create a new executive department
that will coordinate resources in an effort to prevent attacks on the United States.
While the Committee will not mark up H.R. 5005, it would like to identify its jurisdiction over this legislation and reserve its right to consider the issues within our
jurisdiction in the future. The Committee believes that it is in the best position to
continue oversight of these programs, regardless of what executive department they
are located.
The following represents our views about how the programs within our jurisdiction will integrate into the new Department of Homeland Security:
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
The Committee has jurisdiction over three programs within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that would become the responsibility of the new
department created through H.R. 5005. These programs are: the National Flood Insurance Programs, the Defense Production Act and the Emergency Food and Shelter
Program. FEMAs mission is to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from
disasters of all types. The, Committee believes that the expertise of FEMA in consequence management is critical to the function of the proposed Office of Homeland
Security
National Flood Insurance ProgramThe National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 USC 4001 et seq.) created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
and authorized the Director of FEMA to administer the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA). The FLA provided insurance protection for properties which are vulnerable to floods, but not insured by the private sector. Prior to passage of this act,
insurance companies generally did not offer coverage for flood disasters because of
the high risks involved. The legislation as amended in 1973 and 1994 authorized
the FIA and Mitigation Directorate to administer the NFIP. In 2001, the FJA and
the Mitigation Directorate were brought together into a single organization, the
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA).
FIMA has expertise in risk assessment, mitigation or loss prevention and insurance. Efforts such as resident education and flood mapping enable FEMA to reach
out to residents in flood prone regions and protect against preventable losses. These
services work in conjunction with the NFIP and have proven successful in building
relationships in regions where floods are a threat to property and lives. The Committee understands that FIMAs risk assessment programs are now being designed
129
to assist local communities to identify and address their vulnerabilities from natural
and man-made disasters.The Committee views FEMAs efforts to prevent and mitigate damage from floods as critical to the protection of lives and property. The Committee further believes that it is important that the NFIP and the FIMA to work
together efficiently in the prevention of losses from floods and from other disasters
and for that reason should for the time being remain within FEMA as it is transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. FEMAs programs may be reviewed
by the Committee in the future in an effort to improve their operation and to ensure
that users are properly served.
The Defense Production ActThe goal of the Defense Production Act of 1950
(50 USC App. 2062) (DPA) is to ensure that the United States has the ability to
mobilize industrial and other civilian resources in support of national defense an
civil emergency preparedness maintain military readiness when there is a threat to
national security. The DPA is essential to the protection of the United States in so
far as it uses economic tools to provide uninterrupted supplies of industrial resources in times of military crisis and civil emergency.
The DPA authorizes FEMA to coordinate Federal agencies decisions concerning
the provision of transportation services, the priority availability of civil defense resources, materials, services and facilities to ensure the dispersal of such resources
in the interest of national defense. The DPA was reauthorized by the Financial
Services Committee in 2001 for two years (F.L. 10747).
The Committee believes the DPA is an important mechanism for the protection
of the United States and should be located in the new Department of Homeland Security. Through the Presidents proposal, the DPA will be very important to mobilize
national defense and civil emergency preparedness resources in the event of a terrorist attack or in an effort to ensure that there is adequate preparation to prevent
such an attack.
T2The Emergency Food and Shelter ProgramThe Emergency Food and Shelter
Program (EFSP) (P.L. 10077) is governed by a national board consisting of several
charitable organizations and is chaired by FEMA. The goal of this program is to allocate Federal funds for the provision of food and shelter. The national board
awards funds to jurisdictions based upon a formula. Further, a small portion of the
overall award is allocated by formula to state set-aside committees which then allocate funds to jurisdictions based upon the criteria they feel is most appropriate. The
EFSP seeks to ensure that allocations are quickly made to neediest areas of the
country, that the public and private sectors cooperate, and that decisions are made
at the local level. In 2001, $140 million in aid was distributed through this program.
It can be argued that the operation of food and shelter programs has little to do
with the protection of the United States from terrorist activities. However, the
EFSP is a critical program which supplies food and shelter to needy people in emergency situations, and to ensure that the program remains effective and functional,
the Committee recommends that it remain within FEMA at this time. The Presidents 2003 budget proposal calls for the EFSP to be moved from FEMA to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This could be an effective allocation
of Federal resources to aid those in need, and the Committee may examine the viability of such a move in the future.
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE
The Committee commends the President for his proposal to move the United
States Secret Service (USSS) to the new Department and maintain it as a distinct
entity outside the four major jurisdictional cylinders established under the new
Secretary. The Committee believes that the long dual-role history of the Service
investigative and protectivecombined with its more recently developed expertise
in preventing and investigating cyber crimes and its core mission of protecting the
financial system of the United States, make the USSS uniquely suited to draw from
and augment the work of the other component agencies of the new Department.
Since its founding in 1865 as the first investigative arm of the United States government and the protector of the integrity of U.S. currency, the Service has been
the primary guardian of the countrys financial servicesbanks, currency and payment systems. The added mission of personal protection, dating to 1901 following
the assassination of President William McKinley, built on the Services expertise at
preventing crimes. That mission statement was expanded again in 1984 with passage of the Omnibus Crime Control Act (P.L. 98473), adding jurisdiction over new
crimes involving identity theft, access devices such as credit cards, and computer
crimes. In 1994, further jurisdiction was added, recognizing USSS expertise investigating fraud against financial institutions. Today, the Secret Service has over
130
6,000 employees, an annual budget of just over $1 billion and 125 field offices across
the United States and around the world.
Infrastructure Protection Springing from the Services personal-protection role is the unique and important duty to protect critical infrastructures of the United States. The Committee believes this role should become
an enhanced portion of the Services duties at the new Department.
The events of September 11 reinforce lessons the Committee learned in efforts to
protect against financial-system and infrastructure failures due to the Year 2000
problem: that in an increasingly computerized and inter-connected world, the failure
of a seemingly innocuous system can cause panic, deaths or economic calamity. Recent news stories indicating that Al Qaeda operatives have been probing the cyber
security of U.S. power systems and dams as well as banks and defense systems
show that the lesson has not been lost on terrorists, either. A serious compromise
of these electronic networks could wreak havoc on our economy, law enforcement,
military, health care, transportation and emergency services.
Cyber CrimeCyber criminals have devised sophisticated programs and techniques to defraud both consumers and private industry through electronic means.
In response, the Secret Service has developed new tools to combat the growing areas
of cyber terrorism, financial crime and computer fraud. These techniques include the
widely respected Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program and the series of task
forces modeled on the New York Electronic Crimes Task Force that are now under
development. The former program provides specialized training to select agents in
all areas of electronic crimes, qualifying those personnel as experts in the forensic
examination of electronic evidence. The USA PATRIOT Act, to which the Committee
contributed a major title, authorized the Secret Service to establish a nationwide
network of cyber crime task forces, based on the New York model that uses an innovative approach allowing local, state and national law enforcement agencies to combine their resources and experience with those of prosecutors, the private sector and
academic institutions to deter electronic crimes of all sorts. In recent months, the
Service has launched similar task forces across the country. The Committee strongly
supports these efforts and believes they can be instrumental in preventing crimes
that could disrupt the financial systems of the United States.
Anti-CounterfeitingThe Services original mission in 1865 was to block the
counterfeiting of the newly issued national currency, and while the mission does not
today have the profile of protecting the President, it remains a core function. Indeed, the USSS anti-counterfeiting efforts may be even more important today than
they were a century ago, as the U.S. dollar is the reserve currency of the world,
is the official currency of a number of countries, and is the default currency of many
more. The publics faith in the integrity of the dollar is at the heart of the stability
of the U.S. economy.
Thus, the Committee believes that the Services efforts to combat counterfeiting
deserve continued and enhanced emphasis. Recent discoveries in Colombia of credible counterfeits of the new U.S. one-dollar coin and in both Colombia and in areas
of Eastern Europe of counterfeit plants producing or ready to produce both U.S.
banknotes and the new Euro banknotes indicate the magnitude of the problem. The
Committee believes that the continued growth of counterfeiting by personal computer in the U.S. eventually will be mirrored overseas, where counterfeiting still
mostly is done on presses and is thus somewhat easier to interdict. Also, the Committee believes that the establishment of more overseas field offices so that agents
can gather and act on information first-handrather than relying on other Federal
law agencies or other countries law-enforcementwill increase the ability to stop
counterfeiting.
Given the demonstrated nexus between counterfeiting, drug-running, arms-smuggling and terrorism, the Committee strongly believes that trying to staff anti-counterfeiting and other anti-crime and threat-assessment efforts for all of Central and
South America and the Caribbean (except Colombia) from a single office in Miami
is simply not practical anymore.
The Committee further believes that the Services recent agreement with Europol
to jointly police against counterfeiting is an important move and a model for other
law enforcement that should be encouraged. The Committee stands ready to enhance other anti-counterfeiting law, as appropriate.
Financial CrimesThe Services pedigree as the only Federal investigative unit
until some of its agents were detailed to help form the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1907, and its position within the Department of the Treasury, naturally led
to a good relationship with the financial services industry and successes in stopping
financial crimes. In the 1 980s, with the advent of relatively new technologies such
as computers and credit cards came a wave of an entirely new sort of bank and fi-
131
nancial fraud, and the 1984 Act created three new criminal statutesTitle 18, Sections 1028, 1029 and 1030to deal with fraud in conjunction with identity documents, access device fraud arid computer crimes, giving the Service major new authorities and clear jurisdiction. The USA PATRIOT Act cemented the Services jurisdiction over Sections 1030 and 1344. The Committee believes that the Services role
in these areas, as well as the assessment of threats against financial services companies and the protection of that infrastructurecommunications, power, etc.vital
to those companies, is invaluable and should be emphasized.
Monetary SecurityWhile the Presidents legislative proposal for the new Department does not suggest consolidating the Treasury Departments monetary security forces into the new Department, the Committee believes that this could be an
important step that should be closely examined. Currently the United States Mint
and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) maintain separate security forces
that over the years have had varying degrees of success. The Committee feels that
transferring this mission to the Secret Service in the new Department would have
important benefits both to the security of the facilities that produce the countrys
currency and coins, and also to the security of U.S. gold reserves held at Fort Knox,
currently under the supervision of the Mint. Noting that the BEP currently relies
on the USSS heavily for consultations on its security arrangements, the Committee
further believes that moving this mission to the Service may allow the currencyproduction arms of the Treasury to concentrate on what they do best and allow the
Service to train its newest agents in a different form of protection detail, ultimately
enhancing their abilities.
The Financial Services Committee strongly supports the efforts of the President
and the Select Committee on Homeland Security to protect our citizens from terrorist attacks. While the Committee waives its referral of H.R. 5005, its Members
stand ready to assist in the structuring of the envisioned Department of Homeland
Security if such assistance is requested.
Yours truly,
MICHAEL G. OXLEY
Chairman
BARNEY FRANK
Ranking Member
THE HONORABLE CHARLES B. RANGEL, AND RANKING MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Chairman Diaz-Balart and Ranking Member Slaughter, I appreciate the invitation to present my formal views to Members of the Subcommittee on Rules regarding the Select Committee on Homeland Security (the Select Committee). Establishment of the Select Committee for the 1 08 Congress was necessary to insure effective oversight and coordination in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Without question, the Committee played a valuable role in implementing the Homeland Security Act of 2002, monitoring the activities of the DHS,
and providing a meaningful Congressional forum for discussion of our homeland security activities, problems, and concerns.
On the issue that is the subject of this hearing, the future of the Select Committee, I believe that there could be a continued role for the Select Committee to
play, particularly with regard to coordinating the oversight and authorization activities of the various House committees that retain primary jurisdiction over elements
of the Department of Homeland Security. That said, I do believe that the Committee
on Ways and Means continues to have an important role in directly overseeing the
customs activities of DHS, and in particular, the Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) division. Much of the customs work done at CBP directly relates to revenue
measures (e.g., collection of duties and implementation of U.S. trade laws, including
laws related to U.S. trade agreements).
My current view is consistent with the position I took during passage of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002. There I expressed strong reservations about the
movement of the former U.S. Customs Service (USCS), which dealt with the movement of people, goods and cargo across our borders, from the Department of the
Treasury to the new Department of Homeland Security.
My reservations stemmed, in large part, from the simple fact that the USCS
played a unique role among all of the border agencies. USCS had a two-fold mandateit was an enforcement agency and trade facilitation agency. On the enforcement side, USCS policed the borders to prevent the entry of contraband (drugs, haz-
132
ardous materials, terrorist implements, etc). On the trade facilitation side, USCS
processed imports, collected duties, produced trade statistics, determined classification of products, and monitored and prevented the illegal transshipment of goods.
During the debate over the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, I
wanted to make clear, if the USCS were moved from Treasury, that whatever reconstituted agency emerged would not be dominated by a focus on enforcement activities to the detriment of trade facilitation. The compromise eventually adopted in the
Committee on Ways and Means, which preserved certain core trade positions from
USCS at Treasury, attempted to address part of that concern, albeit imperfectly. I
say imperfectly because many elements of the USCS were still moved to DHS, even
though they are involved in what I view as essentially trade facilitation activities.
As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means jurisdiction on trade- related
issues includes customs and customs administration . . .procedures which relate to
customs operations affecting exports and imports. . .budget authorizations for the
U.S. Customs Service. . . . Given the continued trade focus of aspects of the CBP,
the Committee on Ways and Means should continue to have primary jurisdiction
over the trade facilitation aspects of the agency. Committee on Ways and Means
oversight is necessary to ensure that trade facilitation does not become a secondary
function of the CBP but rather continues as a tier-one priority along with border
security and enforcement, as it was under the former USCS.
The trade-related nature of many of CBPs activities is evident from many of the
primary projects CBP is pursuing as part of its core operations.
First, take the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) which is
a partnership between the Federal Government and industry. Under the program,
participating companies agree to adopt best practices to improve the security of
their shipments from the factory floor to the foreign loading docks to the U.S. border
points of entry. Those companies meeting security standards are then given a fast
lane through border crossings and sea ports.
CTPAT obviously serves two purposes. First, it helps CBP ensure that incoming
cargo to the United States contains legitimate trade and has not been compromised
by terrorists or smugglers of contraband. Second, and equally important, CTPAT
faciliates trade. It allows companies importing goods into the United States to get
those goods processed in a timely, efficient manner. In this era of just-in-time delivery, this is crucial to the survival of any company.
Second, take the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) which is the new
trade processing system that will enable CBP to track, control, and process all commercial goods imported into and exported out of the United States. ACE was developed to replace the former USCSs existing, outdated automation system, which
could not handle the massive increase in the volume of United States trade. A recent U.S. General Accounting Office study reported that the benefits of ACE include
speeding the flow of legitimate commerce into and out of the United States . . .
and providing a single interface between the trade community and the Federal Government for trade data.
Third, consider how the CBPs core mission is described in the Presidents fiscal
year 2005 budget justification materials: CBP . . . implements and enforces the
international trade agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement
. . ., the African Growth and Opportunity Act . . ., the Andean Trade Act, and the
Caribbean Basin Initiative. In some instances, CBP officials are involved in trade
negotiations on trade agreements. Other issues that CBP is involved in are the enforcement of the Trade Act of 1930 This can include taking enforcement action for
any forced child labor or anti-dumping countervailing violations Also in support of
domestic industry, CBP enforces . . . laws pertaining to intellectual property rights
. . . . CBP administers and enforces any quotas on specific products such as textiles.
Finally, consider that in fiscal year 2003, CBP processed 26.1 million import entries, valued at over $1.2 trillion, and collected $24.7 billion in duties and fees.
I understand that CBP has other responsibilities. After all, the agency is not just
comprised of the former USCS. It has immigration inspectors from the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, agricultural border inspectors from the Agriculture Department, and the entire Border Patrol. The total number of employees
in CBP is 40,000. The Ways and Means Committee, of course, does not have jurisdiction, nor would I argue we should have, over these other elements of CBP. Other
standing Committees have the requisite expertise to handle such matters.
As I indicated from the outset, I do believe that the Select Committee could have
a role to play in coordinating the activities of the standing committees of jurisdiction
and in providing technical support on a bipartisan basis. Further, continued oversight of DHS priorities and decisions will undoubtedly create balanced, good government analyses that will benefit all Members of the Congress.
133
In conclusion, I want to again support the efforts of the Select Committee on
Homeland Security. It is only with our commitment and cooperation that, together,
we can fight international terrorism and protect our borders at home.
THE HONORABLE C.W. BILL YOUNG, CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
ON RULES
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Subcommittee on Rules, I am pleased to share with
you today my observations and reflections of the House Committee on Appropriations oversight structure for homeland security programs and activities. These observations are based upon my experience of reorganizing the House Committee on
Appropriations last year. I believe that the House Committee on Appropriations is
the only committee of the House that has permanently reorganized in the wake of
the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the establishment of the Department
of Homeland Security. Doing so was no small task. In fact, the last reorganization
of the Committee on Appropriations was some 3 decades ago and is indicative of
the difficulty in proposing and implementing change in this institution.
The Committee was guided by several principles in developing and implementing
its reorganization plan: firstly, the committee needed to provide a structure of oversight to the Department of Homeland Security. The department itself lacked an institutional structure; it was a conglomeration of several disparate agencies. Secondly, we had to create a subcommittee that was comprised of members and staff
that had the credibility and tenacity to provide effective oversight over a nascent
department with arguably some of our governments most important programs. We
had to move quickly, without regard to political turf, and we had to move unilaterally. I would like to expound on each of these points briefly.
The imperative for the Committee (and the department presumably) from the outset was to provide a structure for the legacy agencies to coalesce into a single department with a coordinated, unified mission. The vast number of agencies, accounts and programs that were transferred to the new Department of Homeland Security cut across the majority of our thirteen subcommittees. Clearly, it would not
be physically possible for the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to
testify before each of seven appropriations subcommittees, an equal number of authorizing committees, and to organize a new department, and most importantly, to
improve our nations security. And just as the Secretary could not focus on his new
job at hand and testify and report to several different subcommittees, the Committee would find it equally difficult to provide consistent oversight and appropriate
funding levels if the myriad of the departments programs and activities were scattered across seven subcommittees. It was obvious to me early that we needed to reorganizeto provide a structure to ourselves and for the new agency that we were
to oversee and fund.
Like national defense, homeland security should be above political infighting. To
that end, we decided that the new subcommittee should be an exclusive subcommittee, comprised of members with previous oversight experience of the programs of the new department and had who proven themselves to be thoughtful, deliberative and above the political fray. We felt that these traits were important for
the members to serve on this subcommittee since, in the absence of a single permanent committee with exclusive jurisdiction of homeland security programs, this subcommittee would be the sole committee providing continuing oversight without regard to inter-authorizing committee jurisdictional concerns. Just as it was important
to ensure that the members of the subcommittee had oversight experience, we drew
from the senior committee personnel to staff the new subcommittee. The staff has
extensive program management, administrative and legislative experience. Members
and senior staff were moved from our old transportation, energy and water, and
treasury/postal subcommittees. Doing so ensured effective oversight and a structure
to produce a bipartisan bill in a timely manner.
Lastly, the decision was made to act decisively and unilaterally. I briefed the
chairmen of the affected subcommittees and my leadership of the planned reorganization. I selected the new chairman. And I acted. Broad discussion with stakeholders would have proven fatal to a reorganization that had to be in place quickly
to ensure our governments newest department was up and running quickly with
proper and effective management controls in place and robust and continuing oversight conducted by the Appropriations Committee. Within a few short weeks, the
Senate replicated the House Committee on Appropriations reorganization.
134
I hope that my experience in reorganizing the Committee on Appropriations
proves useful to you as you consider the appropriate authorizing structure of the
programs of the Department of Homeland Security.

Homeland Security Jurisidiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Homeland Security Jurisidiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Homeland Security Jurisidiction: The Perspectives of Committee Leaders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HOMELAND SECURITY JURISIDICTION: THE

PERSPECTIVES OF COMMITTEE LEADERS

MARCH 24, 2004

Serial No. 10842

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Florida, Chairman

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress From the

HOMELAND SECURITY JURISDICTION: THE

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Chairman Goss and Ms. Harman, thank you

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you. And we will have questions. Thank

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you Ms. Harman.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. It is a

Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we will hear

Mr. STENHOLM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Stenholm, and thank you,

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Oberstar.

Financial Services Committee

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Mica, you made emphasis on aviation, of

OVER THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AT

DHS SHOULD REMAIN

LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING AT DHS SHOULD REMAIN

MORE THAN ONE

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, in your testimony you talk

Mr. THOMAS. Just briefly to comment on the question in front of

You might also like