If viewed from a bottom-line perspective, yesterday's appropriations
hearing on the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Science and
Technology Directorate was, on the whole, positive. In his opening
statement, Harold Rogers (R-KY), chairman of the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, commended DHS Under Secretary Charles
McQueary for maintaining the necessary "disciplined system to
guide homeland security research and development efforts over the long-haul." On
a number of fronts, however, subcommittee members expressed frustration
and in some cases anger about the directorate's efforts in the last
year.
Indicative of how new both the directorate and subcommittee are was
the venue for yesterday's hearing: the room usually used by the House
Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee, decorated with various photographs
of farming scenes. Also indicative was the standing- room-only audience
in this large hearing room.
The prepared opening statement read by Rogers was quite supportive
of McQueary and his directorate. Rogers commented on the difficulty
of McQueary's position, and echoing his colleagues in both the House
and Senate, explained that "Science and Technology must come up
with rapid solutions to strengthen our defenses against the near-term
attack." Rogers also said that McQueary had done "a good
job in getting your procurements on the street" to execute the
vision of the directorate. As well, the chairman appreciated how the
directorate had issued standards for emergency equipment that would
be used by first responders. Rogers also had good words about steps
that McQueary has taken to "allow private sector companies to
compete for S&T contracts to develop and deploy critical technologies." Also
receiving positive notice was the research supported by the directorate,
Rogers saying "your Directorate is racking up many successful
endeavors," citing surveillance equipment deployed in urban areas
to monitor possible biological attacks, and research to protect commercial
airliners against shoulder-fired missiles. Finally, the chairman praised
how the directorate has provided timely information to the committee,
suggesting that other DHS components follow this approach. With these
supportive words, Rogers aligned himself with his Senate counterparts,
as well as the House authorization committee that both held hearings
earlier this month (see http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2004/029.html.)
Once the hearing moved past the opening statement and McQueary's brief
opening remarks, the hearing proceeded along expected lines. Rogers'
first set of questions concerned BioWatch, for which significant new
funding has been requested in order that more intensive surveillance
can be performed. McQueary explained that a biological attack is a
major concern, in that it would be relatively easy to launch, and for
which the impact on people and the economy could be enormous. Rogers
pressed McQueary about when more of the survelliance could be automated.
In his set of questions, Ranking Minority Member Martin Sabo (D-MN)
asked how DHS and the Department of Energy coordinate their work on
BioWatch. He was also interested in DHS research on the screening of
aircraft cargo, and vulnerability assessments of facilities such as
nuclear power plants. Sabo asked, as did David Price (D-NC), about
the proposed 50% cut in university research programs. Regarding this
cut, McQueary replied as he did at the Senate hearing, explaining that
it had been the subject of considerable debate with the Office of Management
and Budget.
But then the atmosphere in the hearing room became much more heated
when Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) began his questioning about the utilization
of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is in the congressman's
district. Describing the expertise that the laboratory has in the detection
of nuclear materials, Wamp strongly criticized the directorate's relatively
new approach of working with all of the national laboratories on a
more equal basis. Calling the recent actions by one of the directorate's
components a "debacle," and criticizing that unit's director
by name, Wamp characterized the resulting policy as a political cave-in.
McQueary strongly defended his employee and said that the "characterization
was not accurate at all." Wamp pressed his criticism, saying that
the laboratory's management had been told it would have $40-$60 million
of research, which has actually been $7.4 million. The congressman
spoke of pressure from other states, and said that this was a case
of playing politics. McQueary stood his ground, telling the congressman, "Sir,
I want to tell you that not a single other Member of Congress besides
yourself has tried to bring pressure on me about how we spend money
on the national labs." Also critical of the directorate's funding
selection process was Tom Latham (R-IA) who expressed great frustration
with McQueary's hands-off approach in the initial stages of the review
process. McQueary defended the process, saying that a good proposal
was required to merit further attention in the selection process.
Rogers was far more critical in his second set of questions. He derided
the "sophomoric things" that airplane passengers are subjected
to in security screening, and showed considerable displeasure when
McQueary did not have satisfactory answers to how his directorate is
evaluating the Transportation Security Administration. "I'm troubled,
I'm irrate," the chairman said, when McQueary told him that he
did not know the status of the review. "That's strike one," Rogers
said.
In assessing the subcommittee's likely approach to the funding of
the Science and Technology Directorate for FY 2005, more attention
should be focused on Chairman Rogers' positive opening remarks than
on the latter stages of this hearing. No one is suggesting that the
threat posed by terrorism has decreased, and the general sentiment
of Members of Congress clearly lies in favor of doing more and doing
it faster. But yesterday's hearing also demonstrates that Members'
interests now include both overall policy objectives as well as specific
concerns.
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl