Opening Statement of Senator Feinstein at Hearing to Examine Strengths and Weaknesses of Homeland Security Agency
June 25, 2002

Washington, DC - The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information today held a hearing, convened by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed Homeland Security Agency.

The subcommittee has previously held hearings on reorganizing the government's efforts to fight terrorism, including hearings on the Hart-Rudman Commission report and the Gilmore Commission report.

The following is the prepared text of Senator Feinstein's statement:

"It is my pleasure to welcome everyone to this hearing of the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information on the president's proposed Homeland Security Department.

This subcommittee has held a number of hearings on the need for more coordination and consolidation of the agencies that combat terrorism. For example, we held hearing on the report of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, more popularly known as the Hart-Rudman report. I am delighted to see that the co-chair of that commission is with us today.

We also held a hearing on the second annual report of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, known simply as the Gilmore Commission report. I am also pleased that the chairman of that advisory panel will testify today.

It is also good to see Comptroller General David Walker here as well as our other witnesses-all of whom are leading commentators on terrorism policy issues.

As we all know, President Bush has proposed a new Department of Homeland Security. This agency would consist of 22 federal agencies and a total of 170,000 federal employees-making it one of the biggest in U.S. government. The department's initial annual budget would be $37.5 billion.

As we consider this ambitious proposal, I think that we need to look at four issues.

First, we need to take a hard look at what agencies the president has proposed to include in the new department and what agencies he left out. Senator Rudman, in his March 2001 report, recommended that Customs, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and FEMA be included in a single consolidated agency. But the president proposal includes much more-including agencies concerned with disease control, eradicating boll weevils from cotton crops, issuing flood insurance, cleaning up oil spills, and trade inspection.

Other agencies, including those that specifically protect us from terrorism, are not included. I believe that Congress needs to look closely at exactly what goes into the new Homeland Security Department, and make sure that the department contains the right combination of agencies.

Second, we want to be sure that any reorganization does not cause chaos and dysfunction in the middle of our war against terrorism. We must remember that the last government massive reorganization effort took place after World War II. And that effort, which resulted in the Department of Defense, the CIA, and the National Security Council, took years.

Moving agencies out of their current homes into a new department will inevitably result in confusion and dislocation that could take years to sort out. We need to ensure that, even in the midst of reorganization, we remain organized and coordinated in our fight against terrorism.

Third, we need to improve the collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence on homeland security. In that regard, we should not lose sight of the hard work we are doing to look into possible failures in the intelligence community that occurred before the September 11 attacks.

That investigation is certainly relevant to what we are considering today. For example, FBI Agent Coleen Rowley testified before the Judiciary Committee about the layers of bureaucracy at FBI Headquarters and agents' frustration in reaching the high-level people who authorize investigations.

We want to be sure that reorganization improves our intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination, not adds to our current difficulties.

And fourth, some have suggested that the department would be destined for failure if it could not gain access to all relevant raw intelligence and law enforcement data.

We need to know what kind of intelligence the department will get and what it can do if it does not get the information it needs. We also need to ask how realistic it is to expect the FBI and CIA to supply the new department with intelligence data while competing with it to analyze that information.

Clearly, the creation of a new Homeland Security Department offers an enormous challenge. I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues in Congress to meet that challenge.

###