[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COUNTERTERRORISM TECHNOLOGY: PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
EMERGING THREATS AND INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 29, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-114
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
92-393 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Columbia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHRIS BELL, Texas
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota ------
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Peter Sirh, Staff Director
Melissa Wojciak, Deputy Staff Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Philip M. Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International
Relations
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
DAN BURTON, Indiana DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio TOM LANTOS, California
RON LEWIS, Kentucky BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Maryland
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota CHRIS BELL, Texas
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Lawrence J. Halloran, Staff Director and Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 29, 2003............................... 1
Statement of:
Jakub, Michael A., Director of Technical Programs, Office of
the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Department of State;
Edward McCallum, Director, Combating Terrorism Technology
Support Office, Department of Defense; Dr. David Bolka,
Director, Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.................... 5
Patel, Gordhan, president, JP Laboratories, Middlesex, NJ;
Jack Sawicki, Director of Business Development, Geomet
Technologies, LLC, Germantown, MD; Lee F. Sword, program
manager, Military Systems Division, Irobot Corp.,
Burlington, MA; Richard Mastronardi, vice president of
product management, American Science and Engineering, Inc.,
Billerica, MA; Bruce deGrazia, chairman, Homeland Security
Industries Association, Washington, DC; Kenneth P. Ducey,
president, Markland Technologies, Inc., Ridgefield, CT; and
Laurence D. Bory, vice president, Federal Government
Relations, HDR, Inc., Orlando, FL.......................... 69
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bolka, Dr. David, Director, Homeland Security Advanced
Research Projects Agency, Department of Homeland Security:
Information concerning inventory......................... 65
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Bory, Laurence D., vice president, Federal Government
Relations, HDR, Inc., Orlando, FL, prepared statement of... 136
deGrazia, Bruce, chairman, Homeland Security Industries
Association, Washington, DC, prepared statement of......... 114
Ducey, Kenneth P., president, Markland Technologies, Inc.,
Ridgefield, CT, prepared statement of...................... 129
Jakub, Michael A., Director of Technical Programs, Office of
the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Department of State,
prepared statement of...................................... 10
Mastronardi, Richard, vice president of product management,
American Science and Engineering, Inc., Billerica, MA,
prepared statement of...................................... 105
McCallum, Edward, Director, Combating Terrorism Technology
Support Office, Department of Defense, prepared statement
of......................................................... 18
Patel, Gordhan, president, JP Laboratories, Middlesex, NJ,
prepared statement of...................................... 71
Sawicki, Jack, Director of Business Development, Geomet
Technologies, LLC, Germantown, MD, prepared statement of... 90
Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of............ 3
Sword, Lee F., program manager, Military Systems Division,
Irobot Corp., Burlington, MA, prepared statement of........ 97
COUNTERTERRORISM TECHNOLOGY: PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS
----------
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats
and International Relations,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher
Shays (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Shays and Tierney.
Staff present: Lawrence Halloran, staff director and
counsel; Robert A. Briggs, clerk; Joseph McGowan, detailee;
Mary Holloway, intern; David Rapallo, minority counsel; and
Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.
Mr. Shays. The Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging
Threats and International Relations hearing entitled,
``Counterterrorism Technology: Picking Winners and Losers,'' is
called to order.
The emergence of terrorism as a threat to domestic security
laid bare our myriad vulnerabilities, but also unleashed a
tidal wave of national scientific ingenuity and creativity.
Long before September 11, government, businesses, and
individuals pursued development of new technologies to
strengthen homeland defenses. Research labs, defense
contractors, Members of Congress and others have been inundated
with proposals for everything from satellite monitoring cargo
containers to individual radiation detectors.
What happens to all those ideas? Who is responsible for
sorting through that mountain of paper, sifting wheat from
chaff, and making sure only the best concepts move forward to
prototype and the marketplace.
In the past, we found duplication and the lack of
coordination in Federal counterterrorism research and
development programs. Testimony before this subcommittee in
March 2000, described overlapping, unfocused chemical and
biological defense research programs in the Department of
Defense, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the
Department of Energy labs, and the Department of Justice.
We also heard about an established interagency forum for
evaluation and rapid prototyping of counterterrorism
technologies, called the Technical Support Working Group
[TSWG].
Now, to that already crowded field, add the Department of
Homeland Security [DHS], which Congress charged to act as both
the developer and clearinghouse for innovative technologies.
Today, we focus on the TSWG process, their performance, or
its performance, and its potential role with DHS in channeling
the torrent of homeland security technologies into a coherent
stream.
In terms of process, the working group relies on Broad Area
Announcements to sweep the technological horizon for proposals.
The subgroups of interested agency representatives and experts
use streamlined formats to speed evaluation of the responses.
Projects meeting specific requirements have been nurtured and
brought quickly to production.
In the near term, DHS will use the Technical Support
Working Group process to develop a substantial volume of annual
funding for prototype technologies, but DHS officials concede
they are establishing similar and overlapping capabilities
within their organization, so we asked TSWG participants, both
government agencies and private sector innovators, to assess
the past and potential of the working group in establishing and
implementing governmentwide priorities for homeland security
technologies.
We thank all our witnesses for their time and expertise,
and we look forward to their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.002
Mr. Shays. At this time, let me just recognize our first
panel, and then I'll swear them in.
We have Mr. Michael Jakub, Director of Technical Programs,
Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Department of
State.
We have Mr. Edward McCallum, Director, Combating Terrorism
Technology Support Office, Department of Defense.
We also have Mr. David Bolka, Director of HSARPA, which is?
Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, right
below. It's Doctor, I'm sorry, from the Department of Homeland
Security.
At this time, gentlemen, if you would stand, we'll swear
you in and we'll proceed.
If there is anyone else that you may want to testify, or
respond to questions?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Shays. We'll start with you, Mr. Jakub.
Thank you very much, and what we're going to do is allow
you to speak 5 minutes and then roll over another 5. I would
prefer you not take 10, but I don't want you to feel rushed in
your 5 minutes. With these mics you need to get pretty close to
them, and you also need to make sure they're on.
That's not close enough. I'm sorry. You're going to have to
move it right in front.
There we go.
STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL A. JAKUB, DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL PROGRAMS,
OFFICE OF THE COORDINATOR FOR COUNTERTERRORISM, DEPARTMENT OF
STATE; EDWARD McCALLUM, DIRECTOR, COMBATING TERRORISM
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; DR. DAVID
BOLKA, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS
AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Jakub. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to testify today on the National Combating
Terrorism Research and Development Program, which is carried
out by the interagency Technical Support Working Group.
As you know, I'm accompanied today by Mr. Edward McCallum,
from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict; and in the
future, I'll just say SOLIC so everybody knows what we're
talking about, and by Mr. David Bolka from the Department of
Homeland Security.
Before I start, Ambassador Black, the Coordinator for
Counterterrorism at the State Department sends his regards to
you and to other members of the subcommittee. He notes that he
wanted to be here today, but he has a schedule conflict and
he's currently traveling overseas.
Mr. Shays. I'm told that you're a better replacement; is
that right?
Mr. Jakub. My boss is here, so we'll have to put that into
the----
Mr. Shays. OK, as long as you know what you're talking
about.
Mr. Jakub. With your permission, we wanted to submit a
slightly revised statement for the record.
I'm going to be talking to you today and trying to put the
TSWG into a broad perspective for you. The other presentations,
I think, will narrow it down a little further, but by
approaching it in this manner, you're going to get a feel for
the entire program.
The hearings come at a very good time. They come at a time
of daily reminders of the terrorist threat, and I don't want to
go into a lot about the terrorist threat, but we need to put
this in a better perspective because you're going to hear us--
at TSWG, hear us talk about a threat-driven, requirements-based
program; and everything we do derives from the nature of the
threat that we are facing today as a country.
Just a couple points I want to make. The terrorist threat
is spreading geographically. There is no geographic area that
is immune from this type of threat. September 11, the events of
September 11, brought the events home to the continental United
States. Bali, which occurred last October, demonstrates that no
area, no matter how idyllic, is immune to the threat of
international terrorism.
Second, terrorist capabilities and especially their
technical capabilities are growing and increasing. Terrorists
have demonstrated they can acquire sophisticated weapons like
the SA-7 that they attempted to use last year in Mombasa. They
get these either from State sponsored support or the black
market, and they also get training from various State sponsors.
Terrorists are also sharing information on technical
expertise, for example, specifically in areas of improvised
explosive devices, explosive mixtures, detonating systems and
the like. Information from the cookbooks and the computer files
that were seized in Afghanistan are, as we have found out, in
the hands of other terrorist groups. There's also a
preoccupation by some terrorist groups today with chemical,
biological, and radiological materials and toxic industrial
chemicals.
The arrests in the United Kingdom and France earlier this
year and in Italy last year demonstrate this current
preoccupation. Thankfully, those attacks were thwarted before
any real damage could have been carried out, but they are a
possible harbinger of things to come, and they are things that
those of us working in technology development need to keep
uppermost in our minds. We need to be aware of the evolving
nature of the terrorist threat.
In terms of the U.S. response, Mr. Chairman, the United
States and its allies have been working hard to prevent
terrorist attacks through a variety of means. We highlight a
number of those in the written statement. The one I want to
focus on today, though, is our effort to rapidly develop and
apply technology to meet the challenges posed by terrorists.
Specifically, our challenge is to provide a coherent and
consistent context for technology development based on the
threat, technical innovation, real operator needs, and proven
procedures and tactics. Simply put, the TSWG philosophy is to
try to ``get ahead of the curve.'' We want to try and
anticipate future weapons and tactics that may be used by
terrorists and develop good countermeasures to defeat terrorist
capabilities and, at the same time, enhance the
counterterrorism capabilities of the United States and its
allies.
We provided in the written statement a pretty detailed
description of how the TSWG program came to be and its funding
sources. I don't want to review that here in detail with you,
but I do want to make a couple points.
Counterterrorism R&D was one of the key issues addressed in
1986 in the Vice President's Task Force Report on Combating
Terrorism. That was chaired by then-Vice President Bush. The
task force recommended the formation of an interdepartmental
mechanism to coordinate a national R&D program aimed at filling
the gaps in existing R&D and trying to prevent duplication of
efforts. State, and specifically my office, was assigned
responsibility for developing and coordinating this effort, and
to accomplish that task, we formed the TSWG, which has existed
since that time.
Initial funding for TSWG was centered in the State budget.
However, by the early 1990's, it came to be recognized in
Congress, within the administration, within all the departments
at that time, that if that funding and if that program was
going to grow, it was going to have to have funding
contributions from a lot of other agencies besides the
Department. In response, the DOD acknowledged the importance of
the program and formally established a dedicated funding line
beginning in fiscal year 1992 to support the TSWG and the
national program. From that date until today, both State and
Defense annually contribute what we call core funding for the
program with DOD providing the ``lion's share'' of those core
funds. Other departments and agencies, however, also contribute
funds based on their interests, their needs, and the degree to
which our national program is addressing their specific
requirements.
Our current organization for TSWG is relatively simple and
straightforward. It demonstrates both the TSWG's
interdepartmental approach and our focus on developing
technology in those critical functional areas necessary to have
a well-rounded counterterrorism program.
You should have an attachment with our statement up there
which gives you a line or block chart. You might want to refer
to that just for a second.
TSWG is a jointly administered effort with Defense. My
office, the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism,
provides policy oversight and overall program direction through
our chairmanship.
Mr. Shays. I'm going to ask you to suspend. You want us to
refer to what?
Mr. Jakub. There should be an attachment there, sir, which
gives you a line of--yes, sir. That's it.
Mr. Shays. Do we have that?
OK. Thank you.
Mr. Jakub. If you take a look at that chart, you'll see
that the program is a jointly administered effort with Defense;
and my office, the Office of the Coordinator for
Counterterrorism, provides policy oversight and overall program
direction through our chairmanship of the TSWG's executive
committee. We also contribute core funds to the program. OASD/
SOLIC provides technical oversight, executes and administers
the program on a daily basis through what is called the
Combating Terrorism Technology Support Office and also
contributes the lion's share of core funding for the program.
If you refer to all the blocks across the bottom of the
chart, those are our functional subgroups. Ten Federal
departments and a number of Federal agencies, representing over
80 elements of the Federal Government, participate in those
functional subworking groups. This is where requirements are
generated and proposals are evaluated. Mr. McCallum is going to
explain this in a lot more detail in a few minutes.
In addition to Federal elements, we have extended
membership invitations to selected State and local
organizations and to some congressional elements as well. For
example, the Capitol Police, the Senate Sergeant at Arms and
the Office of the Architect of the Capitol also participate on
several of the TSWG's subworking groups. We like to hear the
requirements from the Hill as well as those from Federal
departments.
Most recently, we reached agreement with the new Department
of Homeland Security to join the TSWG. As a result, the TSWG
will implement, with the support of DHS, those rapid
prototyping and development technology requirements of interest
to that department, many of which are also of interest to other
departments and agencies as well. DHS has also agreed to
contribute funding to the TSWG to assist in the program.
Our program focuses on advanced technology development
activities to meet the near-term counterterrorism and
antiterrorism technology and equipment needs of the Federal
community. Specifically, we support U.S. diplomatic,
intelligence, security, law enforcement, the military, and the
first responder communities.
I won't go into examples of all the successes that we have
had, but if you remember the threat I talked a bit about just
at the beginning of this presentation, we mentioned terrorist
interest in CBR materials. Two of our more recent projects have
been the escape masks which have also been issued to Members of
Congress and are being bought, right now, by other departments;
and more recently we have produced and are disseminating now a
low-cost dosimeter badge designed to give the wearer an
immediate indication of exposure to a radiological source.
Now, those are just two examples describing how our program
is contributing to the global war on terrorism. There are some
others which, because of time and of classification, I can't
discuss in an open forum. You should be aware, however, that
some of the equipment that's being used today by our military
forces and intelligence forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well
as equipment being used right now to provide antiterrorism
force protection for our embassies and for our military bases,
both home and abroad, were developed by the TSWG program. We
can provide you more examples that you may be interested in.
One other aspect of our program is that we also have
developed cooperative R&D agreements with three selected NATO
and major non-NATO allies. This is done to assist in helping us
accomplish our objectives. Thus, we can leverage our own
funding. These working arrangements are with Canada, Israel,
and the United Kingdom. Successfully completed projects result
in equipment that we both--both we and our partners--have
jointly developed and are employing, and in a written
statement, I give you some examples. I don't want to dwell on
them here. There are a lot of others, as well.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe the TSWG program is
a valuable arrow in the national quiver for countering the
evolving terrorism threat. We'd like to expand the program by
adding a few more foreign partners who have demonstrated R&D
capabilities in counterterrorism technologies, who share our
views on the threat, have an appropriate interagency focus in
their technical development activities and are willing to pay
their fair share in joint technology development.
When combined with other R&D programs for combating
terrorism, for example, those that are going to be developed in
the Department of Homeland Security as well as existing ones in
DOD, the Intel Community, the FBI, and other agencies, we
believe we're making real progress in addressing the technical
nature of the terrorist threat.
Those are us who work in the TSWG program are very proud of
its accomplishments. Our guiding goal here is to put enhanced
and usable technical capability into the hands of those
involved on a daily basis in conducting the global war on
terrorism, and we believe we're achieving that goal. We believe
our ability to be successful is derived from our current
business practices, which are based on a requirements-driven
process, featuring extensive information exchange with both the
user and developer communities. We're also mindful and thankful
for the dedication and hard work of all the men and women who
are part of the TSWG family.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jakub follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.007
Mr. Shays. Mr. McCallum.
Mr. McCallum. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I'm Edward McCallum, Director of the DOD Combating
Terrorism Technology Support Office, the office that manages
the affairs of the Technical Support Working Group, which I'll
call the TSWG from now on, as most other people do, and the
Military Explosive Ordnance Disposal Low-Intensity Conflict
program.
Mr. Jakub has artfully described the history and heritage
of the TSWG, so my oral testimony will emphasize the
organization, some of the business processes that he spoke of,
and a few selected successes. We have for your display an easel
board with some charts.
Now, there are eye charts for all of us, and for you, too,
but we will refer to some pages in the written testimony that
also include those charts.
As Mr. Jakub stated, our mission is to conduct the National
Interagency Research and Development Program for Combating
Terrorism.
Mr. Shays. Mr. McCallum, this chart is also available for
us. Is it in the----
Mr. McCallum. I'll get to the chart in just a moment, but
this chart is displayed on page 3 of the written testimony.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. OK.
Mr. McCallum. The TSWG carries out its mission by providing
technologies to support both Armed Forces overseas, who are
bringing the fight to the enemy, and first responders at home.
TSWG-developed technologies are not proprietary to a single or
particular user base, but frequently have applications to
warfighters and first responders. Our technologies are being
used for offensive warfighting operations and for defensive
measures at home. Sensors and detectors assist in preventing
incidents, while other technologies help mitigate the
consequences of these actions or attribute culpability for
these incidents when they occur.
The organization of the TSWG includes representatives from
over 80 Federal organizations, and although the eye chart is
difficult to read, it really shows the expanse of participants,
and that's displayed on page 3 of the written testimony for
your review. It crosses the depth and width of the Federal
Government from Agriculture to Defense to all of the other
Homeland Security elements including DHS.
Departments and agencies, including representatives from
our first responder end-user communities, such as firemen,
policemen, HAZMAT, bomb squads, participate in nine of these
subgroups. The organization is displayed in the second easel
chart and also on page 2 of the testimony. It's the same
organization that Mr. Jakub displayed before you, but I wanted
to go for just a moment across the bottom. He described the
management oversight process, but if you take a look at the
chart, you will see a broad representation of Federal agencies
who chair these subgroups.
Below those single-letter agencies are represented about
300 individual operators, scientists, and engineers from across
the Federal Government and our first responder community who
come to the table to describe their requirements and to help us
shepherd them through the entire procurement process.
We believe we operate under a highly successful integrated
business model, and we'll display it on a third easel chart,
which is available on page 4, and I'll speak for just a moment
to that chart.
As Mr. Jakub mentioned, we start the year in January with a
``Threat Day'' where members of the intelligence and law
enforcement community come before our 300--approximately 300
members and describe to them what the threat situation is in
real-day terms; and that--not only the threat, but they help us
define and prioritize requirements for the upcoming year. The
requirements definition/prioritization by ultimate users
assures that R&D products produced by TSWG's rapid prototyping
program will ultimately enter the marketplace or military
acquisition process.
It's followed, just before the 12 o'clock and where you see
BAA for Broad Agency Announcement, by advanced annual program
briefing industry, where we brief prospective vendors on
requirements and invite their industry comments and
clarification. This process helps assure that what we get from
industry meets our specific, posted requirements.
TSWG utilizes a three-step process for managing this
process as depicted on the right-hand side of the chart. We
first ask for a one-page quad chart from industry. We ask for
that in order to minimize their expense and to maximize our
ability to review their proposals and get them out to the
community. We recognize that the preparation of good proposals
requires a substantial amount of time and money from industry,
and it manages the selection process through the stages of quad
charts, white papers and final proposals.
The success rate for final proposals is always above 80
percent, and sometimes it gets up to 90 percent. The entire
process of posting requirements and informing proposals on how
to apply and the evaluation is done electronically through a
Broad Agency Announcement electronic commerce system, which we
call a BIDS, which is the Broad Agency Announcement Information
Delivery System, and it's available on our Web site at
www.bids.tswg.gov.
The process is aimed at putting prototypes into the hands
of users within approximately 24 months. A few years ago, we
used to talk 18 months. The process has gotten a little larger
and slightly more involved, and in the last years we sometimes
have given products to our users, particularly within the
military front within days, but much of the low hanging fruit
has been picked in this endeavor.
In the written testimony, we've given you a dozen or so
successes which are in the hands of users and which we've
delivered in the last year or so. In addition to that, I just
wanted to bring one hard piece here.
We've been attempting to develop technology which is
handheld, so that first responders, whether they're HAZMAT
teams or military units, can have it in their pockets or their
rucksacks and carry it usefully. One of our providers this year
developed for us a heat stress calculator, which has been very
popular in both the military community and the Justice
Department for first responders.
We've also read and some of us have experienced how
uncomfortable full chemical outfits can be, particularly when
under any kind of heat stress, and in fact, in Southeast Asia I
lost more troops to heat stress than I did to either disease or
enemy fire. This calculator, within about 1 minute can tell you
what a person in any of these conditions, in various heat and
various humidity conditions and work load--you know, how long
they can normally endure; and it is being looked at by firemen
and military users.
And one that I did want to bring to your attention--and we
have copies here for you--is a Best Practices and Guidelines
for Mass Personnel Decontamination. A few years ago, when the
B'nai B'rith was threatened here in Washington, DC, and we saw
scenes of civilians being run between some--a couple of fire
department hose trucks, it occurred to us that the procedures
that had been developed for military people wouldn't
necessarily fit for this, you know, Capitol Building or people
around the world, so we set out to develop a Best Practices and
Guidelines. It encompasses not just science and evidence-based
practices, but also best business practices and science
practices. It was developed by the United States, the U.K., and
Canada.
In closing, I'd like to cite what I believe to be
distinctive about our Technical Support Working Group
accomplishments. They represent real problems to real solutions
encountered by key participants on the war on terrorism. They
represent and meet real requirements of the war ascribed by
end-users, and their transition to general use is assured by
the fact that end-users have been part of the TSWG process from
inception to ultimate product consumption.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCallum follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.031
Mr. Shays. Dr. Bolka.
Dr. Bolka. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee--
--
Mr. Shays. Doctor, could I have you just move that mic a
little closer to you?
Dr. Bolka. A little closer?
Mr. Shays. Yes, it helps.
Dr. Bolka. Is that better?
Mr. Shays. Much better.
Dr. Bolka. Thank you.
I am Dr. David F. Bolka, Director of the Homeland Security
Advanced Research Projects Agency [HSARPA], we wish we had a
better acronym, but we don't.
I'm pleased to appear before you this afternoon to discuss
our relationship with the Technical Support Working Group
[TSWG]. In your letter you ask several questions about this
relationship. I trust that my testimony, in combination with
that of Mr. McCallum and Mr. Jakub, addresses all of them.
As you know, HSARPA was created by the Homeland Security
Act of 2002. The responsibilities of the Director are specified
in that act. Paraphrasing in the area of research and
development we support both basic and applied homeland security
research to promote revolutionary changes. That's about 10 to
15 percent of our budget in the technology to promote homeland
security. We advance the development, testing and evaluation,
and deployment of critical technologies and also we have a
prototyping, rapid prototyping mission, and that's the third
part of our mission.
This is the one area where our mission and that of the TSWG
overlap the most. Many of our DHS user agencies have worked
with TSWG in the past and continue to do so. Mr. McCallum has
described some of the technology that TSWG has brought forward
for them. I don't see this overlap and rapid prototyping
responsibilities as either debilitating or wasteful. There is
sufficient work for all of us to develop these technologies.
As Mr. McCallum described, in 2003, while HSARPA was being
organized and hiring staff, we provided funds for a combined
DHS/TSWG Broad Area Announcement that was issued on May 14,
2003. This BAA listed 51 top priority research and technology
needs that we share with TSWG.
DHS staff members have participated in working groups with
TSWG and have helped evaluate many of the quad charts and white
papers that were submitted in response. We also participated in
evaluating the proposals that result from this solicitation,
and our requirements were incorporated in the solicitation.
We're represented currently on the executive committee by my
Deputy Director, Dr. Jane Alexander, and in several working
groups by S&T staff members and other DHS members.
Last Tuesday, HSARPA issued its first research announcement
for detection systems for biological and chemical
countermeasures. This announcement begins our work on the next
generation of biological and chemical sensors and systems. The
research announcement solicits white papers leading to
proposals from industry, academia, and laboratories in five
technical topic areas, two biological and three chemical. We
are using TSWG'S established BID system to publish the research
announcements, to electronically register those who respond, to
collect their white papers and to distribute them to technical
reviewers.
This morning we held a bidders' conference here in
Washington to provide detailed information to potential
bidders. There were somewhat over 300 people who attended that
bidders' conference.
In HSARPA we have an approved staffing plan that will see
staffing to about 50 percent of the authorized scientific and
technical head count early in 2004, reaching about 100 percent
by late summer. We receive legal, security, facilities, and
administrative support from our DHS Management Directorate. Our
first contracting officer and attorney have been assigned.
Also, I have seven technical/scientific professionals on board
at this point.
As HSARPA develops its own capability to solicit the
country's best technical ideas, concepts, technologies, and
systems, we will rely less on the TSWG infrastructure and more
on our own. It's worth noting that our development involves not
only creating the ability to solicit and evaluate, but the
simultaneous capability to execute high-quality research and to
execute programs as we proceed.
For fiscal year 2004, just under 25 percent of the HSARPA
budgets will be expended in rapid prototyping. We expect that
TSWG will perform this function with us in the near term with
our participation. In a statement before the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security last April 10,
DHS Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Dr. Charles
McQueary, said the Science and Technology Directorate would
establish a partnership with the Technical Support Working
Group. We have done that.
To implement that partnership, DHS requested $30 million in
fiscal year 2004 to solicit near-term capabilities that can be
rapidly prototyped and fielded, but Congress has increased this
funding to $75 million in the fiscal 2004 appropriation. That's
why the percentage of our budget for private prototyping has
gone from roughly 10 percent to about 25 percent.
As HSARPA matures and the Systems Engineering and
Development branch of the S&T Directorate staffs up, we will
assume the majority of rapid prototyping responsibility and
we'll coordinate it internally with our S&T developments. We
will continue to fund TSWG to perform rapid prototyping work
when it is mutually beneficial.
Over the next few months, we will continue to refine and
will document our working relationships with the TSWG. Our
intent is to fulfill the clear intent of the establishing
legislation and to execute the full scope of HSARPA functions
as rapidly as staff and facilities can be assembled. We believe
that TSWG experience and facilities can help us achieve that
goal in the near term, and under any foreseeable circumstances,
we will retain our position on the TSWG executive board to
collaborate, share information, join in mutually interesting
developments, avoid unnecessary development
duplication, and derive mutual benefit from our continuing
association.
Subject to any questions you may have, Mr. Chairman, that
concludes my testimony.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bolka follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.034
Mr. Shays. I thank you very much.
In making reference to the Technical Support Working Group,
I referred to it as TSWG and my staff director said, It's TSWG,
and I said, ``No grown man would say those words.'' and now you
make me feel very comfortable; I'll be the fourth to do it.
That's what we've been referring to it as for the last 10
years?
Dr. Bolka. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Let me just take care of some business first and recognize
that Mr. Tierney is here and I thank him very much. It gives me
the opportunity to ask unanimous consent that all members of
the committee be permitted to place an open statement in the
record and the record remain open for 3 days for that purpose.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask further unanimous consent that all witnesses be
permitted to include their written statements in the record,
and without objection, so ordered.
I'd like to start out with Dr. Bolka, and just have me be
comfortable with what we've done with the Department of
Homeland Security.
We basically established the Department with 185,000-plus
folks. This was the committee that had the responsibility for
reorganization, and I was very comfortable in supporting that.
It had basically four legs to this operation. It had the Under
Secretary of Science and Technology, Under Secretary of
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, and then
another Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security
and finally the Under Secretary of Emergency Preparedness and
Response. I feel like these tables are much different sizes
here. Obviously, Border and Transportation Security is a pretty
huge part of DHS.
How many employees work under Science and Technology?
Dr. Bolka. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, but I will find out
and----
Mr. Shays. How many work under your particular part of
that?
Dr. Bolka. In Science and Technology, we have an
authorization of 180 end strength.
Mr. Shays. OK. Under Science and Technology, total?
Dr. Bolka. Yes.
Mr. Shays. That's what I meant, but we're now under HS--
your particular area--in HSARPA.
Dr. Bolka. I have a staffing plan which will get me to
approximately 135 staff, 62 of which are government, and the
rest would be support contractors.
Mr. Shays. And that's out of a total amount, within this
directorate, of how many?
Dr. Bolka. About 108 government employees. I'd have about a
third of them.
Mr. Shays. Now, going on to you, Mr. Jakub and Mr.
McCallum, I am trying to think about the hearing we had way
back in March 2000, and putting in perspective today, since
obviously a lot's happened since then, with September 11.
I don't quite have a grasp of--TSWG is basically in the
Department of Defense, but it is under the jurisdiction of the
Department of State?
Mr. Jakub. TSWG, as I mentioned----
Mr. Shays. Trying to confuse me?
Mr. Jakub. TSWG, as I mentioned during the testimony, came
as a result of a finding that was in the Vice President'S Task
Force Report. The Department of State was asked to take on that
job.
Mr. Shays. And that's in 1980, 1989?
Mr. Jakub. 1986.
Mr. Shays. 1986?
Mr. Jakub. Yes. We exercise program direction and policy
oversight over the program. It's executed by the Department of
Defense, so it's a joint State-Defense effort. That was done
deliberately so we wouldn't have to create another extra
bureaucracy within the State Department to handle this, and
that's how it came about.
Mr. Shays. So is it funded out of DOD?
Mr. Jakub. It's funded out of both. Both of us contribute
money to what we call ``core funding.''
Mr. Shays. Then who ultimately is in charge? I'm not clear,
as to my knowledge of who ultimately is in charge.
Mr. Jakub. Who ultimately is in charge for program
direction and overall policy oversight of the program is my
boss, Ambassador Black, the Coordinator for Counterterrorism.
Mr. O'Connell, who is the Assistant Secretary for Special
Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, is in charge of program
execution.
Mr. Shays. OK. And if there's a disagreement between the
two, who trumps whom?
Mr. Jakub. We haven't ever gotten to that point, to be very
honest with you. It's been run from Day One and we have never
run into that problem.
Mr. Shays. When I looked at the number of folks involved, I
had this sense that Department of Homeland Security was going
to be basically the one that evaluated any proposals that would
impact the Department of Homeland Security. But I'm obviously
wrong, so Dr. Bolka, tell me how it works.
Dr. Bolka. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is, and my
experience in the previous BAA is, that members of Homeland
Security user groups, and in my case, members of--technical
members of my staff, participate in the evaluation of the quad
charts, the white papers, and the proposals. They also meet, as
you saw in Mr. McCallum's chart, to set requirements; and so
our requirements are incorporated with the other requirements
to ensure that they're all addressed and there is no
duplication. Then, once the program has been executed, the
results are reported to all those who are participating.
Mr. Shays. But basically the proposals go to TSWG; they
don't go to you?
Dr. Bolka. If that's the mechanism that we set out, that's
correct.
Mr. Shays. I don't understand if.
Dr. Bolka. OK.
Mr. Shays. In other words, it hasn't been decided?
Dr. Bolka. No. In the case of the BAA that we had last
summer, the proposals did go to TSWG. We sent the money to
TSWG, and TSWG will be executing the programs that result from
the proposals.
In the case of our recent research announcement, which we
held a bidders' conference for today, we are using the TSWG
infrastructure to collect the white papers and to assign for
evaluation those that come in prior to selecting them. In this
case, my program managers will be running the programs that
result from this. There will be full visibility for all of the
members of TSWG as to what we're doing, so there will be no--
little duplication, if possible.
Mr. Shays. Maybe I'll understand it better this way.
Dr. Bolka. OK.
Mr. Shays. Why didn't we put TSWG under the Department of
Homeland Security?
Maybe Mr. Jakub, Mr. McCallum, you can tell me why we
didn't.
Mr. McCallum. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
As I mentioned in my brief testimony, a subset of what we
do in combating terrorism is involved in homeland defense and
the defense of items and facilities and personnel within the
domestic United States.
Another large part of what we do is in support of the
offensive war on terrorism overseas, in support of the State
Department and the Intelligence Community and the Department of
Defense.
The technologies that you'll see and talk about in a few
moments, like the chem-bio suits in front of you, can easily be
used by soldiers on the battlefield or HAZMAT teams in St.
Louis. The robots that you'll see demonstrated are used by
military explosive ordnance disposal teams to address the
improvised disposal device, devices we're seeing used in the
Middle East or by teams that your own Capitol Police use,
systems that we develop.
The technology isn't specific to a stovepipe of users or an
item turf. We develop technologies for all users; and within
our subgroups, they are all represented and they take the parts
that they need to fulfill their missions back to their home
organizations, whether it's the Department of Defense, the
Department of State or the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Shays. Now, you have nine subgroups, correct?
Mr. McCallum. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. Yes. How many people--I'm trying to visualize,
and they come from all these various departments.
Maybe I need to be clear: How many do you have on your
staff under TSWG?
Mr. McCallum. I have approximately 70 people today, sir.
Mr. Shays. And is that a full complement?
Mr. McCallum. That's a full complement. That's
approximately 20 program managers, scientists, engineers, and
operators, approximately 20 contracting and security support
people from DOD, and the rest are support contract people from
specific technical organizations that we need to support.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Jakub, how many people do you have in yours?
Mr. Jakub. Two.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Now, do you work out of the State Department?
Mr. Jakub. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. You're at the Pentagon, Mr. McCallum?
Mr. McCallum. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. And, when you have your meetings, you're
meeting--I'm trying to visualize--I understand and I appreciate
that obviously the research that's going to happen is going to
impact both foreign and domestic. It can impact the military;
it can impact so many different folks that obviously, in that
way, I can see why it wouldn't be under the Department of
Homeland Security. But I'm just having a little bit of a
difficult time trying to visualize how it works in practice.
Do people go to the Pentagon? Do you have periodic meetings
with each of these nine subgroups? Just walk me through that a
little bit.
Mr. McCallum. Actually, our offices are in Crystal Gateway
North, just across the parking lot from the Pentagon.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Mr. McCallum. And we have a series of offices.
Mr. Shays. Does that make it easier--excuse me for
interrupting, but does that make it easier for people to access
you?
Mr. McCallum. It's much easier to get into our office than
it is the Pentagon.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Mr. McCallum. It's right off the Metro. We host a number of
meetings.
As I said, we have requirements meetings during the year
when all of the subgroup members--and there are approximately
300 members, but if I just talk our Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, and Nuclear Countermeasures Subgroup, the last
subgroup meeting I sat in on had approximately 40 people from
across the government contributing to the requirements process
and voting up or down on different proposals.
The discussion is on a technical basis. It's on--we also
look at how many agencies these technologies will benefit. If
there is a single agency it's going to benefit, we usually ask
them to fund it out of their core budgets. If it's multiple
agencies, because we have an interagency role, it moves up the
line, so we talk to funding organizations and make sure that
the highest priorities in R&D are accomplished.
Mr. Shays. Well, how do you guarantee or feel comfortable
about the different departments that come with their own
perspective, that ultimately--in this process of deciding, is
it a formal vote? Is it?
Mr. McCallum. Yes, it is.
Mr. Shays. How do you know that it's weighted in a way
that's going to bring the best benefit to the United States?
For instance, let me ask, while you think how to respond to
me--Dr. Bolka, I would think the Department of Homeland
Security would be in most of those different subcategories?
Dr. Bolka. All of those that apply to homeland security.
Mr. Shays. Chemical and biological, explosives,
infrastructure protection, personnel protection, physical
security, tactical operations.
Tell me. If you don't know, would you tell me--would you
get the answer to this question? How many people--are you so
new that you're not yet integrated?
Dr. Bolka. I'm sorry?
Mr. Shays. Are you so new that you're not yet integrated in
each of these subgroups?
Dr. Bolka. Our DHS components have been integrated for some
time; for example, Immigration, TSA, Border Security and so on
have been integrated for some time.
Mr. Shays. Right.
Dr. Bolka. Before even DHS existed. Those relationships
continue. Really, the only new player is the DHS Science and
Technology, and we're in the process of becoming integrated,
right now.
Mr. Shays. OK, Mr. Tierney, you have the floor.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. I'll be coming around for another round.
I did have a question to you, Mr. McCallum.
Do you have an answer to that?
Mr. McCallum. DHS has----
Mr. Shays. I'm going to ask you to talk a little louder.
Your mic seems to be a little more of a problem.
Mr. McCallum. DHS is represented on eight of the nine
subgroups in TSWG. The only subgroup that it's not represented
on is Tactical Operations Support, and that's a subgroup which
is focused on direct support for tactical military operations
overseas.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Bolka, let me ask you a question. The Department of
Homeland Security, has it done a threat assessment that you're
aware of, broad threat assessment?
Dr. Bolka. There is no department-wide threat assessment
that I know of, Mr. Tierney. If I'm incorrect, I'll correct
that for the record.
Mr. Tierney. I suspect you're not. I don't know of one
either, and I wanted to make that point.
So you have no threat assessment, in essence, in regard to
homeland security issues; we have no list of priorities as to
what our most immediate needs are.
Dr. Bolka. In the large sense, I think you're probably
correct.
Mr. Tierney. So I would think that one of the ways that
logical people might have addressed the situation was to do a
threat assessment to determine what our priorities are, and
then, through a network of all the people involved in this,
going right down to the local responders, we would determine
what technology we may need to meet some of those needs we
don't already have. Then you might ask for proposals of people
to meet those needs and then start going through your
cooperation and analysis with these others.
Does that not sound legitimate to you?
Dr. Bolka. That sounds legitimate, and it has been done on
a component basis by many of the components of Homeland
Security.
Mr. Tierney. What are you referring to as a ``component,''
please?
Dr. Bolka. Border Patrol for Border and Transportation
Security, for example, or critical infrastructure protection
and so on.
Mr. Tierney. So the border security people will determine
what they think they need and have made those needs known to
you?
Dr. Bolka. Currently, because we're so new, a lot of the
internal relationships have not yet been formed. In the past,
they have worked with the TSWG, and we are establishing those
relationships right now.
Mr. Tierney. I guess I'm a little mystified--you know, it's
2 years in, September 11, and we've been asking on this
committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, for a threat
assessment since immediately after that disaster. It made sense
to everybody on this committees that would be the first step
that you would do, to determine what your threats are and set a
priority. And then I think it only stands to logic that once
that's done, then you would try to put your resources for
meeting those needs in order.
If, instead, what you're telling me is that Border Security
decides that they've got certain needs and some other component
decides to throw it into the hopper to see what comes out,
we're probably not handling this in a way that is going to best
and timely serve our needs.
Is there any effort to put some more order and more
structure in the way we go about this with regard to homeland
security issues?
Dr. Bolka. Yes, there is. In the 2004 Appropriations Act,
the appropriations bill, the Congress has stipulated that the
research and development submission for 2005 will be a single
submission from the Department of Homeland Security. That will
be the impetus to bring together the parties that are already
working together somewhat to formalize the relationships and
provide that information and that request to the Congress.
Mr. Tierney. And I assume what we'll do then is put out the
bid or request for proposals, those items that are prior
advertised as our immediate requests, and then move on down the
line as our resources permit?
Dr. Bolka. Yes, sir, that's what we're doing right now,
based on a program that has been defined.
Mr. Tierney. With a component?
Dr. Bolka. With a component. We're addressing those first.
Mr. Tierney. And I guess the dilemma of that is, we may
find out by 2005, way down the food chain we should have been
addressing a number of things with higher priority; and I guess
that's what irritates me a little bit, because we've been
talking about it for so long.
Let me ask you, communications--interoperability,
communications systems. Two years after September 11, we've had
Mr. Cooper here, Steven, testifying that nobody was quite sure
who had responsibility for that kind of interoperability and
communication; that the actual function was at Mr. Ridge's
original position at the White House. But when Mr. Ridge was
designated as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security, he moved, but that responsibility didn't; and there's
been some confusion, until late, as to who owns that project.
Has your office, been dealing with any of the proposals
that have been coming forward to determine what system would be
used by all of our local first responders and their interaction
with the Coast Guard and FEMA and other groups?
Dr. Bolka. No. No, sir.
Mr. Tierney. And why isn't that in your department? Where
is it, if anywhere at all?
Dr. Bolka. I don't know the answer to your question, Mr.
Tierney. I'll find out and give you an answer.
Mr. Tierney. Does it sound like--isn't that a component of
homeland security?
Dr. Bolka. I personally don't know, sir, but I----
Mr. Tierney. Who would know?
Dr. Bolka. Well, I'll try to find out and point you in the
right direction.
Mr. Shays. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Tierney. Oh, sure.
Mr. Shays. Plenty of time here?
My understanding is, Dr. Bolka, you joined the Department
of Homeland Security 2 months ago or how long ago?
Dr. Bolka. Reported September 2, sir.
Mr. Shays. September 2?
Dr. Bolka. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. So we're going to cut you a little bit of slack
in that regard.
Let me ask you this: Is that an indication that the office
basically has not been up and running, and it's just starting
to get up and running now?
Dr. Bolka. I think with the summer BAA that was issued
through the TSWG was the beginning of the Advanced Research
Projects Agency office coming up and running. And as I
mentioned, we put our second solicitation out today, and we do
have enough professionals on board right now to handle probably
8 or 10 development programs.
Mr. Shays. Is there anyone else with you that is
potentially able to answer some questions that you might not
know an answer to, that might have been there a little bit
longer?
Dr. Bolka. No, sir. I didn't bring anyone else with me. If
you can tell me what the questions are, have your staff give me
the questions.
Mr. Tierney. I just wanted to ask you what are the projects
that you have out so far? What was the first one?
Dr. Bolka. The first one was through the TSWG, which was
rapid prototyping of chemical and biological sensors that could
be fielded very quickly.
Mr. Tierney. None of the other groups had ever asked for
this before; this was something unique to homeland security?
Dr. Bolka. It is not unique; however, it is a need that is
there for the various components and first responders, and we
are trying to fill some of the existing holes.
The second solicitation was for the next generation of
sensors, which would be cheaper, more dense, faster and give
better situational awareness.
Mr. Tierney. So essentially 2 years in, we have one issue,
one priority that is being addressed?
Dr. Bolka. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Twice?
Dr. Bolka. Well, actually it is not being addressed twice,
it is being addressed once for the near term, once for the
longer term.
Mr. Tierney. OK. I am--certainly this is nothing personal
with you. My frustration here is not personal at all, but with
the reorganization, and when it was implemented, and how it was
structured and what has been going on since. I sense some
confusion and some lack of leadership here. But the first
responders in my district are at a loss on a number of
different needs that they have, and, frankly, contractors in my
district are at a loss as to where do they go if they have a
great idea? Do they first try and get to see whether or not
local first responders or FEMA or the Coast Guard or somebody
else identifies and also recognizes that need, then move up the
chain? Do they come directly to you? But the first responders,
and when things go from yellow to orange, there is all sorts of
things that come into their mind as to what they need, and they
don't have any idea where these are prioritized on the Federal
Government's chain.
So I look forward to working with you. Again, I am not
going to ask you a lot of questions on that, you are so new,
and apparently you are going to give me some information, and
that will be helpful, but people need to know these answers.
And whatever way we can be helpful to you in structuring this
thing, because I think it is important to move that assessment
forward, as we say here for the 2,000th time, that assessment
and a prioritization and put some meaning to all of this.
So thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
I have a few more questions. One of the things that I am
struggling a little bit with, and it is history that you are
not really not aware of, but when we set up the Department of
Homeland Security, we visualized, or at least I did and a
number of others, that there were four pillars to this
organization. And another pillar, other than science and
technology, was information, analysis and infrastructure
protection. That was the plug that would evaluate all
intelligence information.
And we had a hearing, not in this committee, but on the
Select Committee on Homeland Security that I was on, discussing
TTIC, which is the Terrorist Threat Integration Center--that is
not within the Department of Homeland Security--and we are
wrestling with understanding what its role is as it relates to
the Department of Homeland Security.
And, Mr. McCallum, I am still doing a little bit of
wrestling with understanding how TSWG is not--is a valuable
tool in which all of this information comes, but really trying
to understand how the Department of Homeland Security is going
to make sure it is not just one of so many players in this
process.
Now, one of the things I understand is that in this 2004
budget, about 35 percent of your budget will come from the
Department of Homeland Security. Is that somewhat what you are
hearing?
And, Mr. Jakub, if you care to jump in as well.
Mr. McCallum. As I understand it, we don't know yet from
the Department of Homeland Security what amount they anticipate
sending to us. We would anticipate our budget at this point,
based upon what we have heard from them, to be more in the
neighborhood of 20 percent, but that varies. We are still in
the formulation stage, since we have just seen the conference
reports, but in this year's budget they were about 20 to 25
percent.
Mr. Shays. Now, as the Department of Homeland Security
joins TSWG as a department, I realize that it used to have
other elements within it that came from other departments that
were part of TSWG, but now that we are under this new
structure, as it joins as a department within TSWG, it is not
clear to me whether TSWG process is best suited for what may
become expansive homeland security technology solutions.
Since the Department of Homeland Security is only one of
many votes on projects to be funded through TSWG, how does DHS
ensure that its homeland security funds are not being used to
fund other agency priorities?
And, Dr. Bolka, I would like all of you to respond to that.
Mr. McCallum. Since I have my mic on, maybe I will respond
first. First, I would like to make a correction. Based on our
budget from last year, they are about 15 percent of our total
from a dollar contribution in the 2003.
Mr. Shays. No.
Mr. McCallum. In 2004, we don't know what it is going to
be.
Mr. Shays. Our information says it may be up to a third,
but it is obviously going to be more than 15.
Mr. McCallum. One of the ways that we have attempted to
ensure that the priority on protecting the homeland is
recognized is by adding DHS to the executive committee. And in
the organizational structure which you saw as displayed on my
page 2, they are shown as a technical chair, which means that
all of the work that we put forward from this--from the nine
subgroups, eight of nine have senior DHS representation. Three
of nine are chaired or cochaired by members of DHS agencies,
such as TSA and the Secret Service.
So they will get full membership at a voting level, they
will get--they have a first pass cut at the first level of
management, at the subgroup chairs. And then when we report our
proposed program plans for the year, they also sit on our
executive committee, so that if they feel that any areas are
not being adequately addressed, or areas that they think are
primary priorities and need to be addressed more strongly
aren't being, they bring that up with our executive committee.
So there are multiple levels and checks and balances within
our system to ensure that, you know, a primary partner in our
enterprise is adequately addressed. And, as Mr. Jakub said a
few minutes ago, this is largely a matrix government
organization that really works. Most issues are settled on the
good of the system. And I have not seen, in the 4 years I have
been with this organization, a homeland security-type issue
that also wasn't a military issue and also wasn't a State
Department issue.
When there is a major technical priority that we can't
cover, it is usually a gap in everyone's protection scheme. So
I have not seen the issue of homeland security versus State
versus DOD ever be an issue that got beyond the executive
committee.
Mr. Tierney. I don't want to just be one note on this, but
let me ask Mr. Jakub and Mr. McCallum, do either of you then
have an assessment with respect to the Department of Defense or
the Department of State of what your particular needs are, and
have you prioritized those?
Mr. Jakub. Let me answer it this way: Both my office and
Ed's office receive a variety of Intelligence Community
assessments that deal with the terrorists threat, whether they
be put out by TTIC or whether they be put out by CIA, by DIA,
whatever they happen to be. There are a number of those that
come out all of the time. We use those as guidance materials
when we are looking at the beginning of the year, when we are
starting to prioritize what it is that we want to do. If these
assessments are saying that we need to be really more attentive
to--or the information is indicating, for example, as I brought
up in my testimony at the outset here, that terrorists groups,
some of them now are leaning more toward chem/bio, radiological
materials, and whatnot, that is a signal to us.
And that is something we have to do from a management
perspective is pick up on the intelligence signals, and then
make sure that they are communicated to our subgroups. We do
that at the beginning of the year. So we will take a look at
it, and we will give our subgroups direction: We need you to
emphasize this year CBR countermeasures for example.
I also indicated for you that the other things that we are
concerned about, and this is based on intel reporting, for
example the nature of the terrorist threat that emanates from
new explosive formulations, bombs, that type of a thing. Our
direction to our subgroups, specifically our physical security
subgroup that handles blast mitigation countermeasures and
other things related to bomb squads and others, is to take a
look at that threat in terms of developing requirements.
So they were told right up front that we were going to
weight potential monetary contributions in the areas of CBR and
countermeasures, physical security, explosive detection and
improvised devices. That doesn't mean we aren't going to give
money to the other subgroups, but we told them right from the
get-go as we started developing the program, these are the
areas we need to concentrate in. Then we take a look at what
comes up through the requirements process.
Mr. Tierney. Can we envision a circumstance where, say, the
Department of Homeland Security would prioritize some need of
theirs above the things that you have given attention to, or
that your group has decided are going to get some priority?
Mr. Jakub. That would be something that we would like to
take a look at in the executive committee, if DHS were to come
in, and I think this will work itself out over time. They are
so new. They are just now getting involved in the processes.
If they were to come to the executive committee at--again,
at the beginning of the fiscal year when we start this process
and say--and we would also look at the Intelligence Community
on this, we would like to see what the Intel Community has to
say about a given threat--but if they were to identify a
specific area that needed to be addressed on a priority basis,
we could factor that in very easily.
Mr. Tierney. But it is a situation where your group would
have to meet and make a decision jointly, collectively I should
say, and it could end up being in contradiction to what the
Secretary of the Department believes ought to be given
attention, and then we have a situation on our hands. And my
understanding of putting this whole Department of Homeland
Security together was that the Secretary was going to have
ample authority to sort of take some control of a situation
that really needed it.
Now, I know we didn't do that with the Office of Management
and Budget, and I think that is a terrible mistake, that if the
Secretary decides resources have to be applied somewhere, and
OMB overrules them, we are out of luck. And we saw that with
Department of Energy, where the Secretary made a request of
some magnitude, and the Department just tossed it out the
window, and we ended up with a very small amount.
So I hope there is going to be some way, Dr. Bolka and the
other two gentlemen, of addressing that, other than leaving it
as a committee decision where we are dealing with homeland
security, and the Secretary is able to set some real direction
there and make probably the ultimate answer as where we have to
go with respect to homeland security, even if that means
working outside your group.
Dr. Bolka. That is correct, Mr. Tierney. And, in fact, the
establishing legislation that established HSARPA provides me
with the transaction--other transaction authority and
contracting and legal authority to contract for ourselves if we
have a requirement that can't be met or can't be folded into a
joint development, or we need to modify what the product of a
joint development is somewhat. We have the capability of doing
that ourselves.
Mr. Tierney. Does that mean that if you don't think they
are moving fast enough, or putting it in a high enough
priority, you can go outside and do it?
Dr. Bolka. That is correct.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. TTIC was established in 1986, as you point out,
to deal with counterterrorist--I am sorry. TSWG was established
in 1986 to deal with counterterrorism measures, innovations; is
that correct, Mr. Jakub?
Mr. Jakub. Yes, sir. Read counterterrorism in the largest
context. We look at it as counterterrorism, antiterrorism,
support for the intelligence and security elements and also
working consequence management. So it is a very broad term.
Mr. Shays. Was that the same time that Mr. Bremer was--or
not necessarily Ambassador Bremer, but when we established an
ambassador on terrorism?
Mr. Jakub. Yes, sir. It was right about the same time.
Mr. Shays. What I am still wrestling with is, Mr. McCallum,
there are so many ways that we define technology in the
Department of Defense, and this is just one of the doors that
you can go in.
I am just trying to appreciate why DOD won't drown out DHS
in its need for the protection of our homeland with
innovations. That is kind of what I am wrestling with right
now. What is the protection that will make that not happen?
I will just tell you, I am getting to develop a bias. For
instance, I think rebuilding of Iraq, and I support it
strongly, going into Iraq, is being run by DOD when I think it
should be run by State. But it is basically, it is--Ambassador
Bremer is answerable to the Secretary. You are answerable to
the Secretary.
Make me feel more comfortable that somehow this new agency,
with someone who has only been there 2 months or has been there
1 month, is--his people are going to have their voice heard.
Mr. McCallum. Mr. Chairman, the history of the TSWG shows
that the Secret Service, the TSA, and a number of other--Coast
Guard have for years been primary participants in the TSWG
process and have numerous prototypes that we delivered, and not
just that we delivered, those elements of what is now DHS help
us develop those.
If you remember in my opening statement, the users that
identified requirements to us help us work through the process
and deliver them, DOD and State have both chartered our
organization to be an interagency forum. No single organization
contributes all of their R&D dollars to us for fast
prototyping, and neither DOD nor DHS nor State Department--the
piece that they come to us with is for those parts which are
interagency in nature and which will have broad application.
There are always, within each organization, core
responsibilities that they want to do in house.
Within DHS even the most generous proposals to send money
to this interagency body are but a small portion of their R&D
budget. We would not anticipate attempting to do all of that.
But in the fast prototyping world, no one is faster or more
agile than we are.
Mr. Shays. Just before we go to the next panel, would you
take one of the examples that you have in your extensive
testimony, other than one that you made reference to, tell me
how it began, and how we capture our investment. In other
words, we are using Federal dollars to help respond to requests
for funds? But some of these are going to become very viable,
and, frankly, the manufacturers should do quite well in
producing these for the government. How do we capture back
something?
Mr. McCallum. I am not sure what you mean by capture back,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shays. Our own investment, the money we pay.
Mr. McCallum. Well, if you would like me to pick one of
these, let me pick one that I don't believe any of the----
Mr. Shays. And make reference to the page, please.
Mr. McCallum. Page 12. And I also pick it because I don't
believe that anybody here is going to demonstrate this, but it
is the next-generation low-cost robot. A few years ago a--both
the Department of Defense and the National Institutes of
Justice were looking for a lower-cost robot for EOD teams
across the community, and we started out in a requirements-
setting session to begin to build a new low-cost robot,
something that, as the law enforcement agencies in this country
tell us, needs to cost less than a squad car. Most robots are
made to be very high-capability items of equipment and are
fairly substantial in cost.
But as we began looking at this within the IJ and the
entire community, we discovered, though, what was available
commercially in Canada, called the Vanguard Robot, for $35,000
apiece, which completed about 80 percent of the requirements.
And we went back to the committee and said these guys are ready
to begin action right now.
So the process wasn't one of long-term R&D, but the process
of bringing back to the government was that we had a community
of technicians and technical folks that knew what we needed to
get. We had a community of users that identified what
requirements they had to live by, what they needed, and were
able to make some cost decisions to go and get something that
was good enough while we completed the development.
Mr. Shays. That is buying off the shelf, in a sense, right?
Mr. McCallum. For the most part. We are developing the rest
of it.
Mr. Shays. So the only cost was your having to discover
this and to make some decisions to purchase it.
Mr. McCallum. Some slight upgrades.
Mr. Shays. Some slight upgrades. But take something where--
and a firm came in, investors came in, and they said, we have
this idea. We think it will benefit you tremendously. We need a
sum of money to continue our research and prove to you that it
works. Then you put in millions of dollars, or hundreds of
thousands or whatever. They then sell it to you. How do you
determine price? How do you know that--there--because you are
the only purchaser. How do you work out all of those things?
Mr. McCallum. We are most frequently, sir, not the only
purchaser. Most of the products that we put out we attempt to
put out on the commercial market. For most of the people that
you will hear talk in the second panel, we identify a
requirement. And in the second phase of those requirements, in
the white paper, we begin to identify a commercialization or
technology transfer process, which is one of the focuses for
selection.
If we can't identify how it is going to be transferred, who
is going to build it, who is going to manufacture it, who is
going to maintain it, and what its cost is going to be, that is
an indication for us not to move forward. Most of our items are
items that are either going to commercial status----
Mr. Shays. That is even better in a sense. I am just trying
to understand how, when you put 300,000--and I am not
suggesting anything bad, I just want to understand it. I vote
for our government trying to fund those innovations that will
make sense. I just want to understand how the financial
transactions work.
It costs us $300,000 for the low-cost robot. Give me
something that costs more and then walk me through it. Do we
get our money back ever, or is it just money that is spent? I
mean, if we help someone develop an item that can be sold at
significant profit and so on, does the company have any
obligation to pay for those initial investments?
Mr. McCallum. We typically do not try to recover royalties
for the government. Our primary objective is to get the
equipment out in the hands of the users in the fastest and most
cost-effective way that we can. Typically the government
retains rights to equipment, but we do not go for royalties.
Typically government purchases rights so that if a company is
bought out and ceases to produce an item, or there is some
other cost piece for that, that the government retains the
right to go forward and manufacture it elsewhere. But our
primary objective is to produce the equipment, not to move for
the royalties.
Mr. Tierney. On that same thought, then, do we do anything
at all about keeping that technology open for others in the
industry to use? In other words, we have funded in some cases a
substantial amount of money for technology to be developed. We
are not going to recoup our investment. Then do we at least
allow this technology, maybe with some parameters, though, to
protect the investment of the individual, but allow others in
the industry to then build on that or use it so there is some
competition or that others might take advantage of it, and at
least do that with respect to the public since these are public
funds that got these things started?
Mr. McCallum. That is, of course, dependent. You get into
an area where I would have to start getting my IPR attorneys
involved. But in some cases we advertise for licensing so that
companies can bid with the initial developer on manufacturing,
but that is on a case-by-case basis. We encourage companies to
team to get those kinds of things done.
And we don't typically find that these kinds of things are
closed. But many of the companies, you can probably address
that better with the next panel, have IPR rights and have
proprietary data involved with these developments.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Just before we go to the next panel, I am still
wrestling with the simple concept here. Do you, Dr. Bolka, feel
that you have a mandate to do some of what TSWG does
internally? In other words, do you believe that you need to set
up an operation where people can go directly to you for
funding, or is all of the funding that is going to be out of
the Department of Homeland Security going to go through this
funnel of TSWG?
Dr. Bolka. As I said in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, this
fiscal year, this coming fiscal year, the Congress has
stipulated that $75 million we spend on rapid prototyping. My
total budget this year in HSARPA will probably be around $350
million.
Your question was do I have a mandate to do rapid
prototyping other than through TSWG? I believe I have the
capability to do it. Depending on the interagency and
interdepartmental nature of the requirements, it may be that
working through TSWG is the best way to do it.
If it is something that is unique to one of the DHS
components, then I can do it myself, because I have contracting
officers and legal personnel, and we can let contracts. So for
the rest of my budget, I am establishing a contracting
capability, the appropriate legal support is made available,
and, as I said, the other administrative support is available
to me as well.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Jakub, just walk me through this as I try to
sort this out. Should DHS have the capability to basically
duplicate what TSWG does and do it internally and not have to
go through TSWG?
Mr. Jakub. Let me answer it this way. There are a lot of
departments and agencies that are in the TSWG. Many of them
have their own budgets for research and development. The FBI,
the Agency, the Department of Agriculture, whatever.
What we offer in TSWG are another avenue. There may be a
requirement they have that they don't really know how to work.
They can come to TSWG with that. They may have a requirement
that is going to be useful for more than just one agency, and
they can't afford to develop it themselves. They can bring it
to TSWG. If that fits with the requirements we have, we may be
able to partner with them and leverage moneys. We don't
duplicate what individual agencies do, so we aren't taking
anybody else's money to do this. What we have is a program.
Mr. Shays. Say that again. That doesn't make sense to me. I
don't know what you mean, you don't duplicate. Go on.
Mr. Jakub. Agencies that have their own R&D budgets can
fund R&D within their own agencies.
Mr. Shays. Right. So you are not going to do the same
project in both places? Is that what you mean?
Mr. Jakub. That is one of the things we would make sure
didn't happen.
Mr. Shays. Right. It is almost like if you don't get it
through TSWG, you can go directly to the Department. And maybe
that is good or bad, I don't know, but it is--I am just really
trying to understand how this new agency, the Department of
Homeland Security, kind of fits in. And I realize, Mr.
McCallum, that this--it used to be an old agency in the fact
that you had members and do have members who were there well
before we had a Department of Homeland Security, we just
collected under the Department of Homeland Security.
But I can make an argument that you should put TSWG under
the Department of Homeland Security. I could just make an
argument that could or should happen. Just tell me what would
be the pros and cons of it.
Mr. McCallum. The primary con, sir, is that the military
warfighting effort in the offensive side of that, the
intelligence support that we do, and the support for the
Department of State would be lost.
The defensive component is a subset. The kinds of things
that DHS is doing to protect the Nation are of primary
importance, but it is a subset of the total combating terrorism
technology development effort. We can do both, because the
technologies that are developed are appropriate for both.
Mr. Shays. Theoretically if a company came to be funded,
and TSWG said no, could they theoretically go to--and, Mr.
Jakub, I would like you to respond as well--could they
theoretically go to the Department of Homeland Security or the
Agriculture Department, depending on what area it was, and
submit that application hoping the Department will do it
directly?
Mr. Jakub. It is possible.
Dr. Bolka. Yes, sir. In fact, in DHS we have established an
e-mail address that we use to solicit--well, that we use to
collect unsolicited proposals. It is
[email protected].
Each one of those unsolicited proposals is examined, it is
compared against requirements, it is circulated through the
Department to see if there is any interest, and a response is
sent back to the individual. We treat those proposals very,
very seriously. Some of them are frivolous. Many of them are
not.
So we do have the opportunity, within the components of the
Department and within science and technology, to collect and
process unsolicited proposals and also to solicit proposals for
requirements that are either unique to a component or unique to
DHS.
Mr. Shays. When we debated, and when I was sold on having
the Department of Homeland Security, one of the arguments, and
one of the pillars, was your pillar, your directorate, that
basically we said this is one place to assess technology for
counterterrorism to protect our homeland, and what I am getting
a feeling is that TSWG is one place, and probably the primary
place, but then we can still go to all of the different
departments and agencies to get funding as well. That is kind
of what I am left feeling. Is that the way I should feel? Dr.
Bolka.
Dr. Bolka. Not as far as DHS goes, sir, because the intent
of the Congress and the intent of the Department is to grow the
Department of Science and--or the Directorate of Science and
Technology to perform exactly that function.
Mr. Shays. That is what I thought. That is how I started
this hearing.
How do you react to that, Mr. McCallum?
Mr. McCallum. I would react by looking within the working
groups as I have seen them operate. Industry or academia, both
United States and foreign, do bid on requirements that go out.
They bid not only to different agencies, but within agencies
for people who are looking for the kinds of products that they
are selling. But as I have sat through some of these subgroup
meetings and observed, frequently a proposal will come in that
the Coast Guard or the Navy or the New York Police Department
will say, we looked at that. Here is what we thought about it:
We didn't fund it.
We also have people step up and say, hey, we are already
funding that proposal. We have already committed funds to it.
Don't move down that lane.
We not only choose things to fund, we choose things not to
fund. An example from a few years ago was one where the
Department of Energy that had been doing research in both
physical security largely at Sandia National Laboratory and
explosive detection at some of the other weapons labs brokered
through TSWG, made a deal with the FAA, that the FAA, because
of their funding, was going to fund primarily the explosives
detection, and DOE was going to fund physical security so that
we wouldn't have a duplication, and we would have a more
cohesive Federal effort at both physical security and
explosives detection.
Mr. Shays. Before Mr. Tierney asks questions, if I had an
innovative idea from the private sector, would I go to TSWG
first if it impacts the Department of Homeland Security, or
would I go to the Department of Homeland Security? Would I go
first to the Department of Homeland Security, get it; if I
don't get it, go to you to have you reconsider; or would I do
it in reverse?
Mr. McCallum. We respond to specific requirements. When our
sessions sit down and look, we define specific requirements
that we are looking for. The DHS broad agency announcement that
we just published for them had 51 defined requirements, and
they would respond to those requirements. It is just not a--a
come one, come all. We advertise for specific user-defined
requirements for technology.
Mr. Shays. But what about the person that has thought of
the idea that you haven't thought of asking, but it is
brilliant? I mean, let me make the point. I had a homemaker who
was a scientist, but now at home, and she came up with an
extraordinary idea in terms of collecting data while she was
doing stuff at home, and nobody asked her for this idea. The
creativity of the American citizen was at work. Where would she
go? Would she go to you first, or would she go to the
Department of Homeland Security? That is really the question I
am asking.
Mr. McCallum. I suspect she can go wherever she wants. We
do take unsolicited proposals. We pull boards together and
examine them. Frequently in the last year or year and a half,
we have taken those kinds of proposals from the Office of
Homeland Security, when Governor Ridge was operating out of the
White House, and more recently from the Department of Homeland
Security, and staffed those around the Federal Government when
they didn't meet one of our technology requirements where we
knew that other agencies were looking for those kinds of
issues, or if they weren't, that they might be interested in
them because they looked attractive to us. So we staff those
out and send those to people who we call sponsors and who might
have the money or the interest to fund those kinds of things.
Dr. Bolka. Our unsolicited proposals go through much the
same process. We look at the idea. We look at our needs in DHS.
We have representatives on the working groups in TSWG, and we
also have the executive committee membership in TSWG.
So an unsolicited proposal that comes to us can go through
exactly the same process that it would have gone had it gone to
Mr. McCallum's organization.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Dr. Bolka, let me ask you this: You have two ongoing
projects that you have in TSWG right now, and I assume that all
of your components may well be using parts of your research and
development budget, or your research and development budget may
be being used to support some concepts some of your components
want researched.
Do you have an inventory of what is being done outside of
TSWG right now within any of the agencies or components under
your body?
Dr. Bolka. In the area of chemical/biological,
radiological, nuclear and explosives, we do have a pretty good
list of what is going on in the user agencies, yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Might you make that available to the committee
for our review?
Dr. Bolka. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.036
Mr. Tierney. Are there areas where there may be things
going on where you don't believe that you have a handle on it
yet?
Dr. Bolka. I am sure that there are things going on that I
don't know about yet.
Mr. Tierney. In terms of research and development?
Dr. Bolka. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Really. That is interesting. As you find out
those things that might be interesting for us to know, too, and
when you think that you have a grip on it and got a little bit
of control in determining what that is, we would like to know
when that point arrives, or at least you might give us an
estimate now of when you think that point will be, and then let
us know when it arrives.
My concern is that we didn't give the Secretary the kind of
authority that I think would really make this kind of thing
work. I mentioned that earlier in terms of the budget. And I
want to make sure that homeland security, some central
individual or aspect here is determining what our needs are,
setting a priority, and then making darn sure that they are
being addressed.
And I don't have a problem with them being addressed
through TSWG, if that is the best way to go, and everybody
sharing sort of a sweeping idea of knocking out the stuff that
has already been filed somewhere else so it is not duplicated
or whatever. But I do want to make sure that we are working in
a sense that when we think something is important for homeland
security, it gets done and doesn't have to get in line and
queue up with other concepts on that.
So if you would do that, I would appreciate that.
Dr. Bolka. Yes, sir. I don't have a timetable for you right
now, but I will work with committee staff to establish one and
to submit the report.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Thank all of you gentlemen.
Mr. Shays. Let me just invite each of you to make any
comment that you think we should have responded to, any
question you think we should have asked, or to make any comment
before we go to the next panel. But, before you do, let me just
acknowledge, I know, Dr. Bolka, you are new here, but you have
a distinguished career, so you bring tremendous expertise. I
didn't mean to imply that being new didn't mean that you don't
bring something significant to the table. I want to be fair to
you in the sense this is a new effort, and you are trying to
get things under control.
And, Mr. Jakub and Mr. McCallum, I know that you have--you
work significant hours in this effort, and you have had
tremendous successes.
We are just trying to sort out what we have done in the
last few years and understand how it works. So we thank all
three of you for your service to our country, very sincerely.
And do you have any final comments that you wish to make?
Mr. Jakub. Yes. If I could add one. We didn't talk about
really the foreign aspect, the international aspect of the TSWG
program. We have been able, through those contacts with our
current three partners, to develop a lot of technology which is
not only useful to us for our counterterrorism efforts, whether
they be domestic or whether they be what we are using overseas,
and those countries as well. It permits us to leverage a lot of
these resources we talked about and also to access their
technology bases.
So when you ask about the value of the program, in looking
at it we tend to look at it as not homeland security on the one
hand and rest of the world on the other. Technology is
technology. We can use it here, we can use it abroad, we can
use it with our friends. And the value we get out of leveraging
all of these resources has been invaluable for the U.S.
Government as well as for our foreign partners in this war on
terrorism.
Mr. Shays. This committee, in response to that, had an
extraordinary opportunity to see some of the technology that
the Israelis had in terms of--without going into much detail--
of how they would--those who had been captured, how they would
find a way to save captured folks in Israel, and how they would
confront the terrorists who held them. And the technology that
they had was so simple, and yet so brilliant. I am delighted
that you responded to this area because it is very important
that there be that dialog. And it raises the point, Dr. Bolka,
that the Department of Homeland Security, while it is domestic,
we will learn tremendously from our international----
Mr. Jakub. Yes. And, in point of fact, sir, we are opening
those doors for the Department of Homeland Security with our
existing three partners using our existing program, and we are
looking at possibly expanding with a couple of other foreign
partners. We will also make that same offer to DHS. It is an
example of how, I think, our program has helped DHS get up and
running and will help them in the future.
Mr. Shays. Well, my staff is happy about this stuff,
because they wanted me to ask you about the international side.
So thank you.
Do you have any other comment, Mr. McCallum?
Mr. McCallum. I would probably just like to close by
pointing out that what we like, both State and Defense like to
see this as a collaborative process. It is not one in which we
are insisting that agencies come to the table or that they send
money. It is a forum by which the larger agencies, I think,
have found that they can collaborate and ensure that they know
what is happening in other agencies, and indeed sometimes
within their own agencies because of the breadth and scope of
this program.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Dr. Bolka.
Dr. Bolka. Well, as you said, Mr. Chairman, I am relatively
new in the organization, but I would like to thank the
committee and the Congress for the support and the confidence
that was expressed in our fiscal year 2004 S&T budget. We will
do our best to execute it wisely.
Mr. Shays. I am sure you will. Thank you gentlemen.
Our final, and our second panel, is Dr. Gordhan Patel,
president, JP Laboratories, Middlesex, NJ; Mr. Jack Sawicki,
director of business development, GEOMET Technologies,
Germantown, MD; Mr. Lee F. Sword, program manager, Military
Systems Division, IRobot Corp., Burlington, MA. Our fourth
panelist is Mr. Richard Mastronardi, vice president of product
management, American Science and Engineering, Inc., Billerica,
MA. And our next panelist is Mr. Bruce deGrazia, chairman,
Homeland Security Industries Association, Washington, DC. We
have Mr. Kenneth P. Ducey, president, Markland Technologies,
Inc., Ridgefield, CT, and for the record, he is first among
equals among this panel; and finally, Mr. Laurence D. Bory,
vice president, Federal Government Relations, HDR, Inc.
And so what we will do is we will ask you all to stand. If
you would stand, and I will swear you in. Thank you.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Shays. Note for the record that our witnesses have
responded in the affirmative.
Thank you for your patience as we had the first panel. But
Dr. Patel is the first, and Mr. Sawicki, and Mr. Sword is
third, Mr. Mastronardi is fourth in this. OK.
Now, let me just say to you, you have prepared comments.
Given that we have seven of you, it would be helpful if you
would stay closer to the 5 minutes. But don't read fast. I
would prefer you to leave something out; if you choose to, you
may. Frankly, you don't need to read. You would probably do a
better job just describing some points you want us to know. It
would be helpful if you responded to some of the issues that
came up from the first panel, and so it may be that you would
like to submit your testimony for the record and just speak
extemporaneously.
So we are going to start as you are lined up. That is how
we are going to do it. So, Dr. Patel, thank you very much for
being here.
STATEMENTS OF GORDHAN PATEL, PRESIDENT, JP LABORATORIES,
MIDDLESEX, NJ; JACK SAWICKI, DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT,
GEOMET TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, GERMANTOWN, MD; LEE F. SWORD, PROGRAM
MANAGER, MILITARY SYSTEMS DIVISION, IROBOT CORP., BURLINGTON,
MA; RICHARD MASTRONARDI, VICE PRESIDENT OF PRODUCT MANAGEMENT,
AMERICAN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, INC., BILLERICA, MA; BRUCE
DEGRAZIA, CHAIRMAN, HOMELAND SECURITY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION,
WASHINGTON, DC; KENNETH P. DUCEY, PRESIDENT, MARKLAND
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RIDGEFIELD, CT; AND LAURENCE D. BORY, VICE
PRESIDENT, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, HDR, INC., ORLANDO, FL
Dr. Patel. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank
you for inviting me to testify about counterterrorism
technology, especially the product we have developed. JP
Laboratories developed a credit-card-sized low-cost radiation
dosimeter, as I have in my hand, and I have provided samples to
you, both irradiated and unirradiated samples. The dosimeter
can be used to monitor levels of radiation exposure in an event
of radiological attack by terrorists.
It is widely believed that terrorists have a new weapon
called a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb is an ordinary explosive
packed with a radioactive material. When detonated, it will
spread radioactive dust.
High doses of radiation such as x-ray emitted by the
radioactive dust can cause cancer and even death. A dirty bomb
could cause widespread panic, massive disruption, and rendering
the surrounding area uninhabitable for years.
In the event of a detonation of a dirty bomb, it is
imperative that people affected by the dirty bomb and the first
responders need to quickly assess the radiation exposure. The
people affected by a dirty bomb will know their radiation
exposure and will not panic, and the concern will be minimized.
If they have a wearable inexpensive radiation dosimeter, they
will know their radiation exposure.
If they are not exposed to radiation or receive a very low
dose, they will not need to worry and would not need to rush to
the hospital. However, those who have received a high dose may
go to a hospital, and physicians would know whom to treat
first.
In order to determine radiation exposure, hospitals will
need to obtain blood samples from every potential victim. That
will be practically impossible to do with so many people
affected by a dirty bomb. Panic among the people and the
concern can be minimized if they have a wearable, easy-to-read
personal radiation dosimeter.
JP Labs has developed a credit-card-sized radiation
dosimeter, we call it SIRAD for Self-Indicating Instant
Radiation Alert Dosimeter, which can be used to monitor high-
energy radiation released in an event of a dirty bomb attack.
When exposed to radiation from a dirty bomb or nuclear
detonation, the sensing strip, which is in the center of this
bagge, when exposed to radiation from the dirty bomb, or
nuclear detonation--the sensing strip of SIRAD develops blue
color instantly, and the color intensifies with the dose,
providing the wearer and medical personnel instantaneous
information of the victim's exposure to radiation.
The dosage is estimated by matching the color of the
sensing strips with the color reference chart and the number
printed on the side of the sensing strip. It can take days to
get such information by other methods currently available.
SIRAD is inexpensive, will cost less than about $10. JP
Labs has developed several products with Federal funding. The
development of SIRAD was funded by the Department of Defense
from 1997 to 1999, and by Technical Support Working Group
[TSWG]. TSWG recognized SIRAD's significance to the first
responder and has proceeded to make them aware of the
dosimeter's availability.
TSWG has selected our second proposal for funding to go to
what we call a smarter dosimeter, in which we are eliminating
the color reference chart, and the number will be read
automatically, and if there is any false positive, it will be
indicated.
A week ago I had an opportunity to meet with many first
responders at the Technology for Public Safety in Critical
Incident Response Conference organized by the National
Institution of Justice in St. Louis, MO. TSWG has helped many
organizations put a number of products and processes into the
hands of the first responders to fight terrorism. We believe
that TSWG can do an even better job if it becomes an
independent agency or with a larger budget.
I will be happy to answer your questions.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much, Doctor.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Patel follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.052
Mr. Shays. During the course of your testimony, you may
want to tell us whether this was something that the government
ideally is using, or whether it is going to go on the open
market. I am not going to you ask to respond now, Dr. Patel,
but if you can incorporate in your statements, it would be
helpful if you can.
Mr. Sawicki. Good afternoon. My name is Jack Sawicki. It is
an honor to be invited to testify before you today on our
experience with the Technical Support Working Group, or TSWG.
I am director of business development for GEOMET
Technologies, a division of Versar Corp., a small business
headquartered in Springfield, VA. We have been in the business
of response, testing, research and development with chemical
and biological agents and other hazardous materials for over 30
years. I also live in Arlington, VA, where I am a member of the
Cherry Hill Volunteer Fire Department and represented Arlington
from 1999 until September 2001 on the Department of Defense/
Department of Justice interagency group for counterterrorism.
GEOMET was first awarded our first TSWG contract to develop
these personal protective ensembles for first responders and
medical personnel. DTAPEs, Disposal Toxic Agent Protective
Ensembles, and I have two here today, were designed to provide
protection from chemical, biological, and radiological
materials of terrorist or industrial origin, and these were
actually submitted, to answer your question, sir, to a very
general requirement that came out, and were specifically
targeted to these users.
One of the requirements that we had in the negotiations was
the proper integration of protective suits with boots, gloves
and respirators, without the use of inherently unreliable field
expedient measures, such as duct tape. And one of the comments
I would like to make to Mr. Tierney, that that specific
requirement was given us in a meeting with Massachusetts
General Hospital, when we had the users in the emergency room
at one of earlier demonstrations there. They said, we don't
have time to be fooling around with tape and things like that
when we actually have an emergency.
We developed four systems, two for firefighters and HAZMAT
teams that typically use self-contained breathing apparatus,
one for emergency medical service personnel that you would
normally see on ambulances or on other types of response
equipment, and one for hospital emergency personnel. The EMS
and hospital resulted in the ones we have today, the hospital
personnel, and the green one for the first responders. Those
items are currently offered for sale by our firm with several
subcontractors, including the DuPont Co. and Global Secure,
Onguard and North Safety Co.
One barrier we have encountered in the marketplace that
tries--to show you some of the problems, I guess, we see with
the process is that many users are still accepting cheap or
what I call duct tape fixes in purchasing all kinds of
equipment with Federal funds, even though they do not meet
applicable safety standards, such as those from the National
Fire Protection Association that have actually been endorsed by
the interagency board. I would suggest that Congress in the
future might do some work in that area, to try to make sure
that equipment that first responders do get does meet these
minimum standards.
Another contract that GEOMET has had with TSWG was the
Rapid Contaminated Carcass and Plant Disposal System--if I
could have that third picture--which was funded by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. The charge in this program was to
design a portable system that could be distributed to each
State, probably to the veterinary colleges, and could be
rapidly trucked to outbreak sites throughout the United States.
The incinerators must safely burn plant or animal materials
that were contaminated with biological agents such as anthrax,
hoof and mouth, etc. Currently the state-of-the-art for
disposal of such material is open burning or burial, neither of
which are completely effective.
One requirement with the system had to--that the system had
to automatically accept entire longhorn steers, which weigh up
to about 2,000 pounds, tree trunks, truckloads of chickens,
etc., at a minimum rate of 120,000 pounds per day, without
putting out any pollution. To do this, if you are into
technology, our guys went crazy with this. We had a grinder
with an 80,000-pound blade, which was required to take these
longhorn steers. It is quite a neat design. Unfortunately, the
design phase was successfully completed; the project was
canceled due to lack of funding.
Again, if you can see the picture up there, the material is
dumped into the front end, and basically everything
automatically comes out the back end as smoke and ash.
And the veterinarians at USDA that were over in the UK
burning the carcases from the hoof and mouth disease over there
were the big proponents of that effort. They really felt that
there was a lot of contamination spread from just open burning.
I might add in Virginia where I live, a lot of chicken
feathers ended up in people's swimming pools and houses miles
away from this last incident that we had where they burned
something like a million chickens. They had open burial pits in
the Shenandoah Valley.
In 2002, we were awarded another TSWG contract to develop a
heat stress calculator, which was given earlier, and we got
into this as our firm has personal experience to the history of
performing environmental remediation. And we did the
disinfection of GSA Building 401, which processes the mail for
the executive branch, and we also handled part of the cleanup
of the Soviet Union biological weapons dump site in Uzbekistan,
where the temperatures were around 100 degrees in both cases.
Again, the heat stress calculator allowed workers to determine
how long they can safely operate in personal protective
equipment. And I might add, our subcontractor on that was the
former Director of the U.S. Army Research Institution of
Environmental Medicine up in Massachusetts.
Our experience with TSWG has been generally good. We have
one suggestion for improving the process. The one-page quad
chart format in some cases did not allow sufficient space to
provide enough information for evaluation, in our opinion. And
we suggest that firms be allowed to provide a two-page mini
white paper at the same time they put in the quad chart. If the
reviewers were to see a quad chart that interests them but have
questions about the proposal, the two-page white paper could be
consulted for additional information. And we believe that there
may be some proposals that have not been funded as reviewers
were not able to fully understand the concept based on the
small, small picture.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sawicki follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.057
Mr. Shays. Mr. Sword.
Mr. Sword. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shays. You know, we do not allow people who testify
before us to play with toys, sir. Last week, I had someone who
was eating at the table, so this is getting a little strange
here. Tell us about it. I am sorry. We will start your clock
over again here.
Mr. Sword. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this
distinguished subcommittee for the honor to testify on my
company's experience with and opinions of the technical support
working group process. I Robot Corp. is a young entrepreneurial
company in Burlington, MA. While we are a small business, we
are the largest supplier of mobile robots, and recognized as a
technological leader in our field. My name is Lee Sword, and I
am a program manager in the military systems division of i
Robot. I lead the five TSWG funded projects that are
investigating technologies for the next generation of explosive
ordinance disposal tools. My remarks today will include i
Robot's experiences with the TSWG process, a brief capitalistic
view of my project's target market, and conclude with my
opinion related to a potential improvement in the process.
I Robot is in the business to bring robotic technology into
the mainstream through defense and commercial channels. Our
team of 76 dedicated engineers have worked on robotics systems
that ventured miles into the Earth, journeyed to other planets,
revealed insights into civilizations that no longer exist, and
have improved the situational awareness of our troops in
combat. We have submitted a total of 34 responses to four
different broad agency announcements from TSWG. Solicitations
to which we responded span the spectrum from the narrow focus
of requesting a next generation of explosive ordinance disposal
robotic tools to the more general request for technology to
combat terrorism.
In each case, we believe that the solicitations were posted
with appropriate technical detail, clear instructions with
regard to how to properly respond, and provided reasonable
timeframes for the responses to be generated. Noteworthy is the
fact that none of the solicitations initially requested full
proposals but instead asked for either white papers or single
page quad charts. Five of i Robot's 34 responses to TSWG
generated requests for full proposals, and all five have
resulted in contracts to develop proof of concept prototypes.
TSWG and i Robot share some common visions for the future
of robotics. We share the opinion that in order to be useful,
advanced technologies must be developed with the end users'
needs in mind. Without clear objectives and measurable success
criteria, scientists and engineers will tend to create really
cool but useless technology.
The benefit of modular designs is another shared vision
that has already served our company well. The robot presented
at this hearing was configured as an explosive ordinance
disposal robot, yet shares the same base chassis as those
currently in use by our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Our robots deployed overseas have a scout payload installed
where the EOD arm is on this robot.
The need for interoperability is a third area of shared
vision. TSWG is defining a common architecture for robots,
payloads, and control units that will allow compliant equipment
for multiple vendors to seamlessly integrate into useful
systems. We at i Robot endorse this approach, and are working
with TSWG to refine and mature the concept so true plug and
play capability can be delivered to the end user.
The end users for the next generation tools being developed
are local, State, and federally supported bomb squads. Given
the total number of active bomb squads in existence, there is
very little financial incentive for private industry to invest
large sums of money in break-through technologies. The past two
decades have seen only small evolutionary changes to existing
equipment, but the recent infusion of money from TSWG is
causing revolutionary changes in the capability and utility of
EOD equipment that otherwise may have taken many years to incur
on its own. I Robot's experience with the TSWG process was and
continues to be a positive one. The entire process from release
of the broad agency announcement to issuance of development
contracts is handled in a professional manner by experienced
individuals that obviously have a good grasp of the end users'
needs with an understanding of the limitations of the available
equipment. My one recommendation for improvement in the TSWG
process would involve implementing some mechanism for quickly
increasing staffing levels to address unanticipated workloads.
I'm specifically addressing the overload experience following
the release of the homeland defense broad agency announcement
where a total of 12,500 responses were received.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my statements.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sword follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.063
Mr. Shays. Mr. Tierney just pointed out that you live in
his district. Is this correct?
Mr. Sword. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. Terrific. But you are still, Mr. Ducey, first
among equals here.
Mr. Mastronardi. Yes. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, on behalf of American Science and Engineering, AS&E,
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to talk to you
today about our relationship with TSWG, and where I think it
has been beneficial both to our company and to the Nation.
We have a relationship with TSWG that goes back to as far
as 1998, from what I can determine.
Since the tragedy of September 11th, the role of TSWG has
become more important than ever. I believe that the mandate
that they have to identify appropriate technologies and
facilitate the rapid prototyping of these technologies is
extremely vital. Our company has been in business since 1958,
and we have pioneered a lot of work in detection and advancing
the fields of x-ray astronomy, medical imaging, non-destructive
testing, and, more importantly today, security screening.
Anyone in this room has passed through a security checkpoint in
this building that uses AS&E equipment. If you had an object x-
rayed today, it was with our equipment. The same would be true
of pretty much every government building in Washington, DC. Our
equipment is used every day throughout the world to inspect a
broad range of items; these range from pocketbooks of people
entering the White House to deliver goods at Andrews Air Force
base to cargo containers that are entering the port of Hong
Kong.
For our company, it's a constant challenge to keep up with
the terrorists who are perfecting methods to circumvent
security measures every day. And I believe this is where TSWG
comes into the picture. TSWG can support this effort by
speeding up the time to market of many new technologies, and
most recently TSWG has agreed to help us develop and test a new
product called the Z Backscatter Van [ZBV]. I have enclosed a
couple figures in the testimony that might be helpful.
This single-sided x-ray product uses our patented Z
Backscatter technology to identify hidden contraband. It's
built into a small, maneuverable delivery-type van that allows
the user to both covertly or overtly look into vehicles and
cargo containers. It can easily identify explosives, weapons,
and in some cases, can be used to effectively look under
people's clothing to find suicide bombs.
We have an additional capability that we offer on this
product called Radioactive Threat Detection. This can identify
the radioactive materials that are often associated with dirty
bombs; they are typically gamma emitters. There is also a
capability to detect neutron emitters that are often the
materials that are used to make nuclear weapons.
Recognizing the potential of this product, ZBV, TSWG has
agreed to help us develop additional capabilities. These
capabilities include the ability to operate in remote and quite
challenging hostile environments such as that in Iraq. What
they are going to help us develop is remote operation
capability. This will allow us to operate the equipment in a
covert manner and to keep our soldiers and personnel
sufficiently distant from the process so that, if any explosion
occurs, they will not get blown up.
We find that TSWG has very accessible and user friendly Web
site, and it is often the starting point of any project like
ours. This project, by the way, was in response to a broad
agency announcement. It has broad appeal, but the near-term
deployment and where TSWG is providing focus is in the high-
threat regions.
As a member of the TSWG Web site, we are kept aware of the
opportunities through the broad agency announcements. Our first
submittal, like everybody's, is a quad chart. We provide a
concept drawing of the idea, a description of how it would meet
an operational capability that's been asked for, and it gives
TSWG a rough order of magnitude of cost, schedule, and
deliverables. This one-page document responds to--is supposed
to be responded to in as little at 45 days and sometimes takes
longer, several months. I think everybody else has described
the next step, which is a white paper, which also takes some
time, and a proposal. We understand that TSWG often has
something in excess of 12,000 quad charts, and it's pretty
daunting, to say the least. We believe that TSWG does an
effective job of processing the high volume of interest, but I
think as most companies will tell you, we wish the process
could be faster.
Often, large amounts of time can transpire between various
stages of the proposal process. In our case, this project has
taken over a year from quad chart to contract.
TSWG has taken a number of initiatives to host meetings to
discuss the upcoming projects and to educate companies how to
be more effective in the proposal process. This is certainly
one example of how TSWG is trying to speed up the process. In
addition to speeding up the process, we have two
recommendations that could be addressed by TSWG in order to
make their process more effective. First, we believe that more
detailed feedback on why quad charts or white papers are
rejected would be helpful to submitters. Submitters would be
better prepared for the next time.
Second, there appears to be a preference for funding a lot
of the small projects and very few larger projects, and we
believe the emphasis should be on the right technology to meet
the demand of the requirements proposed by the operating
organizations.
From our vantage point, we find the relationship with TSWG
very beneficial to both parties. The people appear to be quite
competent technically; they're dedicated, hard-working, and we
also believe they are extremely busy and juggle multiple
projects. Many of the issues that we feel are important today
could be mitigated by additional staff. TSWG serves a vital
role in helping companies like ours develop new technologies,
and we are looking forward to our new project.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mastronardi follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.070
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
Mr. deGrazia.
Mr. deGrazia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Tierney. It
is a pleasure to appear before you today. Accompanying me are
several of our members, including two who will testify as well.
One of them is Larry Borey of HDR from Orlando, FL, and Ken
Ducey of Markland Technologies. Also accompanying me are a
number of other HSIA representatives, including Bruce Aitken,
who is HSIA's president, Yasmin Chirado Chiodini of Intelliorg,
who is the executive director of HSIA's Florida chapter and
southeast regional center, Hank Close of ITS Federal, and
others.
The Homeland Security Industries Association was organized
in November 2001, and formally launched about a year ago. Right
now, we have about 400 members, ranging from the largest
defense contractors, the names of which everyone here would
recognize, through mid-sized firms, to startups, and even some
incubator companies. Our representatives here reflect this
cross-section.
Now, in my oral statement today, I'm going to summarize the
views and recommendations of HSIA and then ask that our
complete written statement be included in the record of this
proceeding. The Association's views represent, of course, a
consensus of HSIA and not the opinion or the particular views
of any one member. After my presentation, both of the HSIA
member firms who were invited by the subcommittee to testify
will comment on their own experience with TSWG and generally on
their experience with Federal and State procurement in the
Homeland Security area.
Now, generally, HSIA wishes to commend Secretary Ridge and
the Department of Homeland Security on a successful launch of
this massive new department last January. Given that the
significant increases in funding for Homeland Security only
began to become available last March, we believe that DHS has
moved quickly to implement Homeland Security improvements. Now,
of course, HSIA members and other companies in the HLS
industry, not to mention first responders in those State and
local governments, are frankly frustrated with the pace of HLS
funding and the early reliance on sole source procurements. We
attribute this, however, to the evolutionary pace of developing
a new Federal department and the organizational challenges that
are understandably associated with such a development.
Now, with respect to TSWG and Homeland Security procurement
generally, we have the following recommendations: First, we
think very highly of the abbreviated procurement process used
by TSWG, and we think it should be followed by Homeland
Security procurements generally at the Federal level.
Second, we think that TSWG's separate procurement Web site,
www.bids.tswg.gov, should be used as a model for separately
posting Federal Homeland Security RFPs, RFIs, and RFQs.
Third, TSWG's dedicated Web site for its procurements
should be more clearly linked to the DHS Web site.
Fourth, the Department of Homeland Security should organize
a series of seminars around the country to educate firms about
TSWG. In our own organization, we held a meeting to discuss our
testimony before the subcommittee, and we asked our members how
many of them had worked with TSWG and how many of them were
even aware of it. It was only a very small minority, frankly,
who had even heard of TSWG let alone worked with them.
Fifth, we believe that greater use should be made of the
Small Business Administration's offices around the country to
educate firms about TSWG.
Sixth, Congress should appropriate additional funding for
TSWG in order to permit it to conduct debriefing meetings with
firms who unsuccessfully send equipment or technology to TSWG,
and also to implement a debriefing system with respect to
unsolicited equipment or technology sent to TSWG. We don't
expect that 12,000 people will be talked to, but we do believe
that the ones that got close should be given an opportunity to
be told what they did wrong and how they could do better the
next time.
Seventh, we believe the incidence of Federal and State
Homeland Security sole source contracting should decrease. You
have a very large group of Homeland Security providers, and we
don't believe that it should be concentrated in the hands of
one or two companies, even if those companies are members.
Eighth, we believe the administration should consider an
inner-agency Homeland Security contracting summit further to
the goal of creating a harmonized Homeland Security procurement
system.
Ninth, Congress should authorize and the administration
should implement a system of security cleared industry advisors
from each major area of Homeland Security.
Tenth, the Department of Homeland Security should much more
frequently conduct the very successful industry days in order
to educate industry regarding DHS goals and plans regarding HLS
procurement.
And, finally, the DHS should attempt to collect State and
local HLS procurement information and post it on the dedicated
HLS Web site recommended above.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much. That is very helpful.
[The prepared statement of Mr. deGrazia follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.083
Mr. Shays. Mr. Ducey, even though you are first among
equals, it is still 5 minutes.
Mr. Ducey. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Maybe an extra second.
Mr. Ducey. Chairman Shays, distinguished members of the
subcommittee. Good morning. My name is Ken Ducey; I am
president of Markland Technologies, a small company dedicated
to delivering integrated security solutions to protect our
country against the threat of terrorism, located in the great
State of Connecticut. I want to thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today to discuss this matter of vital
importance.
The U.S. Government and private industry have a long
history of working together to find solutions to the most
vexing challenges facing this great Nation. It is the
entrepreneurial spirit of small, not big, businesses that have
led to the technological breakthroughs that have revolutionized
our way of living. We all know the stories of entrepreneurs who
have overcome impossible obstacles to develop innovative
products that have made the United States the great nation it
is. This time will be no different. If we can create a system
where the entrepreneur and the U.S. Government work together,
the two most powerful forces in our country, we will create a
synergy unlike anything ever seen before. Even the
accomplishments mentioned will pale in comparison to what we
can achieve in the area of Homeland Security powered by
cutting-edge technology.
The first step for developing a winning strategy is to
create a roadmap to success. This roadmap should be developed
by a team of experts from the private as well as the public
sectors, representing all aspects of the issues. This effort
requires the development of a research environment which is
driven directly by the field needs of the end user. The
innovative capability must be designed from day 1 to fit into a
system that meets the needs of the end users and goes into cost
effective volume production expeditiously with proper systems
for maintenance and training which are so key to the end user
success.
To accomplish this goal, DHS needs to develop in TSWG and
other organizations the type of mindset and organizational
structure that has been utilized very successfully within the
DOD. The elements of such an organization are: An ability to
invest in basic technologies that can lead to fundamental
technical advantages in order to create substantive
capabilities. The formation of working groups that would
advocate technologies together. The definition of strategic
challenges in detail that cross multiple threat spectrum
scenarios. Support for the conceptual integrated system
solutions which incorporate new capabilities. Testing of such
promising capabilities in large-scale proof of concept
demonstrations. Working closely within the different branches
of DHS and the Office of the Secretary to broker the necessary
emotional commitment to the implementation of these particular
capabilities.
Namely, it is all about integration, integration at all
levels and with all parties involved from end user, vendors,
etc. It is this philosophy of system level integration that is
employed by our company Markland Technologies when we endeavor
to produce integrated solutions for container inspection,
border security, air transportation, and military force
protection. No single company can solve these problems, and,
therefore, industry consortiums will be fostered by TSWG to
produce solutions that incorporate substantive capabilities
along the best of breed system integration capabilities.
A quick look around the industry will reveal that many
disruptive technologies are hidden within small businesses and
little known research facilities, while much of the best of
breed system integration capabilities are found within large
Fortune 500 companies. Therefore, small companies must be
brought together with large companies to create the necessary
capabilities to reduce the terrorist threat. Neither function
by itself will prove adequate to stay ahead of the terrorists
or to properly counter their God-given ingenuities.
In closing, I would like to provide one small example of
our experiences with the successful research and development of
border security and military force protection technology, this
technology behind Markland's Vehicle Stopping System. For many
years now, the San Ysidro border crossing, the busiest border
port of land entry into the United States, has had to cope with
attempts at illegal entry by port runners. Undeterred port
runners provide illegal entry for immigrants, drugs, illicit
materials, weapons, and possibly terrorists into the United
States. The INS required a unique solution that would stop the
cars but not cause fatalities to the occupants of the vehicle
or border agents. Markland Technologies worked with the INS to
create, install, and successfully test the Vehicle Stopping
System [VSS]. This net can capture a car at speeds in excess of
50 miles per hour with no harm whatsoever to the occupants of
the vehicle or border agents. The VSS is now a prime example of
a disruptive capability that can greatly help to counter
potential threats to the border. Unfortunately, without a
systems level implementation into all entry/exit vehicle lanes,
the VSS will sit in storage as a prime exam of what happens
when you do not bring together all the components of the
roadmap to success.
We at Markland Technologies look forward to contributing to
the future success of TSWG and the DHS by working
collaboratively to develop the best technology solutions for
decreasing the terrorist threats currently facing the United
States.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ducey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.088
Mr. Shays. Mr. Borey.
Mr. Borey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Tierney. My
name is Lawrence Borey with HDR. We are a national architect
engineering firm. We have 80 offices and 3,500 employees around
the country, one in White Plains, close to your district, and
one in Boston. We also have a wholly owned subsidiary called
HDR Security Operations, which is headquartered in Orlando, FL.
My testimony today will be related to facility security
rather than individual technologies. We have had many years of
experience with many Federal agencies, both military and
domestic. We are the principle architects for the renovation of
the Pentagon, and many of the technologies developed over
previous years by other firms are being incorporated into the
improved security of that important building.
Our experience is that planning, vulnerability assessments,
policies, and training are often more critical than hardware
procurement for facilities security. And too often, first
responders, local governments, State governments jump into
hardware procurement for security without doing the necessary
vulnerability assessments and planning.
We believe that DHS needs a strong central procurement
directorate and are concerned that the procurement directorate
to date seems to be a subset of the management under secretary.
We don't think it's been given enough visibility. Our
experience with DHS constituent agencies has been favorable,
however, and we look forward to continuing to provide services
for architect engineering to the newly created Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement which combine three
agencies before that.
The existing procurement processes, however, of the
constituent agencies should not be interrupted while the DHS
develops its own acquisition regulations. And we also urge that
DHS acquisition regulations incorporate the Brooks Act, which
is Form Part 36, for architect engineering services which was--
the champion for which was Chairman Brooks whose portrait is on
the wall there.
We are concerned about the inadequate competition for many
new initiatives in DHS, and our experience is that some
security initiatives have been sole sourced there the GSA
supply schedule. Complex analysis such as vulnerability
assessments are too important and too numerous in terms of the
number of critical infrastructure components to rely on the
capacity and capability of a single firm. One particular
example that I will note was the procurement for port security
as vulnerability assessments. There are 50 major ports and many
hundreds of minor ports in the United States. The Congress very
specifically said that the Coast Guard should do a
vulnerability assessment on major ports. In order to get up,
get going quickly, the Coast Guard chose a single contractor
off the supply schedule. It is our information at the latest
that the contract is behind schedule for meeting the
vulnerability assessments in all those 50 ports.
We've also submitted a preliminary proposal for a national
backup 911 system to the Office of Homeland Security. We
received little encouragement from OHS, so we have not further
developed it.
I would be pleased to answer any questions, and I am happy
to submit this testimony.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Borey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.089
Mr. Shays. Thank you for all your patience, because this is
a large panel. I'm going to first go to Mr. Tierney, and he
will ask some questions, and then I have a number of questions
I want to ask. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
I want to thank all of you. This has been an informative
panel and very helpful. I note the heavy Massachusetts
influence. And despite the fact that there is one gentleman
from Connecticut, I say that. I am so proud that many of the
innovative that are coming out, are coming out with some
connection to Massachusetts or from Massachusetts. We have some
wonderful businesses there.
Mr. Shays. We eat off the crumbs off your table, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Yes, you do, sir. But you are eating well
these days.
I had a few ideas and things I wanted to explore if we had
the time. One is, all of you I assume that are in a business
developing something, a patent, or somehow otherwise protect
the end product. Would that be a fair assumption? I was
interested in Mr. Sword's statement that you want to make it
open licensing so that others may still take availability. And
you are firmly in favor of that from your comments. Is that
something you think we should require of all contracts done
with government money, or something peculiar to what you are
doing?
Mr. Sword. I want to make sure I'm not misunderstood, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Or misquoted.
Mr. Sword. TSWG is defining a common architecture by which
all competitors' robotic platforms and tools will interoperate.
This does not mean that we are willing to give away our IP and
allow other people to produce the intellectual property that we
have developed in-house. But we are on board with their attempt
at defining the future of robotics such that multiple vendors
can provide equipment that will play well together.
Mr. Tierney. Fair enough. Then let me ask, anybody that
wants that.
Mr. Shays. Would the gentleman just suspend for a minute?
Would you move your robotic creature right in front of us so we
can see this? That's perfect. Thank you.
Now, tell us what this thing does.
Mr. Sword. This vehicle is configured as an explosive
ordinance disposal robotic tool. The arm you see on it has an
80 inch reach, it has a 300 power zoom camera with illumination
on the end of it. At the second joint you will see that there
is a gripper. The lift capability on this arm is 15 pounds
working in the near vicinity and 5 pounds at full extension. It
was designed under contract with U.K. Ministry of defense as a
solution to one of their high tech next-generation tools. This
is a good example of requirements-driven design.
It is as tall as it is. Why? Because it needs to be able to
look into the upper bins of an aircraft. It also has several
preset poses on it that assists the operator. This is what I
cite as an example of the next generation. It takes some of the
burden off of the operators for EOD because they are no longer
controlling joint-by-joint control on an arm, but the arm is
going to preset poses, and it does what we call resolved
motions, so they can actually fly the gripper or fly the camera
and the joints will respond appropriately and they don't have
to understand what each joint angle is going to be. The
technology has finally caught up with science fiction, and it
allows us to off-load the operator to be able to more
effectively accomplish the job.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. And do you get paid to play with that?
Mr. Sword. I get paid for a lot more than that.
Mr. Tierney. I'm sure you do.
My question, then, for those of you who want to answer
this, is, what, if anything, is the appropriate thing for the
funding and to the government to then ask back from the
companies that receive that funding when they have a successful
commercial product?
Mr. Sword. I would like to answer that, sir. In this case,
the TSWG funding is letting us take this particular technology
from an integrated payload that only functions on our chassis
and wrap the TSWG common architecture around it so that it can
be provided to the other vendors and can be purchased by bomb
squads to use on existing chassis that they already have. That
way, I'm not forcing them to buy a complete system from me, but
through TSWG funding, I create this common architecture
interface on this arm and then make it available to my
competitors to augment the existing equipment that the bomb
squads have already invested dollars into.
Mr. Tierney. Does anybody else care to answer that?
Mr. Sawicki. A good example of how this process works I
think was in the development of these clothing systems. When we
had the first award from TSWG, there was no standard in place
for first responder protective clothing for these particular
end users. And through the research that was done through TSWG
and funding that was provided by our corporation and other
firms, we were able to provide the National Fire Protection
Association in Boston a template of the testing they required
to establish the national standard for these kinds of piece of
equipment. So we would not be very happy to give up
intellectual property to anybody else. We felt that the
synergism that came from the government and various agencies
within the government and various private companies working
together allowed us to have a national standard that is now in
place that, as he said, is sort of a common architecture for
everybody to do procurements to. I think that's very useful.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. deGrazia.
Mr. deGrazia. Yes. Now, typically, the government shares
with the developer the intellectual property of something that
is developed under a government contract. But the government
cannot itself then do anything with that property, can't give
it to a third party, for a certain number of years. So there is
a system like that in place as we speak.
Mr. Shays. If the gentleman would just suspend a second.
What good does it do to have the property rights if you can't
use them? In other words, it doesn't make sense to me.
Mr. deGrazia. Well, the government does get an opportunity
to use it; it just does not get an opportunity to use it right
away and set up a third party in competition with the original
developer. It can do it after a period of time, after the
original developer has had an opportunity to use it himself.
Mr. Tierney. And I think somebody mentioned on the earlier
panel that, should you go out of business or something of that
nature, the government has then retained the rights to then
proceed.
Mr. deGrazia. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Borey. There is one other aspect to this that needs to
be taken into account. Sometimes the technology we develop
needs to be secure so that it can't be misused, either in
another facility where it wouldn't function as well or by a way
of disarming the technology. And particularly, entrance
security or physical security, we designed the standards for
the U.S. Bureau of Prisons to develop Federal prisons. And
these were modular systems that could be used in a variety of
places. Obviously, they are used in different temperatures,
different humidities, so there were ranges of usability that
had to be developed into them. And, of course, we also didn't
want them to--the technology to get out so that they couldn't
be used for people to enter or get out without proper
permission.
Mr. Tierney. Rightfully so.
Mr. Sawicki, you talked about some barriers to that. And
one thing that you mentioned was there were people, I thought
you said there were people that were purchasing your product,
end users, or products--competitive products that weren't up to
the standard of your product. And you thought that should be
corrected in some way that we are not now doing it.
Mr. Sawicki. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Would you expand on that a little bit for me.
Mr. Sawicki. Yes. I think when the Congress has
appropriated funds, there has been guidance given to the States
as they go buy equipment. They say, you should meet national
standards with your claim. Let's just look, for example, at a
suit like that. The critical interfaces of the suit are around
the mask and at the cuffs and the closures. And if you go out
right now to one of your departments up there and you see
somebody with duct tape stuck on different places, what they
are attempting to do is bridge the gap or interfaces between
these pieces of equipment.
Now, if you were to go in with a sprayer--and the national
fire protection association test specifies a spray test--none
of those duct taped gaps will pass, reliably pass a spray test,
whereas these systems, since they were designed together as a
system, will. And you can see, if you are out in the field, if
somebody sprays some noxious toxic technical and you don't want
dripping down your chin down--well, you can see where it ends
up--or in your cuff the same way, then you have to grab
somebody.
Mr. Tierney. So communities are choosing to buy something
that is substandard?
Mr. Sawicki. Well, I think they are not educated as to the
standard right now. And because the funding is sort of broad,
you know, just go buy what you want, basically.
Mr. Tierney. Excuse me. You are telling me that our funding
is so broad. I mean, I've seen some of these things, and they
don't seem as broad, but I would like to know if they are, that
the funding might say, here is some Federal money, go buy a
product. We don't say, go buy a product that is up to such and
such standards or better?
Mr. Sawicki. Well, when I sat on the interagency board, we
were trying to transition to the next level, once the standard
was in place, to require people to buy to a standard. And
that's happened over the last couple of years. And I think as--
I just urge you, as the funding catches up in the next cycle,
to follow the interagency board's recommendations, which are to
purchase to recognized standards.
Mr. Tierney. OK.
You also mentioned, Mr. Sawicki, while I have you, that you
had a project going; you had the picture up there for the burn
situation.
Mr. Sawicki. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. And that was serving a particular need that
had been identified to you that was, I assume, fairly pressing
if it made it all the way through the process to be funded. But
then you said it was stopped for lack of funding.
Mr. Sawicki. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. What happened?
Mr. Sawicki. We went through a 1-year development phase in
which we met all our milestones, and we believed we had a
design that would have met all the requirements. It just wasn't
funded past that. And so we don't have the capability in this
country right now, in my opinion, to respond to any kind of an
agricultural outbreak.
Mr. Tierney. Was there any communication to you as to why
that wasn't funded, why they didn't choose to move forward on
it? Was there a competitor coming up with an alternative?
Mr. Sawicki. No, sir. TSWG actually worked very
aggressively with us trying to secure additional funding to try
to get a prototype made. We actually went even up to Canada
trying to get some money from Canada. And I have to commend the
TSWG people especially for really working with us on that. My
understanding was there just wasn't a sufficient budget.
Mr. Tierney. I guess I'm interrupting you, I'm sorry. But,
Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that TSWG would be the one to
make the decision what the priorities are. It goes back to my
question of the earlier panel: If you have made a decision that
this is a priority, why do you stop? Obviously, there are other
things being done. And if this is in the pipeline, you don't
stop, you get it done, unless the price is so far out of
control it just doesn't strike a balance there and you no
longer can meet that criteria. We will have to look into that.
I am just struck by that.
Mr. Shays. I'm trying to nail down a few things; and Mr.
Tierney was getting to it, so I was happy he was asking these
questions.
I want to understand, first off, should I view you as
scientists creating a product or as entrepreneurs developing a
product? How do you each view yourself? And let's go down Dr.
Patel. Maybe both.
Dr. Patel. I consider myself both scientist and
entrepreneur.
Mr. Shays. I'm going to come right back to you.
Mr. Sawicki. I would answer yes to both of those.
Mr. Sword. I believe that's the correct statement, both.
Mr. Mastronardi. I would say ditto.
Mr. deGrazia. And I would say that our members are from
both areas and consider themselves both.
Mr. Ducey. Entrepreneurial.
Mr. Borey. We are both. We have scientists, engineers,
technicians.
Mr. Shays. But among yourself, I'm just trying to
understand.
Mr. Borey. Personally, I represent the company; so I am
neither a scientist nor an entrepreneur.
Mr. Shays. Fair enough. When you develop an idea, my first
reaction would be, there is a market for this idea so why do I
need the government? I can develop this product, and I can make
money off of it because there is a market. Am I assuming there
isn't a market? Or do I assume that you are so small that you
don't have the capabilities? Walk me through why you need the
government. And I'd just as soon go right up the line here. In
fact, what I am going to do is I'm going to go every other one
so we don't have to keep passing the mic while we are waiting.
So I'll go to you.
Dr. Patel. When we get good ideas, the risk of developing
entirely new product is so high that small companies cannot
afford it. So we often go to the government.
Mr. Shays. I see all nodding your head. If you have
something that you would just add to it.
Mr. Sword.
Mr. Sword. As I mentioned in my statement, Mr. Chairman,
the target market really doesn't support large investments in
revolutionary technology. So it is the infusion of the money
from the U.S. Government that helps make the breakthroughs
occur. The market itself just isn't going to allow me to sell
enough of these robots to ever pay for the research and
development.
Mr. Shays. In your case, I can see that. But can't you
price it in a way that gives you a return? Or even then, it's
still not going to?
Mr. Sword. We are attacking other markets that offer more
lucrative return on the investment, and the technologies can
cross those boundaries. But to specifically develop a tool to
dispose of bombs is such a small market that I don't think the
technologies would ever exist without some push.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Ducey.
Mr. Ducey. Well, our organization has a number of members
that are very large; they are in the billion-plus dollar range.
And those have no problems developing their technology and
getting it ready for the marketplace. They have very large R&D
departments. But when you get down to the mid size and the
small companies that make up a large percentage of our group,
they simply cannot afford to put in all of the funds necessary
to develop--not even something as sophisticated as this, but
something perhaps a little less sophisticated. And yet the need
is still there. And that's why they look to the government.
Mr. Borey. The Federal Government is just one of a number
of clients that we have to upgrade security operations. If you
will notice from page 4 of our written statement, we also
provide these services to health care facilities, to
universities, museums, and private enterprise, including the
railroads.
Mr. Shays. But you didn't really speak to the government
funding technology. You were speaking about government
contracting, which is, do you want to share anything as it
relates to technology as it relates to your area?
Mr. Borey. Well, we do have some areas that the government
funds some of the technology that we use in installing the
security systems in the facilities. But generally that's not
our business.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Sawicki.
Mr. Sawicki. I would like to give you an example--maybe
that's an unfair thing to do--but from my past life. I used to
work at Arthur D. Little in Cambridge in technology
development. And at one time there was a government contract
area that was very aggressive looking at nuclear flash
protection. In other words, the magic sunglass that would stop
a nuclear flash. And we went out to look to optics people.
Mr. Shays. Let me understand why that's necessary. In other
words, someone could be blinded?
Mr. Sawicki. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Mr. Sawicki. In other words, the nuclear flash could be so
bright and so fast that it would blind particularly a pilot,
they were particularly interested in pilots. We went out to
optics manufacturers, and they said, well, we're really better
off from a market perspective developing sunglasses for surfers
because we get a much higher return on investment. There really
aren't that many nuclear flash requirement sunglasses out
there, and we are just not interested in working with you. Now,
we went even trying to fund these people with some seed money
to get going, and there still was very little interest in going
after that. So we had to go back and find small specialty
companies to provide funding, directed funding.
And I think you see the same thing in all these areas, that
even if the market seems very clear, those of us in the
business there, when we go to our investors, our board and they
come in and say, OK, what are you going to invest in this year?
And I say, well, our return in investment 3 years out is going
to be a 7 percent yield; but we could open a fast food
restaurant here in Germantown, Md, which is rapidly growing,
and make 30 percent. They are going to tell us to get into the
restaurant business.
So the technology business is just different from others.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Mastronardi. Yes, I think I pretty much echo what
everybody else has said. For us, we look at two markets. One is
obviously if there is a return on the investment, and we look
at markets and determine whether or not a product that we
develop with our own money will have a reasonable return. But
very often we're also problem solvers. In the case of our Z
Backscatter Van, we have been asked by the Army to come up with
a variant on that technology that they can deploy in Iraq. Now,
we don't normally have to develop technology that can handle
135 degrees Fahrenheit temperatures during the day, withstand
dust storms, fit on to C-130 aircraft, be operated remotely
from up to 1\1/2\ kilometers away.
These kinds of things, we look to the government because
the return on that investment for developing that kind of
capability is just not there. And we really think that's--if we
can use some of the government money to support that part of
it, then we have a good marriage of good products.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Ducey. It's all who the customer is. I mean, in most of
our products they do have commercial applications, but those
commercial applications are multiple years out. In the
meantime, a lot of things have to be funded to create those
applications, and typically the government is the first
customer for these new technologies.
Just going back to your example with the housewife, for
example. If she does have a solution to a problem that she is
aware of----
Mr. Shays. I said homemaker.
Mr. Ducey. I'm sorry. Homemaker. If she is a homemaker and
has a technology that she believes can solve a problem, I doubt
in most cases that she would have the resources to take that
product, develop it into a prototype, test it, etc., to get it
through. That's where the government can come in and help. We
do a lot of business with a lot of end users at the borders of
the country, etc., that also have these amazing ideas, but they
have to have a facility in order to get them prototypes
developed, etc.
Mr. Shays. I have a confession. At this hearing, I said
homemaker. The first time I used that story I said housewife
and----
Mr. Ducey. I was there, too.
Mr. Shays. And I was corrected quickly. And rightfully so.
Mr. Patel--Dr. Patel, I'm sorry. Your cards that you
developed, tell me first who the market was for these.
Dr. Patel. I'm sorry?
Mr. Shays. Who is the market for these? Who is the
potential buyer?
Dr. Patel. There is no buyer other than the first responder
or the government.
Mr. Shays. In many places this would potentially be folks
at Customs?
Dr. Patel. Yes. It would be mainly the first responder,
police, firefighters, who in case of dirty bomb explosives,
they have to respond first.
Mr. Shays. So that would be local, potentially State and
Federal?
Dr. Patel. Pretty much local----
Mr. Shays. A pretty wide market.
Dr. Patel. Correct.
Mr. Shays. And let me be clear. You developed this with
funding. How much funding did you receive?
Dr. Patel. First it was funded by the Navy. They were the
first to come out with SBIR phase one and two, which is about
three quarters of a million dollars.
Mr. Shays. Of a million?
Dr. Patel. Yes. And then there was some problem with
developing darker color at lower temperature and lighter color
at higher temperature.
Mr. Shays. You had to keep perfecting it?
Dr. Patel. And that's right. And so we solved some of those
problems.
Mr. Shays. Is this ready to go in operation?
Dr. Patel. It is almost ready. In that form, yes, it is
ready to go in operation.
Mr. Shays. And in the process of doing research, the
government is assessing its value?
Dr. Patel. Yes. That's where we are. The Navy is
evaluating, so is TSWG.
Mr. Shays. In other words, at one point you are developing
the product. The next thing, though, the government is trying
to see if it meets its standards. Is that--and this was not
done at the request of the Federal Government. You did it; you
basically came to the government.
Dr. Patel. No. The original proposal was solicited by the
Navy. That they were looking for an instrument type to
distribute in case of nuclear explosion.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Dr. Patel. And then TSWG saw that this could be used by
first responders in case of a dirty bomb.
Mr. Shays. Right.
Dr. Patel. The Navy and our government must have foreseen
that could be such a need. So the Navy had solicited the
proposal.
Mr. Shays. But the government hasn't bought this yet; they
just helped you fund it?
Dr. Patel. TSWG has bought 6,000 of them.
Mr. Shays. OK. How do you decide ultimately--this seems a
little bit on the side, but it is related. How does the
government decide what they are going to pay you? And how do
you decide whether you are willing to sell? And, by the way,
can you refuse to sell afterwards?
Dr. Patel. The government----
Mr. Shays. Let me state all the questions I have. Can the
government set the price? First, can you set the price? Can the
government set the price? And can you refuse to sell this
product once the government helped you develop it?
Dr. Patel. First thing, I would not refuse for the price or
it would not matter, because if the Nation needs it, so it is
my pleasure to provide this to the Department.
Mr. Shays. No, you are not going to do it for nothing.
Dr. Patel. No. Of course I would not do it for nothing. I'm
in business and would like to make a profit.
Mr. Shays. Certainly.
Dr. Patel. But still, if the government needs it or
cities----
Mr. Shays. Maybe I'm giving something too hypothetical for
you. Maybe I'm suggesting something where you don't think that
would happen. You think you will arrive at a price. But maybe
one of you could tell me how the government sets a price. Mr.
Sword. I mean, Mr. Mastronardi. I'm sorry.
Mr. Mastronardi. OK. For our equipment, which is pretty
much capital equipment, very often the price is set for the
government based on our cost. The government has the right to
come in and audit our books and find out how much the cost, and
then we're are able to put a modest fee on that and that
establishes the price. And we have to use that as the lowest
price as always sold to the U.S. Government, and any other
commercial price has to be somewhat higher than that anywhere
in the world. So that's one way the price can be established if
you have not established a commercial price for it. But
typically, if it's developed by the government, that's the way
the price is developed.
Mr. Shays. I don't know if it was in response, Mr. Tierney,
Mr. Sword responding to your question or someone else, where
you were talking about purchasing a product that didn't work.
Who was----
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Sawicki.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Sawicki. Thank you. When the committee went
to Los Alamos at the lab there, they were showing us detection
equipment that they said was being sold to the government and
no one had ever consulted with them as to how effective it was.
And they showed us different products, and some worked better
than others and some didn't work well at all, and yet the
government was purchasing some of this, which was kind of
intriguing to me. Were you suggesting that the government is
buying certain products that just simply don't work?
Mr. Sawicki. Yes.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Mr. Sawicki. I said they work less effectively than others.
It depends if you have nothing.
Mr. Shays. In other words, if they had done more research,
they would have found there was a better product. It just
didn't get their attention.
Mr. Sawicki. Yes.
Mr. Shays. What this triggers in my mind is, if TSWG is
basically helping you do the research, does it also become a
stamp of, a house for goodkeeping stamp of approval? Does it
become something that you kind of go to whoever you are selling
and saying this has gone through this process and they like it
and whatever?
Mr. Sawicki. Yes. That's a very effective marketing tool.
Mr. Shays. Does anybody else want to respond to that? Yes.
Mr. deGrazia. Under TSWG, it's as my colleague next to me
has said. Under TSWG, you have a set of cost, and then they--
TSWG and you determine what the price is going to be based on
the cost. But with regard to SBIR, there is an upper limit for
each phase of development, and so those programs are entirely
different as to how they fund and set a price for a product.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Just out of curiosity, I would like
to know an experience, if any of our witnesses actually
submitted a proposal that was not solicited? You have. Would
you tell me what the experience was on that in terms of how you
were treated and how it was dealt with, as opposed to those
that were solicited.
Mr. Borey. Well, I mentioned to you that one of the things
we did as a result of September 11 was develop with a software
company a concept, a preliminary proposal for a national 911
backup system which would be located initially in one part of
the country, we were considering Offutt Air Force base as one
potential place mainly because of the connection by fiberoptics
there throughout the country. And we brought it to the Office
of Homeland Security.
As a matter of fact, HSIA helped us do that, and we are
still in a preliminary proposal face. And we gave them an idea
of how it would work, and basically they said, that's nice, we
are not able to respond to that right now. And we've never
heard anything back from them on it.
Mr. Tierney. So you don't know if it's dead or just in
limbo?
Mr. Borey. Yeah. We have not gone any further to develop
the proposal further.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Mastronardi, you talked about spreading the
opportunity. I think you mentioned that you thought there were
too many small projects being funded and not enough larger
being funded. Is that a fair restatement of what you said?
Mr. Mastronardi. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. What leads you to that conclusion, and what do
you think ought to be done about it? How could they do
something about that?
Mr. Mastronardi. Well, I think that we may not have all the
facts to back that up; but it appears that the money, you know,
at least initially was spread around a lot to try a number of
ideas. You know, in order to really have an impact on some of
the mission objectives from the Department of Defense, you
really need to focus and execute well throughout the process.
And that requires a fair amount of money.
Very often, we find that if we come in with a proposed
solution that requires a fair amount of money in the millions
of dollars, that it doesn't get funded. And I guess that's been
our experience; that if you come in with something less than a
million dollars, your chances go up dramatically.
Mr. Tierney. Regardless of what the apparent need is?
Again, I think this would be another area; if we had some
priorities, that would help us to decide whether or not we
ought to spend more than a million because it is just that
important versus something else.
Mr. Mastronardi. And that's fair.
Mr. Tierney. And I guess it goes back to that.
There was also some mention by a couple of you. Mr.
deGrazia, I think you mentioned it as well as Mr. Mastronardi,
and I'm not sure who else, about sole sourcing on that. And I
was a little confused, because Mr. Sawicki I think you
mentioned you had five contracts on that. I was watching to see
if there was a reaction from you, from the aspect of saying
that it goes to the same people all the time or not. Does
somebody want to talk about that? Maybe you want to talk about
a little bit, Mr. Sawicki, Mr. deGrazia, and tell me what we do
about that or how it is that you come to the conclusion that
you think that it's a problem.
Mr. Sawicki. I think it's the larger contracts that tend to
be sole sourced. The smaller ones seem to be spread out, as you
said, among a lot of different firms. But occasionally you will
see something in the newspaper you've never even heard about,
never had a chance to bid on where, you know, so and so got the
$500 million contract to do a nationwide integration of
something you say we didn't even see that. You couldn't even
get on the team. And I think that's happened quite a bit since
September 11. And in a lot of different agencies, whatever
process has been used to do that selection, I'm not sure, but
it is frustrating.
Mr. Tierney. That was a huge issue of contention of this
committee when we were dealing with the establishment of
Homeland Security Department, and there were many of us--and I
think the chairman might have even joined us on that one--who
thought that was not a good process to go. There's a provision
for that in the Department of Defense contracts. Many of us
thought that was not the way to go to any excessive degree in
this, and we think that the language did open it up too much. I
would assume that we are going to revisit that in future
iterations of the legislation. But it was a very conscious
thing that was done. There was a large debate about it; there
was a wide chasm disagreement amongst people on that. So you
are hitting right on what I thought you were talking about at
any rate.
Let me just ask one last question, and then, Mr. Chairman,
I have to go if you are going to stick around. But Mr.
deGrazia, you talked about the need for forums, maybe with the
Small Business Administration's participation and others, to
educate you industry out there on that. Are there any efforts
like that going on now that you are aware of? Have you had
contacts with the SBA to start initial discussions on how that
might be done? Or is that just an idea that you broached today?
Mr. deGrazia. It's an idea that our members have come up
with. Now, the industry days that have been done by the
Homeland Security Department are tremendously successful in
educating industry about what's out there. But too many of the
technologies and too many of the technology companies,
particularly the small or mid-sized ones, simply do not know
what is out there and do not know what is available. What our
members are saying to us is, we need some sort of a forum where
we can find out more about what we can do. As I've mentioned in
my testimony, we threw out the name of TSWG to a number of our
members and got a very small response.
Mr. Tierney. The chairman was afraid to even say it.
Mr. Shays. That's true.
Mr. Tierney. I'm going to have to excuse myself. I want to
thank everybody very much. I know that some of you are coming
over to my office later, and Mr. McDermott behind me will be
happy to accompany you over there. Thank you all very, very
much. I appreciate your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
I'm just going to go for 5 minutes. I would like to just
note for the record that Mr. McCallum has stayed to hear what
you all are saying, and I appreciate that very much. And I
think that we have other representatives from the first panel.
So we do thank them.
I'm getting a sense that TSWG is kind of like the small
businessman's place to go to get support. If you are big
league, you don't; you go to DARPA and go elsewhere. I don't
know if that's an accurate way to think of it. But you all have
kind of mentioned defense, and I get a little nervous because I
don't want the Defense Department to rule. In this issue, we
are talking about Department of Homeland Security. And I would
love to know whether you intend to come back to TSWG in future
projects, and whether you intend to come back on anything you
have thought about that simply--Mr. Borey has mentioned, he
went on his own accord on some proposal he had.
But you all seem to have responded to proposal rather than
to have thought of one yourself and said we want to move
forward. So I would like to have a response to that. Are you
planning to go back with other items, do you think it's going
to be a waste of time if you go on something that hasn't been
solicited? And so on?
Dr. Patel. My personal experience is very professional. I'm
dealing with very professional people. And if there is a
proposal or concept I have that can be funded by TSWG, I would
definitely submit a proposal.
Mr. Shays. And you would go there first before going to the
Department that might have the direct focus on that innovation?
Dr. Patel. I have to use my judgment. If there is direct
focus and it could be funded by that agency, I would consider
both and then have to select one.
Mr. Shays. In other words, is TSWG going to be your first
place to go or your second place? And that doesn't mean
something bad about them, it just means that you may feel that
you have a more specific issue that you can get a better
response. I'm going to ask it this way. Would you rather go to
TSWG first to be turned down, or go to the Department first to
be turned down? Which one do you go to first and why? That's
really what I'm asking.
Dr. Patel. If it is related to Homeland Security or so, I
would go to TSWG first.
Mr. Shays. So, Homeland Security, you'd go to TSWG first.
That's how you've kind of sorted that.
Dr. Patel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ducey. I'd go to the Department of Homeland Security
first, only because the only way TSWG works is if we find the
need first. So if we--there has to be a--much like on the first
panel, they said there is a lot of technologies out there; a
lot of them are really cool, but a lot of them don't solve a
single problem. Where we have found the best luck is if we can
talk with either end users or people within the Department of
Homeland Security who actually have a specific problem that we
can match up to a technology, whether still in development or
seen through its fruition, then go backward, and try to figure
out how to get the funding for it. At that point in time, we
would go to TSWG.
Mr. Shays. But it almost is like you have a resume for a
job; you want to speak to someone, you just don't want them to
see your document. You want to talk to someone, a real person.
Maybe I'm reading something more into it. In other words, are
you saying you are doing your homework with someone else before
you go to TSWG because you've only got one shot there and it's
a piece of paper and you want to make sure you kind of set the
groundwork?
Mr. Ducey. Exactly. That's one. And the other is, any
technology can be used in multiple areas. So if we can find the
real need out there for this technology and then work backward,
it's just more effective.
Mr. Shays. So you think TSWG has a broader view?
Mr. Ducey. Yes. If anything, I think they have too broad a
view. If that's where--if we talk to Department of Homeland
Security and they have a very narrow view on exactly what's
needed, then we can take the technology and match that up, then
we can go back to TSWG with that.
Mr. Shays. Let me just persist a little more. In the
process of going to Homeland Security, you feel kind of you're
lobbying first before someone who ultimately is going to--and
there's nothing wrong with that, but I'm just trying to see how
you work within the system.
Mr. Ducey. I'm not sure----
Mr. Shays. Let me just finish the question. Are you
basically saying that you would go to Homeland Security, get to
talk to someone who is a real live person; then you would go to
TSWG, have a better idea, it has a broader approach; maybe
someone will identify a use somewhere else, but you have a
person in the room that already knows a little bit about what
this is about? Is that part of your approach?
Mr. Ducey. Exactly. I just don't know--not that it has
never happened or couldn't happen, but I'm not sure, just
alone, a small company such as ours going to TSWG would get
much exposure or recognition, attention. But if we went to TSWG
as a small company such as ours and also had some sort of
advocate or sponsor within the Department of Homeland Security,
that's where it would work the best.
Mr. Shays. I saw a few nodding of the heads here. Do you
want to speak to that?
Mr. Mastronardi. I think that's accurate. If you have a
client within the government who has a specific need and you
have an idea to fulfill that need, if you had to work it
through TSWG, it would have to fit into requirements that got
into a broad agency announcement, or even somehow supported as
an unsolicited proposal. But if you are going in through broad
agency announcement, you are going in against 12,000 other
people with one sheet of paper, and sometimes it's much more
expeditious to go directly to the people who need the
technology the most and can really define exactly what they
need. And, you know, that would be the first preference,
because if you are a problem solver, that's the quickest way to
have a path to solution. But I do believe that TSWG also serves
a purpose of trying to collate the general requirements and
needs of the Federal Government and putting them into
categories that people can respond to to get a broader, you
know, technology base for Homeland Security.
Mr. Shays. What we are trying to do in part with this
hearing is to make sure that the significant number of ideas
that are being presented don't get lost. And kind of what I'm
hearing is, though, you still need an advocate, or you'd feel a
little more comfortable if you have an advocate within TSWG.
So, as much as on paper you have this one piece of paper. You'd
feel a little better if you got someone who says don't overlook
this proposal here.
Mr. Mastronardi. I think that is accurate. With 12,000 or
so respondents to a broad agency announcement, it is really a
pretty daunting problem to sift through all of those and say,
OK, based on one sheet of paper this is the technology of
choice to fund.
Either it needs an advocate that says this is exactly what
we need, or there needs to be, as someone suggested, a couple
of other pages attached to this, that if it sounds even close
to being of interest, then there is a little bit more to read
initially before it gets----
Mr. Shays. But if I now do the inverse, what that suggests
to me is if someone doesn't do that we may be losing some
really good proposals, because what you seem to be suggesting,
and it seems logical to me, one page is a pretty difficult way
to present your case. You may lose it. It may be a great idea.
Any other comments on this?
Mr. deGrazia. Yes, Mr. Chairman. One of the issues, the
general issues that our members have, is with the whole
unsolicited proposal process itself. It is not generally well
understood. And I can attest from the other side as well,
because I used to use--we used to work for the Defense
Department, and we would get unsolicited proposals through all
sorts of channels and it was very clear that the people who
were submitting them didn't have any idea of how the process
worked.
In talking to my members in my current role, some of them
do, of course, but not a lot of them know what is going to
happen to an unsolicited proposal when it gets somewhere or if
it gets somewhere.
Mr. Shays. Let's do this. Let's finish up here. Is there
any closing comment that any of you would like to make?
Anything you think needs to be put on the record?
Mr. Ducey. Just to add on what you just said. I believe
that there needs to be different--there is no way possible, I
don't think, that TSWG could ever have the resources to judge
all of these different proposals.
And that is where, I think what we are really asking you to
do is reach out into other areas, whether it be private
industry, whether it be the end users or industry experts, to
try to really help them go through that filtering process that
you are talking about, whether the ideas are solicited or
unsolicited.
Mr. Shays. You know, it would be interesting if they had a
process to do this. And then they had another group that could
take a second look, and maybe this is even something that a GAO
report could do, to see if we are losing some good ideas, and
have another panel of experts look at it and say, you know
what? You should have tried this and then brought that
individual or individuals forward to make their proposal and
see if we are missing some good ideas.
That would be interesting. Thank you for that suggestion.
Any others?
Mr. Sawicki. I would like to echo the comment before about
there is a certain cost range that TSWG seems to be comfortable
in funding, typically under a million dollars for an effort.
Mr. Shays. That is OK?
Mr. Sawicki. I think that is OK. But a lot of times will, I
won't say dumb down, that is the wrong thing, will condense the
scope of a proposal to try to get it under a million dollars
for perhaps a technology that really will cost a lot more. And
I will just throw one out on the table, because it is an
extraordinarily difficult one, which is biodetection and
analysis.
It is really hard. Everybody wants a $50 card like the
radiation one that will tell you 20 different biological
agents.
Mr. Shays. You think this is going to cost $50.
Dr. Patel. No. It is under $10.
Mr. Sawicki. That one is $10. The one that they always use
for bio is 50.
Mr. Shays. I think you are asking too much. If I was
negotiating with you I would say 5. It is a great idea, but you
are going to sell a lot of these. I am sorry.
Mr. Sawicki. Some of these things are extraordinarily
difficult, some of these technology challenges, and a lot of
times you will come in and try to narrow your scope to just
look at something so you can get into a range that TSWG would
want to fund. And you will get a comment back saying, well, you
didn't address all of the issues or something like that, and it
is really difficult sometimes to try to do that within that
budget range.
So I think it almost would be a--part of the Department of
Homeland Security or some other agency, a way that would fit
into the TSWG process so they can say, well, that is not within
our scope, it ought to go somewhere else. So I think the
debrief process and some direction back, especially to small
companies that was mentioned earlier, would be very useful.
Mr. Shays. I agree with that, and I will just repeat what
you are saying. I think it would be very helpful to have a
debriefing. We have done that with some constituents who have
applied for Federal grants, and they haven't gotten it and they
wanted to know why. And going through that process has really
helped them the next time around.
Any other comment, or should we call it to a close here?
Mr. Sword. I will try not to drag it out, Mr. Chairman. But
if I could make the comment that I think TSWG does, at least in
the field that I address, in bomb disposal, surround themselves
with experts that understand what the end users need. I think
this is very key when they are trying to make their decisions
on which technologies to fund and not to fund.
The people I work directly with are really contract workers
supporting TSWG, but these guys have survived 23 years of
disarming bombs. So they understand very well what the end user
wants, would not like, would tolerate, would not tolerate. I
think that is something to be said in their favor, and that
they do actively go after the talents that understands those
fields well. And they are the interactions with the
contractors, they are helping guide the direction that the
technology is going to head to.
I think that is a very positive thing, that if the
Department of Homeland Security is going to try to duplicate
the process, they need to do similarly, by surrounding
themselves with the experts that understand what the end users
need.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Any other comment? Thank you all
very, very much. You have been an excellent panel. Thank you.
Appreciate you coming to Washington to help us out.
I just want to thank two people on the staff, Joseph
McGowan,
who is a detailee from the Department of Labor IG. And we thank
him. And Mary Holloway, intern during the summer from
Washington and Lee University. And we thank her as well. I
would like that part of the record. Thanks for accommodating
us.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.102