[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DHS'S SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE: IS IT STRUCTURED FOR SUCCESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 7, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-98
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-567 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
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�0900012007
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Peter T. King, New York, Chairman
Don Young, Alaska Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Lamar S. Smith, Texas Loretta Sanchez, California
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Christopher Shays, Connecticut Norman D. Dicks, Washington
John Linder, Georgia Jane Harman, California
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Tom Davis, Virginia Nita M. Lowey, New York
Daniel E. Lungren, California Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Columbia
Rob Simmons, Connecticut Zoe Lofgren, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Katherine Harris, Florida Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Islands
Dave G. Reichert, Washington Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Michael T. McCaul, Texas James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Charlie Dent, Pennsylvania Kendrick B. Meek, Florida
Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
______
SUBCOMMITTE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY
Dave G. Reichert, Washington, Chairman
Lamar S. Smith, Texas Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Loretta Sanchez, California
Rob Simmons, Connecticut Norman D. Dicks, Washington
Mike Rogers, Alabama Jane Harman, California
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Nita M. Lowey, New York
Katherine Harris, Florida Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Michael McCaul, Texas Columbia
Charlie Dent, Pennsylvania Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Islands
Peter T. King, New York (Ex Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Officio) Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
(Ex Officio)
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Dave G. Reichert, a Representative in Congress For
the State of Washington, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology................. 1
The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress
For the State of New Jersey.................................... 3
The Honorable Bob Etheridge, a Representative in Congress For the
State of North Carolina........................................ 14
The Honorable Stevan Pearce, a Representative in Congress For the
State of New Mexico............................................ 17
The Honorable Charlie Dent, a Representative in Congress For the
State of Pennsylvania.......................................... 18
The Honorable Nita M. Lowey, a Representative in Congress For the
State of New York.............................................. 26
Witness
The Honorable Jay Cohen, Under Secretary for Science and
Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
DHS'S SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
DIRECTORATE: IS IT STRUCTURED FOR SUCCESS--
----------
Thursday, September 7, 2006
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and
Technology,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Dave Reichert
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Reichert, Pearce, Dent, Pascrell,
Lowey, and Etheridge.
Mr. Reichert. [Presiding.] Good morning. The Committee on
Homeland Security's Subcommittee for Emergency Preparedness,
Science and Technology will come to order.
The subcommittee will hear testimony today on proposals to
restructure the Department of Homeland Security's research and
development arm, the Directorate of Science and Technology.
Before we begin, let me first welcome our distinguished
witness, Rear Admiral Jay Cohen--thank you, sir, for being
here; congratulations--Department of Homeland Security's new
undersecretary for science and technology.
On behalf of the committee and my colleagues, we would all
like to welcome you today for your first appearance before
Congress since your confirmation by the Senate on August 3rd, I
believe.
Undersecretary Cohen, I know I speak for many and we thank
you for coming out of retirement to join the Department of
Homeland Security. You have served our nation with distinction
for 35 years in the United States Navy and bring to the Science
and Technology Directorate an extensive depth of leadership,
experience and proven technology credentials.
There is no doubt the directorate is fortunate to have such
an accomplished, capable leader. And we sincerely hope that you
will be successful at the Department of Homeland Security, as
you were in your successful career, five-year tour of duty as
chief of naval research.
When most people think about homeland security, they think
of police officers, they think of firefighters and emergency
medical technicians, not usually academics, scientists or
engineers. They think of police stations and firehouses and
ports and border crossings, not usually laboratories, think
tanks, universities and technology companies.
They think of the courageous public servants who put their
safety at risk to protect our lives and our property, not the
technology that enables them to do their job most effectively
and efficiently.
That is precisely while the hearing this morning will focus
on the effectiveness and the structure of the Department of
Homeland Security Directorate of Science and Technology, the
department's research, development, testing and evaluation arm.
Until Congress and the administration established the
Directorate of Science and Technology in the Homeland Security
Act of 2002, there had never been a dedicated research,
development, testing and evaluation system for first
responders.
Unlike most of the department's other components, the
directorate is not a legacy agency. Its establishment in March
of 2003, therefore, was a watershed event for our nation. Yet
given the relative newness of S&T Directorate, it has not
surprisingly encountered more than its usual growing pains.
Indeed, during the past 3 years, Congress has grown
increasingly frustrated with the directorate's performance. The
litany of complaints is long, and I will just list a few of the
criticisms that have been leveled. And I am sure they are not
going to be new for Mr. Cohen.
So, number one is the lack of transparency in strategic
planning; number two, providing inadequate detail in its budget
justifications; third, systematic deficiencies in its financial
and accounting controls; and four, poor response to the needs
for its customers and end users; and lastly, failing to more
rapidly develop and adopt currently existing technologies for
homeland security purposes.
As a result of these and other problems, real or perceived,
many in Congress and elsewhere have lost confidence in the
ability of the Science and Technology Directorate to fulfill
its statutory responsibilities.
This hearing comes at a pivotal time in the Science and
Technology Directorate's brief three-year history.
Mr. Undersecretary, with your recent confirmation, you are
now in the hot seat. Today, my colleagues and I would like to
learn how precisely you plan to fix some of the problems that
we have mentioned and inspire confidence in the ability of the
directorate to develop and disseminate technologies that will
help our nation's first responders prevent, prepare for,
respond to and recover from acts of terrorism, natural
disasters and other emergencies.
Mr. Undersecretary, during your nomination hearing before
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
you stated that, ``In the war on terrorism technology can mean
the difference between life and death, victory or defeat.''
As a former first responder, I couldn't agree with you
more. Technology is a critical force multiplier. And speaking
from experience, it can be the difference between life and
death for cops, firefighters, emergency medical technicians and
many, many others in our community.
So as we close in on the fifth anniversary of the attacks
of September 11, 2001, we are eager to hear your plans for
ensuring that our nation continues to maintain its scientific
and technological advantage over some very determined
adversaries.
This is far from the first hearing that the subcommittee
will hold on science and technology issues, and it certainly
won't be the last. So with that in mind, I look forward to your
testimony and to working with you in the future to make the
directorate as effective as possible.
The chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Pascrell, for
his statement.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Chairman
Reichert, for agreeing to hold this important hearing.
And I want to welcome Rear Admiral and Undersecretary
Cohen, and thank you for your service to your country. I think
I speak for all of us when I say that we look forward to
working with you in a robust manner. This is a very robust
subcommittee.
We understand how critical your work is, and we know that
improving the Science and Technology Directorate at the
department is a matter of profound and urgent necessity.
As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Secretary, this hearing
comes at a time of great dissatisfaction from many of the
members on both sides of the aisle, across the House and the
Senate, who have grown increasingly frustrated with the
directorate in recent months. We all sense a feeling of
urgency. I am being charitable, to sum up all of the things
that we have gone into.
The Washington Post noted just recently that the S&T
Directorate is ``hobbled by poor leadership, weak financial
management and inadequate technology.''
That article noted that the S&T had struggled with
turnover. We have had that problem in many, Mr. Chairman, many
of the departments within Homeland Security--reorganizations,
beyond how much we can count even, and raids on its budget
since it was established in 2003.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recently expressed its
extreme disappointment with the manner in which S&T is being
managed within the Department of Homeland Security. You are
taking on an alligator here.
Despite the efforts of the acting head of S&T, this
component is a rudderless ship without a clear way to get back
on course. That came out of the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
So many of us, also, are disturbed by the lack of
transparent strategic planning, inadequate details in the
budget justification, and deficiencies in the financial and
accounting controls.
And then there is the organization of the directorate
itself. Several months ago, senior directors of the S&T
Directorate briefed committee staff on a reorganization of the
directorate. At the time, those officials told the staff that a
reorganization of the directorate had already begun and that
the current structure no longer bears any resemblance to the
official department organizational chart.
In recent weeks we have heard that the particular
reorganization has fallen out of favor. So here we go again--if
that is true.
In a briefing to committee staff, Undersecretary Cohen
announced his intent--you announced your intent to set aside
the old reorganization plan and proceed with your own, as I
understand the meeting went.
All of these reorganizations beg the question: What does
the Science and Technology Directorate look like today-- What
vision will be implemented-- How long will it take for these
changes to become effective-- How effective can the department
be with all of this shuffling-- These are the questions that we
would like to hear answers to today.
But fixing the problems of the S&T Directorate go beyond
short-term operational fixes. A variety of advisory councils
and GAO reports have noted significant problems within the
directorate.
For example, the directorate needs to develop a broad
strategic plan. GAO is right on target, as they usually are.
The directorate must better redefine or define its
relationships with national labs and executive agencies to
avoid duplication of efforts.
The directorate must develop a robust procurement system
that can readily provide information about the obligations and
the unexpended obligations associated with each contract.
And the directorate must improve its efforts in developing
a prudent business model. They must provide breakdowns and
justifications of funds--to private-and public-sector
facilities.
It is ironic, you know, 3 years later, we are still talking
about pretty basic stuff here.
The directorate must also improve its personnel system,
strengthening the workforce recruitment and retention program,
create a culture of responsibility with its managers.
The undersecretary doesn't have an easy job; I don't think
you do. This committee has spent some time, also, on discussing
our relations with our allies in developing science and
research and research and development. I think that is
critical. I think it is important.
There isn't a part of Homeland Security, from intel down to
our good friends at TSA, there isn't one aspect of this that
isn't affected by what we are going to be doing here, what you
are going to lead us to do.
So I welcome you. I look forward to hearing your proposals,
and I want to certainly commit ourselves to working with you.
And, Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, I know this issue
is extremely important to Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez.
Unfortunately, due to a prior commitment, as we all have, she
can't be here today. I ask unanimous consent to submit her
written statement.
Mr. Reichert. Without objection.
[The statement of Ms. Sanchez follows:]
NOT RECEIVED BY COMMITTEE
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reichert. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell.
Others members on the committee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
The chair now calls our panel, its sole witness, the
Honorable Jay Cohen, undersecretary for science and technology,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The chair recognizes the
undersecretary for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAY COHEN, UNDERSECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Chairman Reichert and Ranking Member
Pascrell and the distinguished members of the committee. I will
tell you that it is an honor to be here today and to discuss
the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology
Directorate.
I appreciate very much your invitation to discuss my vision
for and the realignment of the directorate to better meet the
mission needs of our customers, that being the DHS components,
and, as Jack Walsh would say, the customers of our customers,
most important, the first responders and men and women that S&T
enables to make the homeland safer.
I am honored and privileged to serve with the dedicated men
and women, scientists and engineers and professionals who are
working to secure our homeland and defend our freedoms. Science
and technology is a critically important enabler, and I am
honored that so many of them would join me at this hearing
today, and they sit behind me.
The S&T Directorate has a significant role in bringing to
bear solutions to the department's homeland security
challenges. During my tenure at the Office of Naval Research,
especially after the tragic events of 9/11, I learned first-
hand the incredible value that a sustained, customer-focused,
balanced, basic and applied research program adds to America's
ability to bring advanced technology to our and our allies'
asymmetric advantage against the enemies of freedom.
It can mean the difference between life and death, victory
and defeat, as the chairman has already noted from my
confirmation hearing. Ladies and gentlemen, we are at war
today, and there is no time to waste.
President Bush noted the importance of science and
technology in July of 2002 when he discussed the creation of
the Department of Homeland Security: ``We will harness our
science and our technology in a way to protect the American
people. We will consolidate most federally funded homeland
security research and development to avoid duplication and to
make sure all the efforts are focused.''
The S&T Directorate's enabling legislation--and I salute
the Congress for that visionary legislation; it took enormous
courage--the Homeland Security Act of 2002, by creating the S&T
Directorate and defining the mission, recognizes the importance
of robust science and technology.
I intend to move the organization forward by streamlining
processes, improving accountability and empowering people to
conduct the important work of the directorate.
I might add that you have heard those kinds of words many
times before. I would just ask that you judge me on my actions,
not on my words. I will be available to you and expect to be
held accountable, as I have been accountable throughout my life
and my career.
I was sworn in on the 10th of August by Secretary Chertoff.
That was the day that the British Airways plot broke, and it
has been quite a ride ever since. And I my sense is that it
won't let up in the time that I am on board.
In the short time that I have been on board during the
August recess, I have had the privilege to work, Chairman
Reichert, with your staff and also, Congressman Pascrell, with
your staff in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way. In fact, I have
had a chance to sit down at length with the committee staff of
six of the seven committees that I deal with in both houses,
and authorizers and appropriators, and have received good
advice and consult from them. And we are very well-served by
their service.
I would ask that the rest of my remarks be made part of the
record, because your time is most valuable, and I would like to
use this precious time to share with you my plans for the
realignment of the directorate, so that we can be effective and
address all of the issues that have been raised.
[The statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jay Cohen
Good Morning Chairman Reichert, Ranking Member Pascrell, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, it is an honor to be with you
today to discuss the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and
Technology Directorate (S&T Directorate). I appreciate your invitation
to discuss my vision for and realignment of the Directorate to better
meet the mission needs of our customers - the DHS Components; and the
customers of our customers - the first responders and men and women
that S&T enables to make the Nation safer.
I am honored and privileged to serve with the dedicated men and
women, scientists, engineers and professionals who are working to
secure our homeland and defend our freedoms.
The S&T Directorate has a significant role in bringing to bear
solutions to the Department's homeland security challenges. During my
tenure at the Office of Naval Research (ONR), especially after 9-11, I
learned first hand the incredible value that a sustained, customer
focused balanced basic and applied research program adds to America's
ability to bring advanced technology to our (and our allies) asymmetric
advantage against the enemies of freedom. It can mean the difference
between life and death, victory and defeat.
President Bush noted the importance of science and technology in
July of 2002 when he discussed the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security "We will harness our science and our technology in a
way to protect the American people. We will consolidate most federally
funded homeland security research and development, to avoid
duplication, and to make sure all the efforts are focused."
The S&T Directorate's enabling legislation, the Homeland Security
Act of 2002, by creating the S&T Directorate and defining the mission,
recognizes the importance of robust science and technology. I intend to
move the organization forward by streamlining processes, improving
accountability and empowering people to conduct the important work of
the Directorate.
The S&T Directorate's mission is to protect the homeland by
providing Federal, State, local, and Tribal officials with state-of-
the-art technology and resources. There are strategic objectives to
fulfill the Directorate's mission:
Develop and deploy state-of-the-art, high performance,
affordable systems to prevent, detect and mitigate the
consequences of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and
explosive (CBRNE) attacks
Develop equipment, protocols, and training procedures for
response to and recovery from CBRNE attacks
Enhance the technical capabilities of the Department's
operational elements and other Federal, State, local and tribal
agencies to fulfill their homeland security related missions
Develop methods and capabilities to test and assess threats
and vulnerabilities, and prevent technology surprise and
anticipate emerging threats
Develop technical standards and establish certified
laboratories to evaluate homeland security and emergency
responder technologies, and evaluate technologies for SAFETY
Act protections
Support U.S. leadership in science and technology
To accomplish this mission and be successful we need to make
changes to mature the organization, as pointed out in the language in
both the Senate and House 2007 appropriations committee reports. I
intend for the Directorate to become an organization that is a customer
focused, output oriented, a full service organization as envisioned in
the enabling legislation that must be cost efficient, effective,
responsive, agile, and flexible. To advance the organization I intend
to make the following adjustments which I call "The 4 Gets".
Get the Organization Right
The House Appropriations Committee Report calls for S&T to develop
and implement a new business model to fix the Directorate's challenge
to "adequately convey its role or how it supports the mission of DHS
component agencies". To put it simply, S&T needs to be relevant. The
best minds in public sector, private sector and academia have been
working diligently to bring solutions to many of the challenges facing
DHS. However; under the previous construct the organization was aligned
by executing entity , who was doing the work. Our DHS Customers need an
organization that is easier to access in order to utilize technologies
and solutions that will make their jobs better, more efficient, more
cost effective, and safer. The S&T Directorate needs to be more
accessible in order for the DHS Components to leverage the value added
of the good work the men and women of S&T are bringing to the fight.
However, I don't believe rearranging boxes, in-and-of-itself, will
make an organization relevant. For that to happen there needs to be a
change in organizational culture. The Directorate must become a model
service organization focused on its customers. It cannot be isolated
and removed from them. DHS S&T must engage its customers in setting
priorities, defining requirements, determining capabilities needed and
evaluating performance. In other words, defining what we will do for
our customers, how we will do it, and how we will measure success.
My goals of the realignment are:
Accelerate the delivery of enhanced technological
capabilities to meet the requirements and fill the gaps of DHS
agencies to ensure the successful accomplishment of their
missions
Establish a lean and agile, federally staffed, world class,
S&T management team, consistent with DHS enabling legislation/
law, and proven, successful research organizations, to develop
and deliver the technological advantage necessary to ensure DHS
Agency mission success, and prevent technological surprise.
This organization must be able to span basic research thru
advanced technology/prototypical demonstration to satisfy
government leadership direction, customer agency requirements
and emergent real world developments.
The resulting accountable organization will be able to
effectively, efficiently and objectively develop, execute and
justify budgets and programs which achieve the desired mission
goals
In conjunction with other public and private institutions,
proactively provide leadership, opportunities and resources to
maintain and develop the necessary intellectual basis for a
national S&T workforce and focused research disciplines that
will ensure the safety of our homeland
The S&T Directorate will be aligned in six Divisions along enduring
disciplines that will enable the Directorate to have sustained and
meaningful impact for our Customers. The divisions and disciplines and
examples of portfolios/programs within them are:
Energetics - i.e., Aviation Security; Mass Transit Security;
Counter MANPADS
Chem/Bio - i.e., Chem/Bio Countermeasure R&D; Threat
Characterization; Ops; and Agro-Defense; Bio-surveillance ,
Response & Recovery
C4ISR- i.e.,(Information management, information sharing,
situational awareness) - i.e., Interoperability and
Compatibility; Intel/ Info sharing, Screening, Cyber Security
R&D
Borders/Maritime - i.e., Land Borders, Maritime/USCG, Cargo
Human Factors - i.e., Social-behavioral- Terrorist Intent,
Human response to Incidents, Biometrics
Infrastructure/Geophysical Science - i.e., Critical
Infrastructure Protection, Regional State and Local
Preparedness and Response, GeophysicsEach Division would have
at least one Section Director of Research and a Section
Director of Transition who would work with the Directorate's
Director of Research - (focused on Research which will also
house the University Programs including Centers of Excellence)
-- and Director of Transition (focused on Applications)
respectively. The Director of Transition will coordinate within
the Department to best expedite technology transition.The
Director of Innovation (HSARPA), as specified in the law will
"Support basic and applied homeland Security research to
promote revolutionary changes in technologies; advance the
development, testing and evaluation, and deployment of critical
homeland security technologies; and accelerate the prototyping
and deployment of technologies that would address homeland
security vulnerabilities" and will work with each of the
Division heads in doing so. HSARPA will also work with each of
the Division heads to accelerate technology transition.This
structure will allow a healthy balance between research and
applications, risk and time to delivery. Investments will span
across Transition Readiness Levels (TRL), including short -
term (under 3 years); mid- term (3-8 years); and long term
(over 8 years). This push and pull between research and
application as well as tension over applied research resources
will allow for a balanced portfolio of investment.In addition
to the Divisions the organization will have additional
components:
Reporting to the Director of Research, the Office of National
Laboratories would be responsible for the coordination and
utilization of the Department of Energy national laboratories,
Plum Island Animal Disease Center and National Bio-defense
Analysis and Countermeasures Center.
Reporting to the S&T Chief of Staff, the Business Operations
and Services Directorate would serve as a centralized service
organization and house Human Capital, Security, Acquisition,
CIO and Facilities and Logistics.
There would be a Director of Test and Evaluation and
Standards.
The Director of S&T Special programs would oversee the S&T
Directorate's highly classified projects.
A Director of Government Agency and International Liaison
would help facilitate government-wide S&T coordination and
provide outreach to our allies.
Reporting directly to me would be Homeland Security Institute
as well as CFO, Counsel and Corporate Communications.
A new organization is only as good as the people you have working
in it which brings me to the next "Get".
Get the People Right
The S&T Directorate has resources across public sector, private
sector and academia; I refer to this as the Homeland Security Research
Enterprise. Thanks to the enabling legislation, we have the ability to
leverage DHS labs, DOE's National Labs, Homeland Security Institute and
the DHS Centers of Excellence. Additionally we utilize other agencies'
resources including DoD, NIST, HHS, USDA, EPA, NSF, DoD FFRDCs,
industry, international partners and stakeholder associations.
I will enable the best and brightest - scientists, engineers and
professionals (associates) - to meet the mission and take a holistic
approach to fill technology capability gaps of the Department.
Because the S&T Directorate will be output driven we will have a
healthy balance between research and applications. This diversity will
be mirrored in the skills and expertise of our people. We will have
matrixed staff across the Divisions that will focus on research and on
transition.
Once we have the organization structure and the people in place, we
need the tools and processes to ensure accountability.
Get the Books Right
The S&T Directorate will execute appropriations as intended by
Congress. We will also be fiscally accountable to our DHS Customers,
the Congress and the American people.
The S&T Directorate CFO, Richard Williams reported onboard with me.
He comes out of the DHS Program Analysis and Evaluation Office to help
put in place the systems and protocols to enable S&T Directorate to be
fully responsive and transparent in the development, presentation and
execution of the budget.
The next step is to get the focus of the work aligned to better
enable the customer.
Get the Content Right
My years at ONR have taught me that an R&D organization must take
to heart customers' insights, priorities, and goals. Too often those in
science and technology fields say "we know what you need". They do
research because it is interesting and holds potential for future
capabilities not because it meets a specific goal or objective. While
this type of unfettered scientific research is important the S&T
Directorate must also focus and prioritize resources to be output
oriented and customer driven. We must set our priorities to align with
National and Department of Homeland Security priorities. S&T's work
will be targeted at enhancing capabilities and customers needs.
Last year, as Secretary Chertoff was rolling out his second stage
review, he emphasized the need of the Department to focus on risk. "We
cannot protect every single person against every single threat at every
moment and in every place. We have to, with our finite resources and
our finite employees; be able to focus ourselves on those priorities
which most demand our attention. And that means we have to focus on
risk. And what does that mean-- It means we look at threat, we look at
vulnerability, and we look at consequence." The S&T Directorate will
endeavor to fulfill risk based needs of our customers. This will be
accomplished by enhancing the Customer's operational capabilities.
The Four "B's"
To quickly capture and articulate broad risk based priorities, I
internally refer to them as the "4 B's":
Bombs,
Borders,
Bugs (Biological) and
Business - (protecting the processes that make our economy
function).
To meet these priorities, the S&T Directorate will work with our
customers to better focus our research and enable our customers in
order to better secure our nation in those core areas.
To ensure customer product alignment, the S&T Directorate will
utilize Integrated Products Team (IPT). These IPTs will be customer
led. DHS Management will be included for Acquisition expertise/
involvement. An S&T Division Head will be a team member, as will, when
appropriate, the end-user. Test and Evaluation will be an important
part of the IPT process to ensure that products and capabilities we
deliver will meet the customers' and first responders' needs.
The S&T Directorate will restructure its investment portfolio to
create a balance of potential project success , cost, impact and the
time it takes to deliver. To achieve that balance there needs to be a
healthy tension between Research and Applications. We will work
projects that are across the spectrum of Transition Readiness Levels
(TRL). Our investment portfolio also has to be prioritized across long-
term research, mandated spending, product applications and leap ahead
"game-changing" capabilities. I look forward to working with you and
your staff to get the right mix for the S&T Directorate investment
portfolio.
My goal is that, as a result of this S&T Directorate realignment,
when the President's fiscal year 2008 budget is sent forward to
Congress, this Committee, and the Appropriators, will see that DHS S&T
is a more responsive, agile, customer-focused organization, one that
better enables our nation to prevent, protect, respond, and recover
from acts of terrorism, natural disasters or other emergencies.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the realignment. I would
be pleased to address any questions you may have.
Mr. Reichert. Well, thank you, Undersecretary.
I will start just by asking, first of all, have you
received approval for your organizational proposal from
Secretary Chertoff--
Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir, I am pleased to share with you,
because of the efforts, as I said, of working with the
congressional staff, working with my leadership team in the S&T
directorate, working with Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson and
Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff and others, that
yesterday at noon, high noon, Secretary Chertoff approved the
realignment that you will see presented here.
Nothing is perfect. It is not about moving the boxes
around, and I address that in my statement. It is about the
people. We are going to talk about what makes this work. But
this is a proven model.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am not a scientist, and I am a
shade tree engineer, I am a New Yorker, so I am tough. I can
take the criticism and thrive on the challenge.
But this will be a work in progress, as long as we have the
agile, devious, heinous enemies that we face in this war on
terror.
And so, the short answer, Mr. Chairman, is it has been
approved. I will put that in an organizational manual so there
will be no question within my directorate of what the roles and
the responsibilities are. But that will follow the product line
that we hope to kick-start by this realignment.
Mr. Reichert. Could you touch on just some of the
highlights of your proposal--
Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir.
First of all, if I may, Bob Hooks, who is my acting chief
of staff and was involved, has been at the directorate for some
time, was involved, Congressman Pascrell, with the
reorganizational attempts of the last many months and has been
intimately involved with this, and he will help me with the
posters.
I just wanted to make sure everyone was reminded--and I
know I don't have to remind this committee, but it is terribly
important, I think, to understand why we are here, why we have
the Department of Homeland Security--the heinous events of 9/11
and the attacks that have followed.
At the end of the day, why are we here and who do we
enable-- It is the customer of the customer. It is the first
responders; it is the state; it is the local; it is the tribal;
it is the people at the pointy end of the spear.
I believe when we are successful--and ladies and gentlemen,
we will be successful in S&T; we don't have any other choice.
Six years ago when I was asked to be the chief of naval
research in the Office of Naval Research, a very mature S&T
management organization--and that is what my directorate is in
Homeland Security.
We do not do S&T. We manage S&T, and we do that from basic
research to applied research and advanced technology. But we
are not a laboratory. We enable the scientists and the
engineers to do what they do and then bring it to the customer.
But I was asked to take the Office of Naval Research and
make it more relevant for our customers in the Navy--those are
the systems commands who buy and deliver the ships, the
airplanes, the tanks for our Marines, et cetera--and to focus
on the customer of our customers; their being the sailors and
the Marines in harm's way.
You can see the parallel with Homeland Security where my
customers are the agencies and the activities within Homeland
Security--and we will talk about those in a minute--but then
the customer's customers being the first responders.
So I believe from science and technology will flow security
and trust for our nation.
Now, what guides me-- Well, I have encapsulated it into
what I call the ``four gets'' and the ``four B's.''
If we are going to be successful I must get the people
right. And, ladies and gentlemen, we have world-class people.
There has been turnover in the directorate. There has been
turnover in the department. But I can tell you I am joined by
many people here today who are leaving high-paying civilian
jobs, coming from other government jobs, because they want to
serve. They believe the threat is real, and as they have told
me this is about their children, their grandchildren and their
neighbors.
I had one individual who previously served with me, no
longer in government service, who told me he was turning down a
$500,000-a-year job to come on board in Homeland Security--we
will talk about his role in testing, evaluation and standards
as we go through this--because when his neighbors in southern
Maryland heard that he would have the opportunity to serve in
Homeland Security and make their neighborhood and our country
safer, how could he turn that down--
Now, I will tell you most of my neighbors have asked for
handwritten notes so they don't have to take their shoes off as
they go through the screening. And I can give them those notes,
but regrettably, it serves no purpose. I have to take my shoes
off also.
So the people are critically important. We must get the
books right.
I am joined today my Dick Williams, who is sitting behind
me. He came on board the 10th of August at the direction of
Secretary Chertoff. He comes from a background at naval
reactors. All of you know the nearly 60-year history of naval
nuclear reactors and its demands for accuracy, precision and
accountability. And he comes by way of 3 years at the
leadership position in Homeland Security of the plans and
requirements branch.
He has already engaged with me in our staff briefings of
all the committees, and we have made our books transparent. We
have taken deep dives down to the lowest levels. A lot of the
information was there. Why it wasn't presented previously or
presented in a manner that was accountable remains to be seen.
But we have already set a very high standard, and I think
the feedback from your staff should substantiate that. But we
will continue that. And we will have one set of books. And you
will see how the organizational construct takes us there.
We have to get the organization right. Ladies and
gentlemen, I can get product out of any organization, no matter
how dysfunctional. But it is enormously beneficial if the
organization is aligned to the customer and the provider. When
you go to the yellow pages of S&T Directorate and you have a
need, you know where to go, and we make it one-stop shopping.
So all of these are additive. And finally I have got to get
the content right. The research that we are doing has to be
applicable to the threats that we are facing. And we will talk
more about risk, tolerance and timelines that determine what
that content is. And, Congressman Pascrell, that goes to the
strategic plan concept.
And so, as I was getting ready for my confirmation, I
looked at the challenges that I might have, and I just made
those the ``four B's''--I like people to be able to grasp what
we are trying to achieve--and those are bombs, borders, bugs
and business.
Now, I would have liked to put ``containers'' in there, but
it didn't start with a ``B.'' But I have got really smart
people, and even the staff said, ``Well, what about boxes--' ''
It was a little bit too plebian. And, oh, by the way,
``containers'' fit in many of these areas.
Now, as you look at this, you are probably saying to
yourself, ``What is this business thing-- I understand bombs. I
understand borders. I understand bugs.'' Well, ladies and
gentlemen, we live in a high-tech society, and I was reading in
USA Today the other week that we have a negative savings rate
in this country. If the bad guys go after our ability to use
our ATM, if they go after our ability to transfer funds, to
make stock trades, those are the sinews of business in our
country today. They are critically important.
And so it is not just about the visible challenges we have;
it is the cyber and the process challenges that we have. And
that is what I have tried to capture with business.
So what are the overarching goals of the realignment-- I
have put them in my opening statement. I think they are more
eloquent in there, but I will try and capture them as best as I
can.
Number one is to create a customer-focused, output-
oriented, full-service S&T organization.
Number two, because I am a political appointee, I come and
go as administrations change. That is our system. We must
establish, learning from the experience over the last 3 years,
a government service manned organization that can create,
execute and justify the budget. Because that is what you do in
Washington. You are doing those three things simultaneously.
And it must be on mission-oriented programs, so that when I
move on, we don't have these enormous swings. This is about the
defense of our homeland. It is far too important to let things
swing more than they have to with the normal turnover of
people.
And finally--and I salute you so much--one of my guidelines
and the principal guideline in this organizational construct
was the 19 pages of the enabling legislation, out of 187 pages,
for the S&T Directorate in the Department of Homeland Security.
And I have read this and reread this, and I think you will
find--and I have discussed it with your staff--that we have
accounted for and included all of the very important and
serious responsibilities that you have tasked my directorate
with.
But one area--and you had great vision here. And this is
one of the strengths of America--we are optimistic. We believe
in the future, and we understand the value of sustained
investment in basic research. You don't know what you don't
know, and you have got to go up a lot of alleys to figure out
which ones are blind. Einstein said, ``If we knew the answer,
it wouldn't be research.''
I believe from my service in the Office of Naval Research
that the Congress passing the Bayh-Dole Act nearly a quarter of
a century ago is in large measure responsibility for unleashing
the invasion and the intellectual prowess of our universities,
our students and our researchers, and in large measure we owe
our economic viability to that. And that is critically
important to us in the future.
It is no surprise to you that we are in crisis in many of
our schools. In the middle schools, children, boys and girls,
are turning away from math and science. We must turn that
around. Bill Gates has addressed that. The Congress has
addressed that. We have caucuses on that. The administration
has addressed that. This is critically important to our
economic welfare.
And so the synergy is in your tasking to me to be a leader
in basic research and invest properly and wisely with a focus
on Homeland Security mission areas. It is extremely important.
And even though I am just an old naval officer and not a
scientist, I believe strongly in this because it is about our
future, and I am absolutely committed to that.
So, let's get into the organization. I believe it is all
about the mission and the budget. And if I follow the budget,
everything else flows from that.
If I only had one slide, one poster, to use to describe my
philosophy and where we are going, it would be this one. I must
in my duties balance risk, from low risk to high risk; that
means risk of success; cost, low to high; the impact that it
will have; and finally, the time of delivery. These are the
variables that I deal with.
And the Congress has been very kind to S&T across the
government and understands that S&T is the only place where we
are not only authorized but encouraged to take risks. Small
investments in the precise measurement of time--in 1975,
$75,000 gave us global positioning. In 1990, a game changer, a
transistor to the wireless world we live in today. Einstein's
E=mc2 and nuclear power--ideas matter; research matters.
We must be customer-focused. We must be output-oriented.
You will continue to hear those from me. Now, there are people
who think that customer-focused and output-oriented is mutually
exclusive with a robust investment in basic research. They are
not. They are complementary. And I think you will see how they
flow one into the other.
But because you allow me to take risk in S&T--and with risk
comes the chance of failure, but also comes the opportunity for
great success--I believe that by putting millions at risk, I am
saving billions in acquisition from being put at risk. And that
is the model that I have used.
So if we can go through this chart, I think you will see
how everything else flows organizationally.
In the upper left-hand corner, this is the output function.
This is product transition. This is the here and now. This is
focused on delivering to the acquisition community and my
customers, the directorates and agencies within Homeland
Security, the product enhancements they need for the hundreds
of millions, nay, billions that they will be spending.
This is customer-controlled. I use an integrated process
team. This is not sporadic. This is a continuous process that
has oversight.
And, ladies and gentlemen, on the output function of
science and technology, we have metrics. I say again, we have
metrics. And the metrics are the costs, the schedule and the
capability or technology readiness level to answer the needs of
the customers. This is the majority of what I do.
If you then go to the right, the first block is medium to
low risk. This is when you go to Best Buy and you had a three-
megapixel camera and now, for less money, a five-megapixel
camera is available. That is what we are talking about in a
spiral-development, acquisition-focused enhancement.
Next, you go to innovative capabilities. I view this in the
time frame of 2 to 5 years. This is high-risk; this is high-
payoff. This is where the Congress had the wisdom to
incorporate in my directorate the HSARPA organization. This is
innovation. If we get this right, these are game changers. This
makes acquisition uncomfortable because it challenges their
assumptions. It is the better way of doing business.
And, ladies and gentlemen, our successful large and small
businesses in this country that give us the iPod and give us so
many other things--create jobs, create wealth--they get this.
And we have to be able to do this in government.
And you have provided in legislation for prototyping,
testing and development. That has a high probability of
success, but failure can occur. But we learn from that failure.
In the lower left-hand block is basic research. This is an
area where we are planting 1,000 flowers. From those 1,000
flowers, we harvest 100 projects. From the 100 projects, we
then go into two or three prototypes. And from those two to
three prototypes, we get the George Foreman grill. We get the
profit-maker.
Now, that makes a lot of managers really uncomfortable,
because 1,000 flowers is basic research, unfettered. You may
not see the results for 8 or 10 years or ever. The 100 projects
is in this time frame, and the prototypes transition there to
give you the profit-maker.
Now, every boss I have worked for and every industry I have
talked with has made it clear. They want one flower to result
in one project to give you one prototype to give you one
profit-maker. Oh, that that could be. But they seek discovery
and invention, and scientists and engineers understand that it
moves at its own pace. It is not a pretty process, the
scientific method.
But if we don't invest there, I guarantee what we will get
in 8 years: nothing. If we do invest and we invest wisely, we
will continue the wonderful innovation and economy engine that
we enjoy in this country.
And I know what the bells mean.
Mr. Reichert. Mr. Undersecretary, if I could interrupt. We
are going to continue. We do have a vote, it sounds like, here.
Maybe in the process of answering some questions that the
numbers might have, you could touch on some of the other
initiatives in your plan.
I testified before a number of hearings in my own community
as the sheriff in our county council, as it is called in
Seattle. And it is sometimes frustrating, as the witness, to
have all this information and want to impart it all and then be
told that we would like to ask you some specific questions.
So if we can go to Mr. Pascrell, and hopefully you might be
able to touch on some of your other initiatives as you answer
questions.
Mr. Cohen. My pleasure, sir.
Mr. Reichert. And we will come back. Yes, we will come
back.
Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Etheridge cannot come back, so I will
yield to him, with your permission.
Mr. Reichert. The chair recognizes Mr. Etheridge for 5
minutes.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Undersecretary, thank you for being here.
You touched on a couple of things, and one of them was
people, and no organization is much of anything without people.
You know, you can have charts, you can have visions, but the
quality of folks you have around you determines how successful
you are to be, and you know that. And I have had that privilege
in my career to work with a lot of fine folks.
My question is, though--and you knew this when you took the
job, so it is not anything new--I think morale at the
directorate is at a very low point, to be kind. That is pretty
well common knowledge from what I had read. And it is very low,
and there are literally dozens of vacancies in some very high-
level positions.
So my question is--you touched on it, and I will give you
an opportunity to expand on it--how will you improve morale
within the directorate and attract the kind of high-level
motivated workforce that everyone envisioned that would exist
in the department when it was created-- And some were there;
many have left.
Kind of describe, if you will, some of the specific things
you have in mind. I think that is critical if we are going to
be successful. We can't be successful, I think, otherwise.
Mr. Cohen. Well, Congressman, you are exactly right. And I
have a track record of being assigned throughout my career to
situations very similar to this. You don't have a turnaround, I
guarantee you, in one day. It requires a vision to be put in
place. It requires a consistency of that vision and effort.
I will tell you I only serve with volunteers. On my very
first day on the job, I met with all hands, voluntary. It was
Friday in the summer. I didn't want people to come in. I laid
out what my vision was. I was not prepared to brief, of course,
this reorganization. That is something that we have worked on
over the last 3 weeks.
I think the people in the S&T Directorate were suffering in
part from reorganization fatigue. Whether this is a good or bad
organization, I know it works, and I think the people have
embraced it just because they want to get on with the process.
You have given me tools. Thank you so much for the DARPA-
like IPAs, the Interagency Personnel Act, where I can bring in
people from industry and elsewhere. I also have detailees who
will come in from the national labs. We have people who will
come from universities and centers of excellence, which
likewise you have provided for.
But at the end of the day I must have within my full-time
equivalent, my FTE limit, which you have been very generous
with, that core, that cadre of government service people who
perform inherently government functions to get it right.
So in the 3-plus weeks I have been on board, I have gotten
approval for an organizational construct which works, which I
am used to and which my customers and providers are used to
from my 6 years at the Office of Naval Research. I am
communicating with my people.
But at the end of the day they will feel satisfaction, or
not, based on mission success of the directorate, the
department and the nation, and what role they played in
enabling that, and the respect and value that they believe that
I and the rest of Homeland Security leadership and the customer
places in them.
And I can tell you, Naval Research, in my last 2 years, I
didn't defend my budget. My customer defended my budget to the
chief of naval operations and the secretary of the Navy. I met
with the commandant last night and the head of the Secret
Service. I have met with Kip Hawley. They get it. As customers,
they understand they are in the driver's seat.
And the more we do, the more they will want, the more the
American people will want, and I believe we will see a very
positive spiral.
But it is about leadership, sir.
Mr. Etheridge. I couldn't agree more, and I look forward to
it, because I think the longevity of it is going to be
determined. You can bring people in. It is going to be about
the people who are there who stay through thick and thin.
Let me go to one other point before my time runs out.
In the aftermath of the London liquid explosion terrorist
plot that you alluded to earlier, some disturbing news was
brought to light about the administration's priorities.
According to the Associated Press, the administration's 2007
budget asked to take $6 million from the S&T's 2006 budget for
developing explosive-detection technology and divert it to
cover a budget shortfall in the federal protective services,
which provide security around government buildings.
Now, that probably is an important priority. Don't get me
wrong. But here is my question. It sets an example of what is
important in this area and agency you are in.
As undersecretary of S&T, what steps will you take to
ensure that the administration recognizes the importance of the
R&D that takes place within your directorate-- And how will you
influence them to invest in real threat areas, which I think is
critical--
Mr. Cohen. Well, Congressman, the facts of life are, in my
opinion, that the threats--and this is true in warfare, it is
true in medicine, it is true in police work--the threats far
exceed the resources we have available, and so we must
prioritize. We do that in our personal lives. We do that in
government. And that is a balance.
Now, when we talk about the mandated spending block here,
after the tragic events of 9/11--and we have an anthrax attack
going on. We have airplanes being used as bombs. We didn't know
what was going to be next. The Congress and the administration
together looked at the risk of an event versus the consequence
of an event.
And as I understand it--this was not my lane at that time.
I was trying to save life and limb of Marines and sailors in
the away game. The decisions were generally made,and they were
funded this way, that chem, bio, nuclear and radiological,
because of the consequences, should get immediate actions.
And I think great progress has been made there. But in
doing that, other priorities, whether it was liquid explosives
or improvised explosive devices here in the homeland, et
cetera, then had to find their way.
What I hope to achieve and will achieve--you will see a
little bit of it with the help of OMB in the fiscal year 2008
budget, but we are pretty far along. You will see it fully
developed in the fiscal year 2009 budget--again, the staff has
been very helpful--is to put in place the process--and much of
this has come a long way already--to determine the risk versus
the consequence and ensure that we don't leave any area
uncovered. But it is always about setting priorities.
And I provided to the staff my brief on the liquid
explosives. On day one of the job, I set up a rapid response
team so that we could focus on this. It involved the
Transportation Security lab in Atlantic City. It involved my
program managers and scientists. We had been working on 10
commercial off-the-shelf devices for over a year. In April, we
had gone out with Small Business Innovative Research, a program
that the Congress wisely provided. We had three additional
devices. We are in the process of taking them to Socorro, New
Mexico, to test them against real-world, Gatorade-sized liquid
explosives.
And I went out with a request for information within the
week, and I am pleased to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that
we have had 30 respondents come in with some exciting new
technologies. And we paralleled that request for information
with using the Safety Act that you gave me authorities to do to
further encourage people.
So the short answer--and I obviously don't give short
answers, I apologize--is that it is all about priorities. I
will do my best, but I look forward to working with you and the
staff to help me set those priorities.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And all I would say in closing, Mr. Chairman--I know my
time has expired--is 2009 is a long time to wait for liquids.
It is a long time.
Mr. Cohen. --I can't wait.
Mr. Reichert. And the gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Pearce is recognized.
Mr. Pearce. I thank the chairman.
And I would note that I was concerned when I read the
reports of the A.P. story about the implication that the
president was somehow taking money away from research that
would have affected aviation and all. And as we looked deeper
into that, we realized that the $6 million in question was not
specific to aviation and was not going to be spent this year;
that it, instead, was dedicated to improvised explosive
devices, which I am familiar with, very familiar, because we do
much of the research in New Mexico for the IEDs. And so we are
doing quite a lot in that field already.
In the 2006 budget, DHS is spending over $700 million this
year on aviation explosive-detection systems. And so I think
the A.P. was somewhat misleading.
New Mexico is, Admiral Cohen--we are indebted to you, sir,
because you were the naval research officer for New Mexico and
worked on fresh-water systems, which in New Mexico is
absolutely essential. Also helped bring the Magdalena Ridge
astronomical observatory up to speed. And it is nice seeing you
in this role, because we have seen you in New Mexico balance
the needs of budgets and research.
I am not sure if you are familiar, but New Mexico really is
the site of independent research, and I just recently in the
last 60 days came across a small company there that is
researching for on-the-border security. We are right on the
southern border. The technology would work on either border,
but they have established laser footprints, and then they have
established sensors that would allow unmanned aerial vehicles,
UAVs, to be circling overhead, interrogating these sensors on
the border, detecting both chemical and nuclear threats. Almost
every chemical threat has a laser footprint that they have
identified.
I have asked and they have said probably with $6 million or
$7 million--and this is where your idea of what to invest in
and where--with $6 million or $7 million they probably could
make the technology for under $100 to interrogate every
shipping container that comes into the U.S. for very, very
small costs. Again, doing that with UAVs far offshore before it
gets into the ports.
And these are the kinds of innovations that I think,
Admiral Cohen, that America is looking to you to bring to the
surface and to find these independent entrepreneurs out here
who are solving the problems right now.
I know that if we unleash the imagination and, really, the
innovative genius of America, we can fight off all of the
attempts to destroy us. And I believe, like you do, that there
are people out there who would categorically destroy us with no
second thought.
And so, I appreciate your service in the past and look
forward to working with you here on this particular initiative.
And I guess my question is: What kind of research are you
seeing in the first days of your job that would help us secure
both the northern and the southern borders-- This is a very key
area for New Mexico.
Mr. Cohen. Well, first of all, thank you for your very kind
words. And I will follow up with your staff on this specific
company. I was not personally aware--I am sure my people were--
of the science of the laser footprints, although we were using
similar things for the liquid explosives.
Mr. Reichert. Mr. Undersecretary, if I could interrupt. I
am sorry.
We were expecting someone to return to take my place so I
could run and vote, and I don't think Mr. Pearce has voted.
Mr. Pearce. I have not.
Mr. Reichert. We are going to take a brief recess so that
Mr. Pearce and I can vote and we can return.
Mr. Pearce. That will be fine. I will have to read his
answers. I have got a committee I need to start chairing again
shortly, but we will look to the comments.
Mr. Reichert. We have a minute and 30 seconds, I think,
so--
Mr. Pearce. Well, I am much faster than you, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Reichert. We will be right back. We are in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Dent. [Presiding.] I would like to bring to order this
recessed meeting of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness,
Science and Technology.
I gave the chairman an opportunity to vote, and I would
just like to ask a few questions of you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dent. My district has several academic institutions
that are engaged in advanced technology research that may have
some homeland security applications. These institutions need
infusions of capital to help them with their projects from a
theoretical stage of research, from the drawing board, if you
will, to some type of application more to the practical.
In addition, I have been approached by many entrepreneurs
and other inventors in my district who have ideas that will
help us in our efforts to secure the homeland, but they need
money to develop their ideas into something concrete and
tangible.
I guess the big question I have is: What kind of effort is
the S&T Directorate doing to assist these inventors,
universities and think tanks to develop cutting-edge
technologies that will help us in this global war on terror--
And at times I feel like I have a parade of people outside
my office with ideas, and I really need help to direct them and
their ideas in some way that is meaningful.
Mr. Cohen. Well, it is an excellent question. It is not
limited just to your district or your good constituents.
And I might say, I spent many summers in Allentown where--
Mr. Dent. It is the center of the universe.
Mr. Cohen. --my relatives lived. I haven't been back to the
new amusement parks. I look forward to doing that.
During my confirmation hearing in the Senate, one of the
questions I was asked was, would I continue to have my open-
door policy and be accessible to small entrepreneurs, the ma-
and-pa's, as well as the large contractors, as I had been at
the Office of Naval Research-- And the answer is absolutely.
Because nobody has a monopoly on where good ideas come
from, and you have given us the SBIR, the Small Business
Innovative Research, dollars and processes to try and cultivate
those ideas. You have also given me a robust budget to invest,
and we have elected to do that in large measure through the
centers of excellence, which I know is now looking at some
legislative revision. I look forward to working with the
committees to make that as right as we can, so that we are
investing in the unfettered research in the universities.
But at the end of the day, there has to be a sense by the
entrepreneurs that they will at least get a fair hearing and
then have the monies available to be invested if we determine
that there is a possibility of their idea developing into a
successful application for a homeland security mission.
And so I have got many tools to do that. I will put that,
as I did at the Office of Naval Research, Web pages in place,
something that I call ``technical solutions,'' where people
could come in directly once we posted requirements that we had.
The SBIR, we will have outreach, fairs in various districts
around the country.
So at the end of the day, I have no shortage right now,
sir, of people calling me at night, e-mailing me at home,
sending me letters. And on the liquid explosives, we have
already gotten 30 responses, many from small groups, that I now
want to work with to develop that technology.
Mr. Dent. That is precisely the issue, that, you know, most
members of Congress aren't the best people necessarily to vet
these ideas. And we simply don't have the technical expertise.
But many of those small entrepreneurs are intimidated. You
know, how do I approach this big bureaucratic model called the
Homeland Security Department-- And that is what the fear is.
And how we can help them navigate this, I think, would make us
all feel a lot better.
And I appreciate your openness and your accessibility to
these ideas. Because if I am getting, you know, a parade
outside my office, I can only imagine what the line is outside
yours.
But another question I have is, what role, if any, does the
Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency play in all
these efforts you just described--
Mr. Cohen. Well, to me--and it is one of my four quadrants.
It is the upper-right quadrant.
Mr. Dent. And I have a hard time seeing the quadrant. I am
sorry about that.
Mr. Cohen. The brief is in front of you, sir.
Mr. Dent. Yes. I have it here.
Mr. Cohen. That might be helpful.
But, to answer your question, sir, the Congress very wisely
incorporated HSARPA in my directorate. I believe that that
should represent about 10 percent of my budget.
You can take that as tithing, but that is what I did in
Naval Research. I took 10 percent of the budget with the full
approval of the civilian and military leadership, as well as
the Hill, and we put that at risk for high-gain, high-risk game
changers in a period, as you can see here, of 2 to 5 years.
These are prototypical. They are outside the acquisition
system. They fast-track promising technologies. And they give
us a capability that, in some cases, an order of magnitude
better. And you can define that however you want: by sensors,
by cost, by timeliness, by effectiveness.
But with the opportunity to do that comes the possibility
of failure. I don't view failure in S&T as a negative. When you
look at the scientific method and you look at the opportunities
to gain, I don't do acquisition. I do science and technology.
If I put millions at risk, it will save billions of acquisition
from being at risk. So this will be a very robust area.
And, in answer to your question, 1 percent of my budget I
intend to devote to what I will call home works--home works. In
Navy, it was called swamp works. At Boeing, it is called
phantom works. At Lockheed Martin, it is called skunk works.
These are the highest risk. The probability of failure exceeds
the probability of success. But, boy, it is such an asymmetric
advantage if you get it right. And even if you don't get it
right the first time, it tells you where you have to adjust
your investment portfolio to then get that capability.
Mr. Dent. And I guess as a follow-up to that question, I
spent some time out at the DNDO out in Nevada this past winter.
And that was an issue that I noticed, that we are demanding a
lot of technology. And, of course, we have to go through the
scientific method. You just can't mandate science. You can't
mandate a repeal of gravity. You have to work the process. And
it is very frustrating for some of us, I know, in government.
But I think you drive your point home quite well. And the
point is that millions in investment can save you later
billions in acquisition. And you stated that quite well.
What effort is your directorate doing to make and to expand
extramural research in developing that testing evaluation--
What are you doing in that area--
Mr. Cohen. If I could just skip ahead very quickly, again,
I believe the Congress wisely incorporated both test and
evaluation and standards in my directorate.
Now, my S&T function is in the block just to the left. I
currently have a T&E and standards group. I will provide a
director for that as a direct report to me.
T&E is critically important to ensure that we don't buy no
junk, and that we give to our customers and our first
responders things that work and meet the specifications of the
precious taxpayer-dollar investment. T&E is critically
important.
Because we need to be agile, our enemy is agile, you will
see a systems development approach in my organization, where we
have a continuum between contractor test, developmental test
and operational test. That is the start to the finish.
You know, so many of the things you see on ``Headline
News''--and this is a little frustrating--where good people
bring prototypical devices and put it up against a bottle and
say, ``See, it says water. See, it says explosives. See, it
says wine.'' When you take them, like Consumer Reports or
Underwriters Lab, to an objective evaluation, you find out that
they don't always perform quite as advertised.
Now, that is not bad. You just have to know it. Then we can
work with them, tell them where it falls short, and then we can
improve that.
Standards, likewise, need to be outside of the research
portion of my portfolio, because if they are embedded in the
research, they won't be objective.
And I have to deal with a span starting with the sheriff of
Mayberry. If he has a catastrophe, he brings in the county
police. Then you bring in the State Police. Then you bring in
the National Guard. Then you federalize the National Guard.
And, finally, here comes Northern Command with DOD forces.
As we scale up and we scale down, the standards for
interoperability are critically important if we are not going
to lose the common operating picture at each step in the way.
I am very familiar with NIST, National Institute of
Standards and Technology. Arden Bemet, who is now with NSF, is
a mentor to me. And we will leverage that to the maximum
possible.
But I appreciate that responsibility that you have given
me, and I take that very seriously.
Mr. Dent. And, just speaking of the visit to the DNDO, when
you develop these technologies, how much thought are you giving
into the overall architecture--
It is one thing to develop the technology. It is another
thing that the guy at Border Patrol is able to utilize that
technology or the Customs and Border Protection people can
utilize that.
How much thought are you giving to the overall architecture
and how that technology applies--
Mr. Cohen. What we do in S&T--and this is confusing and
upsetting for people, because we are so optimistic in this
country. And we believe, with enough money and enough time and
enough focus, that we will cure cancer and we will cure AIDS.
And if we say we are going to put a man on the moon, we put a
man on the moon. I mean, that is who we are. That is our
national culture.
But S&T can provide solutions and opportunities, some of
which are breakthrough and change paradigms.
But at the end of the day, it is the customer, it is the
organization that is tasked with fulfilling the mission, that
picks and chooses the S&T to satisfy with cost concerns, time
concerns, size concerns--there are a variety of criteria we
use--to meet their needs.
And so I can propose and I can work and I can help resolve
issues and standards, whether it is FAA or FCC, et cetera. But
it is up to my customer, the operating agencies and
directorates, to run with that ball. I just enable them. I
can't do it for them.
And I think that is a misnomer that has been true
throughout S&T for a long time. I can only take it so far, and
then I have got to follow the customer. But I am going to
enable the customer.
Mr. Dent. And my final question, and then I am going to
hand the gavel back to the chairman: Do you think your
directorate is doing enough to tap into the research
proficiencies offered by colleges and universities,
particularly those with the strong engineering and science
departments, like I have in my district, like Lehigh University
and others--
Mr. Cohen. The honest answer is I don't have enough
experience in 3 weeks to tell you. I prefer not even to take
that for the record, because I would be giving you an answer
without experience. I would like to get back to you as we move
forward.
My sense is we have a robust program, but it may not be
aligned with the directorate and the department mission needs.
Mr. Dent. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Reichert. [Presiding.] The chair recognizes Mr.
Pascrell.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I ask some questions that I prepared, Mr. Secretary,
I wanted to ask you this question. You talked about you didn't
control labs when you were in the Navy. And then you talked
about the public-private--you didn't use the word
``partnership,'' but I will use the word ``partnership.''
Now, homeland security has become an industry. And when you
review all the departments in Homeland Security, we have seen a
lot of problems, a lot of trouble. And folks who created much
of that trouble are gone now. So when we try to bring them
before the committees, it is not easy to do.
You create an industry. Then the industry comes to your
door step, writes us letters and says, ``I got this thing that
is going to blow your mind.'' Okay-- Most of the time, it
doesn't. But we want to extend the courtesy to that
corporation, that company, that industry. But we want to do it
the right way.
How are you going to prevent the retailing of science and
technology-- I think that is a danger. Maybe you don't.
And folks come to you with product, with idea. I don't
think we should be adjusting the security to the product. I
think that we should decide, we who are given that
responsibility, like yourself, as to what that security should
entail, and then what products do we need to do everything in
our power to ensure the development within that specific area--
I mean, am I on the wrong trail here--
Mr. Cohen. Sir, I think you and I are in violent agreement.
At the end of the day, the administration, the Congress,
for me, Secretary Chertoff, establishes strategic goals. We
understand what our mission is.
We have a robust intelligence organization in this country,
and with our allies that tell us what the most likely threats
are. We have an overseas presence--
Mr. Pascrell. And we prioritize those, as you mentioned
earlier, you know, before.
Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. Not everything can be on the same level. We
think that we are more likely to get an attack this way, rather
than that way, so now you got to deal with that within your
privy.
Mr. Cohen. And honest people will disagree. This is not a
political statement. You know, scientists, engineers, military
people disagree where the attack may come from, et cetera.
And that is very complex. You do the best you can do. This
is why it is an inexact science on the threat and in the
intelligence side, as opposed to the scientific method that
gives us the device to locate a specific explosive or specific
threat.
But what I have done--and I am not going to get back to
view graphs--is, as I look at my responsibilities and I look at
the threat--and I gave you the ``four B's,'' which is quite
simplistic, but is pretty important to me, and from the body
language, I could see a lot of nodding of heads--is, what I saw
in the last 3 weeks in my directorate was, because of the focus
on chem-bio and the focus on nuclear-radiological, et cetera--
Mr. Pascrell. Right.
Mr. Cohen. --the good people in the directorate over the
last many years have been trying to respond to that, get
product out the door. And great progress has been made. We can
talk about that offline.
But when you align to projects, it does exactly what you
said, Congressman. As the projects evolve or change, and you
have an agile enemy, every time you change you would have to
realign.
So what you find in the most successful S&T management
organizations is there are enduring areas to focus on. Those
were different in the Navy than they were for the Army, than
they were in Air Force. And that prevents the duplication of
precious resource investment.
What Secretary Chertoff has approved has six departments. I
believe these are enduring. They are not forever. They may wax
and wane, but they are fundamentally what you will hear from me
in the time. And I plan on being accountable and I plan on
being here for as long as you will have me, or until you
recommend I be fired--or--
Mr. Pascrell. No. You are not the one.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cohen. No. No. I want you to know, you know, I take
my--I love accountability.
But energetics, things that go bang. That doesn't include
nuclear, because, as you know, DNDO, we followed a model where
it is cradle to grave because of the consequences there--
Mr. Pascrell. But you understand the point, obviously, that
I am driving at-- And that is, we want to make sure that this
is transparent, this system. And we want to make sure that
there is no collusion.
This is an easy way to have collusion, really, in what we
are doing. I mean, we are just, you know--we just started this
thing. And we got to be very careful about when we contract
with people. We saw with the contracts overseas and contracts
down in the Gulf. We know what that story is.
Let me bring up another specific example, and you can apply
the principle that we are talking about here. You know, we talk
about principles once in a while in Washington. I got to
remember that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Reichert. I will write that down.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you.
What about the checkmate in terms of liquid explosives--
I went back into the literature, I went back into the
narratives, and, you know, this was talked about, touched upon,
not really extensively, several years ago. And we were
basically talking about powder explosives. We didn't get too
much discussion, as far as I see, into liquid explosives.
And is there product there-- And what should we be doing--
How do we get that product, if it has been developed, to the
infrastructure which is under TSA-- God bless them, again.
Mr. Cohen. Well, again, remember my model is customer-
based.
Mr. Pascrell. Right.
Mr. Cohen. And it is a customer-suction. So we start with a
concept. We rapidly test its efficacy against real world. That
is what we are doing in Socorro, New Mexico.
Mr. Pascrell. But where are we in the real world about
liquid explosives detection--
Mr. Cohen. Short answer, for the last year at
Transportation Security Lab we have had 10 COTS--Commercial
Off-the-Shelf--devices in tests. They are now at Socorro, New
Mexico, being held up against 500-milliliter Gatorade bottles
that have the explosive mixture in them. Not a simulant.
Mr. Pascrell. Right.
Mr. Cohen. We have three additional devices that came as a
result, in April of this year, from an SBIR, Small Business
Innovative Research, initiative that my director had taken.
Three weeks ago I went out with a request for information.
We have 30 respondents to that, of which we have 10 technology
devices.
And we have committed that, within 30 days of receipt, we
will send the offer and the device to either Tindle Air Force
Base or Socorro, New Mexico, to test it against real world. If
it is successful, or has the promise of success, we will fast-
track it with that individual to further develop it to make it
a product that TSA--Kip Hawley's screeners can use.
Now, in the near term, we are going to be limited to
handheld devices and other controls. But the goal in a HSARPA
world would be to have a portal where you didn't have to hold
up things, but rather--and Congressman Pearce just shared with
me, while you were gone, there is a small firm in New Mexico
that is using laser technology from afar to see the traces of
chem-nuclear-biological.
So it is a continuum. But in the end, it has to meet TSA's
requirements for throughput, false positives, reliability,
maintainability. That is the real world we live in.
Mr. Pascrell. Can I just ask one more quick question,
Congressman-- And then you can go to the next person.
We have CDC, as you well know, when we are dealing with
health matters. They have labs. They have labs down there.
Now, you say your experience has shown--and now that you
are the head of the directorate, you are relying, it seemed to
me, on 99 percent of the labs in the private sector. Is that
true--
Mr. Cohen. No, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. It is not true.
Mr. Cohen. You very wisely, very wisely--as I said, the 19
pages of implementing legislation were very well thought out.
Now, look, it is a new department. And I am used to, as a
nuclear submariner, with fission. And you all attempted fusion.
You tried to take 22 agencies, with all their culture and
history and--
Mr. Pascrell. You had to remind us, didn't you--
Mr. Cohen. --and put them together. And I will tell you, I
think it is taking hold. I really do.
It is tough, but look, we are 20 years--you know,
Congressman Skelton would talk to me all the time, and Chairman
Hunter, about Goldwater-Nichols. We are 20 years into
Goldwater-Nichols, and we have made enormous progress. But, you
know, we still have Navy blue and Army green. We don't all wear
purple. So there are cultures, and the cultures are important.
But you gave me access to the Department of Energy labs.
These are incredible labs with chemistry and physics. You have
invested hundreds of billions of dollars over the years.
So what I did, as soon as I stood up the rapid response
team, on the 11th of August, for the liquid explosives, we had
a video teleconference that included all of the DOE labs; my
labs, which are small labs; and the centers of excellence that
we have set up, the six, for the universities. Then we went out
to industry, the RFIs.
The day of private labs in this country, like Bell Labs and
IBM, is gone. It is gone.
And this is where the federal government and their vision
and their commitment to critical mass funding of long-term
research is so important, not just in homeland security, but
for our very economy. And I salute you for that.
But the last thing you did--and I sound like Ginsu knives
here--the last thing you did in the legislation was, you
basically said in this new directorate--and the Chairman
addressed this in his opening comments--you don't want me to
reinvent the National Institutes of Health, and you don't want
me to reinvent the DOD labs.
You have given me the DOE labs to leverage. You have told
me that my incremental costs will be the same as the parent
departments. Thank you so much for that.
But you have got one little line in my legislation that
makes me the dominant S&T executive in the department of
government, where you allow me, not to direct the requirements
of DOD, DOJ, DOT, but you allow me full visibility and allow me
to leverage their research, their investment, so that my monies
can be wisely spent on the incremental improvement to tailor it
for the specific missions of homeland defense. And I thank you.
Mr. Pascrell. If you can do that--I mean, we did do a
couple things right. But if you can do that, I think then you
are going to be on course. It is our job in oversight to make
sure you do it. And we need to expedite what we have been
talking about.
Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. We need to move, and you know what has been
done. You know what is in the past. I don't want to go back to
the past. I want to look into the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reichert. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen. Well, sir, if I might say, I tend to drive
looking through the windshield, not the rearview mirror.
Mr. Reichert. As a former cop, that is good.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cohen. I am old, and I don't speed.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Reichert. Mrs. Lowey, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, as a New Yorker, let me just say I wish
you good luck.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey. And as a congresswoman, as a citizen of the
United States that is trying to sort out the responsibilities
of the Department of Homeland Security, the continuous
reorganizations, and the snail pace at which everyone operates
worries me as a grandmother of seven kids, frankly.
Because when you say 2 to 5 years--and you read these
stories in the New York Times just this last week. I am not
going to read the quote where Michael was talking about how
outrageous everything is. Maybe Goldwater-Nichols is the
answer, but at this point, we are constantly frustrated by the
lack of progress.
Now, I understand how difficult it is to keep up with the
terrorists. And I also serve on the Foreign Operations
Committee. And you read what Abizaid is doing in terms of
building clinics and schools, et cetera.
But thank goodness you are focused here on these
responsibilities. And I really wish you good luck. Because if
TSA is making decisions separate from your oversight, and you
are not coordinating adequately, and, as we heard from that
last hearing, multimillion dollar contracts are given out and
then they can't get it to the market fast enough, it is really
tremendously worrisome.
So I just hope this organization is done and you can get on
to the substance. Otherwise, who knows-- After this election,
we may have to have another reorganization. You just don't
know.
So I just want you to know I wish you good luck.
Just another example. I am not sure if it is even under
your purview. Before I get to interoperability, Mr. Chairman--I
gather that wasn't touched on today as yet. They are probably
waiting for me. You left that for me to deal with.
But I am very pleased to take my shoes off. I am sure you
are aware in all of our airports in this country there are
people who do maintenance. There are people who do food
service. Not only don't they have to take their shoes off, they
don't have to go through the metal detectors. They get a badge.
In addition to interoperability, I have been talking about
that. I think it is outrageous. I can have my badge saying
``Congresswoman,'' and I am very happy to take my shoes off.
But they get a badge. It is not re-inspected more than every 2
or 3 years. And they can go into the secure areas.
So I really worry about that.
And we know what happened at Heathrow when one of the
accused was a worker there. And they are moving much faster
than we are in that regard.
So I wish you good luck.
With regard to interoperability, because I think it is
directly related, I am really interested in how your plan
affects first responders.
In my district, the one topic they mention over and over
again is interoperability. We have been talking about it--the
chairman, Mr. Pascrell, myself--for many years now.
When I read the inspector general's report in March, that
S&T has not approved a single standard for interoperability,
this is, frankly, astounding to me. Communication failures
plagued first responders in every major emergency in the last
15 years. We still do not have a single standard.
I am not going to quote the former secretaries, who
promised, you know, a couple of months, a couple of months.
Public safety agencies are spending billions of dollars
building and upgrading communication networks, but the federal
government is there, not providing any assistance.
Unfortunately, what is happening is our local first
responders, our local towns and villages, can't wait for the
federal government. So they are acting responsibly, building
wireless networks that will save lives.
Now, I know you have only been at the department less than
a month. Can you possibly tell me, based upon your experience
and your involvement in this reorganization, why there have
been so many delays in issuing interoperability standards--
Mr. Cohen. Well, Congresswoman, I honestly can't. I would
be glad to take that for the record, just to document what the
problems were.
But you and I are on the same page with interoperability.
This is not unique to first responders. It is just exacerbated
with first responders because we have state, local, et cetera.
But even in the Department of Defense and in coalition warfare,
as you are very well aware, there are interoperability
problems. There are frequency problems. There are cipher
problems.
That is not meant to make excuses.
One of the things I said earlier, while you were at the
vote, is, in my view, if you start with the sheriff of
Mayberry--and the scale of my responsibility takes me from the
sheriff of Mayberry to the New York Police Department, and it
takes me from the tribal volunteer fire and driving a 1940
LaFrance Pumper, up to Chicago's exceptional fire department.
So, what I do has to be scalable, has to be affordable, has
to be durable. And all those are good words.
I will tell you, shortly after 9/11, I was called up to New
York City by the police commissioner. And they were focused on
radiological issues. They didn't know what was going to come
next.
And the police commissioner took me in a room. I was chief
of naval research. And, you know, they had about three dozen,
maybe four dozen RADIACs. These are radiation detectors,
handheld. He said--this goes to the comment of retailing and
the cottage industry that has developed. Everyone wanted to
sell the New York Police Department RADIAC detectors to put in
the patrol cars, et cetera. He said, ``Admiral, I don't know
what to buy. This is outside our area of expertise.''
And I said, ``Commissioner,'' I said, ``if you will send
one knowledgeable patrolman,'' meaning on the use of these, how
they might be used, ``come down to the Naval Research
Laboratory, and we will test them against the specifications
that the manufacturer has said. I am not going to tell you what
to buy, but I will tell you, do they meet the specs-- Do they
do it in a timely manner, et cetera-- Are they durable--''
We did that. They were very thankful, et cetera.
So I take my responsibilities for test and evaluation--so
we don't buy no junk--and for setting standards very, very
seriously. As a New Yorker, Congresswoman, you know I don't
have a lot of patience. That is not one of our traits.
Mrs. Lowey. You are absolutely right. You are absolutely
right.
Mr. Cohen. But I can't promise you the world. I can tell
you, when you get into the standards, you get into
interoperability, you cut across city, state, county and
federal lines, you get involved with the FCC, it is a cauldron.
But I think our national security deserves better. And I will
work toward that.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, as I understand it, it is not a technical
problem. The technology exists. It is a matter of leadership,
and there hasn't been any at the Department of Homeland
Security.
And I am not saying that you should be telling people
whether to get Motorola or Cingular or this and that. But it is
a matter of which technology should be used so there can be
some coordination.
Now, as I understand it, there are about 180,000 people at
the department, and less than a handful are working on
interoperability. So the real question is, do you intend to
make first-responder communications--and you should be honest
with us.
You could say to me, ``Ray Kelly knows what he is doing.''
I have tremendous confidence in Ray Kelly, frankly. He
duplicated and replicated his own international intelligence
agency because he didn't have confidence in the CIA.
So that may be it. But if you feel the OIC and SAFECOM need
additional resources to get this done, I think it would be
helpful for us.
Because we all, in a bipartisan way, have been talking
about this issue. And it is my understanding that Dr. Boyd, the
previous head of SAFECOM and a leader on communications issues,
was removed from the office several months ago.
I didn't even know that. Thank you. He just let me know
that.
Can you tell me how leadership changes at SAFECOM may
affect the progress you are going to make--
I mean, it has been a revolving machine over there, so I
understand the difficulty you are having. But we also
understand that in the field, be it New York or any place else,
New Jersey, Florida, any place else in the country, this is a
priority. And it hasn't been a priority at the Department of
Homeland Security.
Mr. Cohen. Well, let me very rapidly address several issues
you raised.
First of all, I am a big fan of Commissioner Kelly's, and
God bless him for what he has done. And I think he has set a
model.
And in my construct with international engagements, et
cetera, you will see very many of the same things, because I
cannot allow us to suffer from technological surprise. And you
have got to be out there in the field.
Number two, my vision and my experience with S&T--and we
have talked a little bit about this previously--is, it is like
the BASF commercial on the Sunday morning talk shows. They
don't make the device, they make the device better. So S&T
doesn't make the device. I make the device better.
Now, concerning Dr. Boyd, he is a key player in my
organization. I asked him to be my division head for C4/ISR,
Command, Control, Computers, Communications, Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance. He will have, as will the
human factors, significant crosscutting responsibility in my
organization.
But as I look at SAFECOM, as I look at other product lines,
one of the problems organizationally, in my opinion, is that we
have tried to make the S&T Directorate both a service
organization and an operational unit. It doesn't work.
And so, as the department has matured, the delivery of the
capability, I believe, should fit and rest with the operations
and agencies that do that, like the TSA and Border Patrol, et
cetera.
I am there to hear their requirements, understand their
shortfalls, find the cutting-edge technology and bring it to
them in a timely, affordable and usable manner. And that will
be the model that you will see from me.
Mrs. Lowey. Now, does that red light count-- I am
assuming--
Mr. Reichert. Yes. I am going to--
Mrs. Lowey. You have been very gracious, so--
Mr. Reichert. Yes. Thank you. I--
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you so much. I know we could go on, but
the chairman has been very generous.
And I know we all wish you good luck. And we hope that in
the next couple of months you can solve these problems.
Mr. Cohen. I will do my very best.
Mrs. Lowey. We thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reichert. You are welcome, Mrs. Lowey.
We will have a second round, but I am going to be a lot
tighter on the clock. There were a few members here, and we
were interrupted by a vote. And so we will have a second round
if others have questions.
I want to just touch on my experience just a little bit and
share some frustration.
The sheriff's office in King County is 1,100 employees. And
during my time there, I have watched the development--I started
in 1972. Our first tool was a .38 revolver. It was a civil
defense weapon, and the barrel didn't line up with the
cylinder. So that is quite--you know, it is important that the
bullets line up with the holes when, you know, you pull the
trigger.
But look how far we have come. But it has taken us a long
time to--just in the first-responder law enforcement world. In
1982, no computers. Working on a major case, a Rolodex file, 3-
by-5 note cards; a single person sitting down at a desk with a
magnifying glass and a fingerprint card, physically looking at
the card and counting the loops and the whirls. Now, AFIS,
Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Now, live scan.
In 1982, taking a body sample--blood, bodily fluid of some
sort--looking for a blood type to lead to the arrest of the
suspect. And today, DNA that identifies one person as the
person who committed the crime, or it can identify a person who
was not responsible for the crime.
Tremendous progress in science and technology in the world
of law enforcement.
And then the new technology. As the sheriff, just a couple
of years ago, officers wanted the new taser, right-- Buy a
taser. Well, in one year the new model was smaller, more
effective, safer.
And so the things that you have to deal with, I understand.
But there is the frustration with people on the street.
Of the number of vendors, 800 to 900 vendors, who have some
sort of an answer to, or piece of the puzzle to,
interoperability, as Mrs. Lowey has described, 800 to 900 to
1,000 vendors that have some piece of the puzzle, an answer to
health I.T. and sharing of information.
And so it also touches on the ranking member's question of
the retailing of technology and the difficulty that local
governments and local police departments and fire agencies and
EMTs, et cetera, emergency managers have in weeding through
this forest of technology. Which is better and what is going to
work--
How do you help local governments and local law enforcement
and local officials weed through, now, all of this information
that is out there to help them make the right decision-- You
touched on it just a little bit, but I need a little bit
clearer picture, I think.
Mr. Cohen. Well, again, Chairman, my customers are the 22
agencies and directorates within Homeland Security. And they
have very clear missions defined in enabling legislation.
The customer of the customer are the first responders, and
we have already talked about that.
I plan on dealing, to the best of my ability, in
intelligent ways, whether it is Web-based, whether it is
outreach--I can't do it one at a time, obviously, with 800--and
I think those numbers, you know, may be low--
Mr. Reichert. I agree.
Mr. Cohen. --actually. This is an incredible country. You
know, for Ms. Lowey, Tom Friedman, in his book, ``The World is
Flat,'' if you watched him within the last month with Charlie
Rose and with Tim Russert, he said, ``You know,'' he said, ``I
had to revise the book because I was singing the praises of
Bangalore, and I was singing the praises of China.'' And he
said, ``I got my head handed to me by the entrepreneurs in
America.''
Because when you have a free country, and you have the
venture capital that we enjoy, and we have the intellectual
property protection, and we have the SAFETY Act, people come
out. They rise to the occasion. And you couple that with our
educational system, which has challenges, and wonderful things
happen.
So I view my responsibilities as almost schizophrenic. On
one hand, I have to look for the next generation, cultivate it,
make sure we stay ahead, because it is a flat world, and our
discoveries are quickly leveraged.
What I found in Navy is many of our suppliers have turned
away from patents. Patents take too long. To them, it is first
to market. They assume that their product, their intellectual
property, will be leveraged by others who may not have the same
standards or rules as we do.
And so, get to the market. And Steve Jobs does this better
than anyone else. With iPod and Webcast, he stays one step
ahead. So I have got to do that.
On the other hand, I have to do the more mundane things of
the here and now, things that are nearly ready, are mature, and
get them out so they are available, with standards, with
evaluation, to the first responders.
But at the end--and this is just a personal comment--I
don't think the federal government can solve all of these
problems. In the end, it is the New York Citys and the King
Countys and the reservations that will decide for themselves
the risk-consequence balance, decide where they put their
precious investments, just as they do in education, just as
they do in roads.
I can enable that. I can facilitate that. But I can't solve
it by myself.
Mr. Reichert. Thank you.
Mr. Pascrell--
Mrs. Lowey. Could I just follow up, Mr. Chairman, and
just--I was going to ask you to bear with me--
Mr. Reichert. The young lady is recognized.
Mrs. Lowey. --for just a moment, because that is an
important issue.
There are former members of FEMA--no names mentioned at the
hearing--other federal officials, who are making mega millions
of dollars today. I will get you this contrast. We read, and
Chairman Mica was talking about this at the hearing, you know,
$5.3 million here, $10 million here.
That is an important question, and maybe you can respond to
that. And maybe it has to do with interoperability, as well.
Maybe you don't have a role in that. Maybe we just leave it
to Commissioner Kelly and New York City to make its own
decisions. Maybe we shouldn't be asking you for 3, 4--when did
we start----5 years, for standards, and we can't get it out.
Maybe we should let these salesmen just continue to approach
the local governments and make the decisions.
So maybe we should save all that money with the Department
of Homeland Security, and I shouldn't be asking you for
standards anymore.
Mr. Cohen. I want to make sure that my comments were not
misunderstood at all.
I do believe that we will be most effective and efficient
if we have national standards that meet the needs and are
scalable from the sheriff of Mayberry up to the great police
department of New York City.
And there are federal responsibilities. And I look forward
to your taskings and your support in doing that.
But, in doing that, one size doesn't fit all. And I don't
want to fall into the trap of, in any way, undermining the
innovation or the authorities--this is not a political or
philosophical; this is how we run our households, you know--
There are different personalities. There are different
priorities, et cetera.
And in terms of any predecessors or whatever, Ms. Lowey,
let me tell you that I make less in this job--I didn't even ask
what the salary was. I can tell you that up front. But I make
less in this job than I made on the day I retired on active
duty in the Navy.
Mrs. Lowey. Just what do you mean, ``this'' job--
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cohen. You know, I will be an old--I am an old man, and
I promise you I won't write a book.
Mr. Reichert. I would like to take a moment to comment on
your response to Mrs. Lowey's question.
We passed the 21st Century Communications Act of 2006,
which refers to standards, national standards, and it also
directs that there be assessments and evaluations of current
systems in place across the country. That was passed on the
House floor about 2 months ago with a vote of 414 to 2.
So people in the House of Representatives recognize the
need for national standards and also recognize the need for
someone to take the lead again, as some have said today, a
leadership role in assessing what is out there currently.
But there is certainly a definite need for a true
partnership, where the federal government takes the lead and is
also there in a supportive role as local governments and local
officials build their own systems that fit their communities,
but with a standard that is nationally set to ensure that their
money is being well spent and that they interconnect with the
state and national system.
So I think that is really where we want to head. So we
appreciate your answer.
Mr. Pascrell--
Mr. Pascrell. Yes. I have a few more questions, Mr.
Chairman.
First, I certainly believe that we should have national
standards. I mean, you know, we have spent a lot of time airing
it out.
But we have a very different system than the British. I am
convinced that they do something better than we do, but not too
many things.
[Laughter.]
That is why we had the Revolution, and continue to have
them, by the way.
But the British believe more in a ground-up situation,
bottom-up. We are top-heavy. We think that the folks at the top
that the administration appoints, at these levels of government
throughout homeland security, know best for the rest of us.
If you don't ask cops, if you don't ask firefighters, if
you don't ask EMTs, whether you are talking about
interoperability or operability, whether you are talking about
intelligence, you need to talk to the people who do the job
every day and see what their needs are to combat the situation.
We don't seem to get that. We don't seem to really
understand it.
Maybe they don't articulate it as we could articulate it.
This is first--we are talking about safety here. We are not
talking about articulation, you know-- We are talking about
some principle here to get something done. I think the British
have it right in that regard.
My second point is this. I don't sense a sense of urgency
in Homeland Security to do the things that need to be done in
order to protect our families and our neighborhoods and the
rest of the country. We have a lot of fear mongering. And we
get people upset, create a lot of anxiety, make sure they are
scared as hell. That doesn't help us, though, in the final
analysis.
I mean, not that you shouldn't be realistic. We want to be
realistic. We don't want to hide anything. We want to be as
transparent as possible.
I don't sense that urgency. I am sorry, Mr. Secretary, but
that is how I feel.
But I want to get into the subject of basic research. I
think that this is an area that has been neglected in terms of
homeland security, myself. That is only my opinion.
The Transportation Security Lab, in 2005, the Congress
directed Science and Technology to control the TSL budget,
where it proceeded to delay around 8 months in allocating the
money.
Again, we are looking ahead, we are not looking back. But I
want to put this into perspective.
Observers have said that the lab had to slow the projects
and the operations that were--it was almost a standstill at one
point. This year the Senate appropriations language mandates
returning the lab to the TSA.
The problem with this back-and-forth is that the scientists
there are essentially being bounced around like a yo-yo, ping-
pong ball, between those two agencies, not knowing where they
will land and not having a solid and predictable line of
funding.
What solution do you recommend for this problem-- And
practically, who should control that TSL lab-- Who do you think
should--
And the question under that area of basic research is the
following: How will basic research grow under your
reorganization plan-- Now, I am not talking about technology
now; I am talking about basic research.
How much money in the budget is devoted to basic research--
And how much money should be dedicated in the future to basic
research-- And what efforts are under way to support basic and
applied research--
You know the problems. Well, let's start with those areas.
And a final point I wanted to make is, in conclusion, was,
how can we help you-- Seriously. We have made it a practice on
this committee, thanks to the chairman, to be, I think,
bipartisan, because neither party is privy to virtue as to how
we are going to save the country. But how can we help you--
And in order for you to answer that question, it would seem
to me--well, I know what your answer is going to be. In my
mind, you have to make sure that you pledge not to be a
sycophant, that you will be direct with us, and we will get you
what you need, I promise you.
Mr. Cohen. Well, sir, let me answer the last one first. No
one has ever called me a sycophant.
Mr. Pascrell. Good.
Mr. Cohen. I have heard words like rude and obnoxious. And
my wife would like me to behave better.
Mr. Pascrell. Those words don't come to mind for me.
Mr. Cohen. I am sure. And those of us who come from the
greater metropolitan area can appreciate that.
You can help me enormously because I don't have all the
answers. I am just one person.
I care about this country. It is an incredible ongoing
experiment in democracy. And I don't read fiction; I read
nonfiction. And I read ``The Election of 1800,'' and I read
``The Founding Brothers,'' and we live in an incredible
country. And, like you, my relatives were immigrants--
Mr. Pascrell. Right.
Mr. Cohen. --and so I have spent my life with an ethos of
service.
But just because I am service-oriented, like you are,
doesn't mean that I am omniscient or that I have the right
answers.
And I certainly agree that defense--and whether it is the
away game, the department of offense, or Department of Homeland
Security, defense, it is bipartisan. It is nonpartisan. And it
is a long tradition, a 200-and-nearly-30-year tradition of
that. And I respect that so much.
But you are the elected representatives of the
constituents. And the constituents are the citizens. And the
citizens are who our first responders look to protect.
And, at a higher level, by bringing to bear technology,
whether it is in intelligence or surveillance--and I mean that
with a big ``S''--situation awareness, et cetera, detection,
prediction, the psychology of terrorism, I believe that we can
work to deter the terrorists. Because the terrorists are
cowardly, and they only strike where they think they can get
away with it and we have a vulnerability.
Now, we will have vulnerabilities. We don't have to share
those publicly. And we can work to minimize those
vulnerabilities, flatten the playing field, level the playing
field.
So your staff has already, in a very bipartisan way, taken
time with me, as have the other committees. You are holding
this hearing.
You talk about urgency. In 3 weeks, sir, I have gotten
approved a major realignment that I know works. Is it optimum--
I don't know; time will tell. But on Monday we are having an
all-hands--this one is not voluntary. This one is mandatory,
because we are aligning to the organization for the
accomplishment of our mission as specified in the law and
legislation.
On basic research, I have already told you how strongly I
believe in that. It is a shining light on the hill. It is what,
in large measure--and I have traveled the world--makes America
so unique. I am not putting down the intellect or the basic
research in other countries, but no one does it as broadly as
we do.
And I have talked about Bayh-Dole and how important I think
that has been in basic research--spinoffs, startups, venture
capital, et cetera.
In Navy--and this was different than Army and Air Force--we
had a balanced basic and applied in advanced technology
research portfolio. It was split 50-50.
Because of how the Congress wrote the legislation, which I
appreciate, and you want me to leverage, not recreate, NSF,
NIH, et cetera, my feeling is, I don't need that much money. I
just need more focus.
But you will see, as I go through the requirements and the
budget development process, that more monies within the
construct of the administration and all the demands will be
applied to focused--I want to make that clear--not presuming
the outcome, but focused basic research.
The criteria that I will use is, can this area, can this
discipline, might this discipline contribute to a clear mission
function in law of the department--
If the researcher can show the possibility, that is
sufficient, and then we will rack and stack those within the
assets I have. If they can't even meet that low standard--
remember, I am not asking, ``Show me how it will''; I am saying
show me how this nanotechnology research, this sensor research
and basic research might contribute to a known mission
requirement--then I think they haven't made the cut.
On the Transportation Security Lab, I have been working
assiduously with the staff that wrote that legislation. I
understand their frustration. I respect their frustration.
But, sir, you have it exactly right. At the end of the day,
if we keep playing ping-pong with that incredibly valuable lab,
who understands aviation, understands the FAA, understands
TSA--they are an S&T organization.
Susan Hallowell has been invaluable to me. She has been one
of the three leaders in my rapid response team, along with Jim
Tuttle, the program manager, and Dr. George Zarur, who is the
scientist who understands the chemistry, et cetera.
And 2 weeks ago, Kip Hawley and I signed a memorandum of
understanding. It had been in the works for a long time. To me,
it was a priority. This was the wolf closest to the door. Kip,
with joy in his heart, signed that MOU. We delivered copies to
all of the staff, and it is my understanding that the other
body is seriously considering not going forward with the
transfer of TSL.
I believe if we transfer TSL we will lose ground. We will
lose time. It would be a mistake.
And I appreciate your support in this area, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you.
Thank you for your patience.
Mr. Reichert. That is it-- You are done--
Well, we appreciate you taking the time. Sorry for a couple
of interruptions.
I just want to make a brief ending comment here.
You have been, as you said, in your office less than a
month. And we can sense your energy and enthusiasm and
compassion and passion for your job. And I know that the people
who work with you as partners in your directorate will
recognize that.
And we look forward to great things happening, and our next
invitation to have you come and testify before us.
And the chair would ask unanimous consent, if it hasn't
already been accomplished, that the undersecretary's statement
be submitted for the record. Without objection, that is
ordered.
This hearing is concluded.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. And it is an honor to serve.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]