Pete
V. Domenici
Statement
Regarding Department of Homeland Security Hearing before
Environment
and Public Works Committee
July
10, 2002
I have had an opportunity to review the President’s
proposal for homeland security, particularly as it relates to the Science
&Technology (S&T) mission of the department and how our national labs
should contribute to the cause of homeland security - - and I maintain that
they have much to contribute.
The president’s proposal certainly recognizes the
capabilities of our national laboratories - - but the manner in which the
initial plan was developed, announced, and communicated to the Congress has led
to substantial confusion.
So let me try to clear the air as to what I believe
the new Department needs in the way of Science and Technology.
1. The
president has proposed an Under Secretary to address the science, technology,
and operational issues associated with Chemical, Biological, Radiological and
Nuclear or CBRN threats.
2. I would
argue that the undersecretary’s mission should be broadened to cover the entire
S&T mission for the whole department, and the operational missions should
be run by the other parts of the department.
3. Certainly
much of the focus will be on CBRN threats, as it should be - - but there are
other S&T opportunities and challenges that exist outside that area.
4. That Under
Secretary for S&T should be responsible for several things under him...
· Utilizing
the R&D base at Health and Human Services Department- - as the President
suggests in his bill
· Performing
the agriculture-related R&D - - as the President suggests
But
there are several ideas that are left out of the President’s bill...
$
The Under Secretary needs a mechanism to tap into the
full capabilities of the National Laboratories.
$
He also needs a “DAPRA-like” organization that can
rapidly procure technology for homeland security applications.
$
Finally, I think he should also have a “RAND-like”
think tank to support homeland security research through policy and systems
analysis. This function was suggested
by the National Research Council review.
5. Thus, I
think we should build upon the ideas that the President has suggested to fully
support the important S&T missions of the new Department.
6. As it
relates to the National Laboratories, let me make a few more comments.
$
Tremendous capabilities exist at all of the labs - -
much of it is at Sandia, Los Alamos and Livermore - - but Oak Ridge, Idaho and
Pacific Northwest have unique capabilities as well.
$
Those capabilities should be fully utilized and
managed by DHS from a location that is centrally located among those
laboratories.
$
The labs’ work for DHS should be governed by several
principles...
$
The Secretary of HS should be able to task and fund
the labs directly.
$
Homeland security work should be done on an equal
basis to the other important national security work at the labs.
$
DHS should be able to access all parts of the
laboratory for expertise - - not just a carved out section.
7. In
conclusion, I suggest the principles that I have laid out here
should be the basis on which S&T missions of the DHS should be carried
out. I look forward to working with the
Administration and you, Mr. Chairman, in building legislation to do so.