Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi

July 11, 2002

Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming today’s distinguished panel of witnesses, each of whom play essential roles in the war against terrorism. I would like to commend our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their leadership on the most critical issue our nation faces today -- protecting the American people and our civil liberties.

On our side, Representatives Frost, Menendez and DeLauro, with whom I am honored to serve on this Select Committee, have great expertise and experience in national security matters, as well as in the mechanics and functioning of federal government agencies. Martin Frost has been ranking Member on the Rules Committee, Bob Menendez has chaired our Homeland Security Task Force and Rosa DeLauro has served for years on the Appropriations Committee.

As the Ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I am very aware of the nature of the threat we face.

We are all united in our determination to win the war against terrorism. We all agree that this battle will be won and that we will succeed by working together.

Ten months ago, we were attacked here at home. We have a responsibility to the families of survivors, indeed to every person in this country, to reduce the risk of future attacks. That is why, when we began the joint House-Senate inquiry into the September 11 attacks, we began with a moment of silence.

Families of those affected by 9-11 talk of their continuing reactions to events that used to be no cause for concern. To the families, the shootings at the Los Angeles airport last week were a painful reminder of the continuing threat that we face. For some family members, every time a plane goes overhead, they experience deep fear.

Our government’s most important responsibility is to protect and defend our citizens. Part of that protection, of course, is the protection of their civil liberties.

Any proposal must be measured against a simple test: Do the actions we take make the American people safer?

The President’s proposal to reorganize the government has stimulated a healthy discussion about how our government should be organized best to achieve that goal.

We need a Department of Homeland Security based on a model for the future. I take hope in our meetings with the President -- he has been receptive to Congressional input on his proposal. I am especially pleased with Chairman Armey’s statement that he will be respectful of Members’ concerns and that he is not bound chapter and verse to the details of the President’s proposal.

The Department must be streamlined; it must be agile; and it must be able to take advantage of the technological revolution, to improve communications among those who have access to information and those who need it.

Rather than creating a massive new federal bureaucracy, we must support our first responders, at the state and local levels, with training, resources, equipment and information.

In real estate, the three most important things are location, location, and location. For homeland security, the three most important issues are localities, localities and localities. Helping our state and municipal governments must be where our emphasis begins and ends.

Successful government agencies have several things in common -- they have a clear mission and they are provided the tools and a budget sufficient and targeted to meet that mission.

There are still many unanswered questions about the President’s proposal:

What is the strategy on which it is based? Governor Ridge’s office has been working for months on a National Homeland Security Strategy. Unfortunately, that document has not yet been released. Hopefully, we will see that soon.

And what are the costs? This week, the Congressional Budget Office released its official estimate of the cost of the President’s proposal, noting that implementing the President’s proposal “would cost about $3 billion over the 2003-2007 period.”

That $3 billion will not cover the costs of bringing the new Department up to date technologically. Without new technology, the government will stay mired in the past.

And, what about basic principles of “good governance”? Civil service laws protecting against political favoritism would be waived. Whistleblower protections would be waived. Open and competitive bidding laws would be waived. Government in sunshine laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act, would be waived. I hope that is not part of the final product.

Does national security really demand creating a second-class group of government employees? I don’t think so.

These questions are only a few of the important ones facing us as we move forward with creating a Department of Homeland Security.

We are the greatest country that ever was. We can, and we must, do things in a better way. The goal of terrorists is to instill fear. Last week, on the Fourth of July, we celebrated and we proved to the terrorists that they cannot frighten us. We are the land of the free and the home of the brave.

We can, and we must, do things in a way that respects our people, protects our founding principles, and protects and defends our communities.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our distinguished witnesses today. Thank you.