CSPAN Newsmakers-Transcript

Interview

PETER SLEN, HOST: This week on Newsmakers Congressman, Bennie Thompson, who is chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. We're here to talk to him about the role of homeland security and school safety and other issues; some other homeland security issues.

Here to question him, Beverley Lumpkin of the "Associated Press" and Robert Block of the ‘Wall Street Journal."

Congressman Thompson, if I can start the questioning, you had planned on holding a hearing this week on school safety. I understand now that that's been cancelled but what would be the role of the homeland security committee in talking about school safety?

REP. BENNIE THOMPSON, (D) MISSISSIPPI: Well I think it's a question of preparedness and as you know we had planned to hold hearings this week on that issue but out of respect for the families, the grieving process is not complete, funerals are not complete and so we thought it would be a little forward for us to move while we're still in that process.

But it is a preparedness issue and we think homeland security is a preparedness agency and it is an issue that many people have already identified as a concern. I have personally held preparedness hearings in my district, did a survey, found out that only nine percent of the school districts in my congressional district really felt as if there were preparedness plans in force.

So it's an issue and we look forward to, in the not too distant future to address it.

PETER SLEN: Beverley Lumpkin.

BEVERLEY LUMPKIN, ASSOCIATED PRESS: Mr. Chairman, I think - I looked for some of the materials from your survey, I think last year, but I think you were mainly aimed at lowered levels, lower grades. What do you realistically do - what can the homeland security department do to make a campus - a sprawling college campus - I think Virginia Tech has 26,000 students.

How do you make a campus like that safer unless you have gun laws? I know you're a hunter. I know that you believe in the second amendment but you can't put up a magnetometer at every entrance to every building on a college campus.

THOMPSON: Well you're absolutely correct and that's why from a preparedness standpoint we feel that once districts and colleges and universities do plans they will take into consideration certain things.

It will be utterly impossible to make universities forts financially with the number of colleges and universities and moving down to public school districts. It will be very hard. But we think from a preparedness standpoint we can train people what to do for emergencies like what happened at Virginia Tech. We can train people for disasters that occurred in Alabama at school systems.

But the issue of whether or not you can actually certain things from happening is a real, real difficult task that we grapple with every day.

ROBERT BLOCK, WALL STREET: The thing that I'm concerned about - and I understand the natural reaction to want it after a tragedy or disaster to see what you can do but are we heaping too much on the department, almost undermining it, because it seems that so much of what it's doing it's not doing well and then every time there is a disaster we're asking them to do things even before they're able to do the things that we've asked them to do before.

Rail security is a good example after what happened in London; now school security. Is too much of a well intention, undermining what the department can do?

THOMPSON: Well I think we are one part of the equation from the homeland security standpoint. Yes, the department of education is an implacable partner in this and we would expect the department of education to jointly work with us on that.

Coordination is the key in this preparedness effort. Our experience has found that when you have law enforcement, when you have school districts, health professionals, non-profit organizations working as a unit then preparedness is not as great a challenge as it is when they work individually.

So part of our preparedness effort is to bring all of the stakeholders in communities who would actually be involved in any kind of disaster or any kind of response mode should something happen. My experience has been in many instances those entities are not coordinated enough. They can't talk to each other on radios because inoperability is an issue.

Many of the training modules that occur, they train from a stovepipe standpoint with their own agency and don't bring other people in. And so what we have to have is that coordinated preparedness support, which we think would not require a lot of money but it's basically pulling the stakeholders together and providing the necessary materials and training so that that coordination could occur.

LUMPKIN: Well do we need some new form of interagency entity? Do we need some new form of taskforces or...

BLOCK: A new FEMA?

THOMPSON: Well you know fortunately I would not want to create another bureaucracy. Hopefully we could, after these hearings, talk about how we could integrate this preparedness challenge within their existing programs from a coordination standpoint.

Again we could only identify one federal program that was geared toward any kind of preparedness at schools and that was a safe and drug free program in a Department of Education…

LUMPKIN: Yes.

THOMPSON: …and it's a $30 million program for the entire United States. So obviously the resources are meager but we could provide the training if we use material from American Red Cross, National Education Association, American Psychological Associations.

We have enough partners and stakeholders across the country who are interested in that. We think DHS could provide the coordination necessary to make that occur.

BLOCK: Well - but the main coordinating body in DHS when it comes to preparedness is FEMA. And since Katrina FEMA's been under the gun and is in the process of transformation so we really are not sure what FEMA's going to be capable of.

But there's a lot of complaints going on that there is - there are still problems, that it's focused so much now on hurricanes and it's ability to deal with other things that are unforeseen such as earthquakes or an event like this that it's beyond the agencies capability.

LUMPKIN: And it's fighting the last battles. I mean they didn't have enough food stockpiled for Katrina so they stockpiled too much and it all went rotten last year.

THOMPSON: Everything you say is absolutely correct. We hold oversight hearings. We look at the agency. We try to bring it to where we want it to be every day we're here in Washington but it's a real challenge.

Unfortunately we can't sit idly by and let this situation fester as it's doing right now. We have to be proactive. When we start the hearings, we'll look at the best model to put together from a coordination standpoint.

FEMA is not our shining star in the Department of Homeland Security.

LUMPKIN: What is?

THOMPSON: We were told - the Coast Guard by a long shot. We were told just this week that FEMA would not have the disaster plans available for this hurricane season. That's ridiculous. We'll have to look at that.

But congress would not like to be in a micro managing position. We would love to have our people and those agencies come forth and tell us what they are doing consistent with the directors of congress but unfortunately that's a perfect world.

ROBERT BLOCK: Now you...

THOMPSON: And it's not a perfect world.

LUMPKIN: Let me step back a little bit from just preparedness, from just FEMA. A lot of critics have said since the department was created in 2003 it's just being nickeled and dimed to death and what I hear you saying, you know part of the problem with FEMA is they never have the resources, they never had the staff, they never had the funding and a lot of people say the department doesn't either, that we're spending pennies for the homeland security preparation, that we should be - instead of spending all the money overseas we should be spending it here at home.

Do you think the department needs to have substantially more funding and resources than it's been getting?

THOMPSON: Well I think it's the question of whether they have the capacity at this point to take on additional resources effectively. As you know we're the second largest government agency right now and we're the new kids on the block but we have not demonstrated our master in doing everything correct.

Secretary Chertoff has tried. Deputy Secretary Jackson is struggling to help the Secretary get it right. But with vacancies in the department, with too many contracts to private companies in existence, rather than bringing on a seasoned trained team for procurement and other things, all of these errors continue.

From an oversight standpoint, we're trying to get the department right. It's been a challenge. I've been chairman all of four months. And believe me, I spend the majority of every day working on some issue within the department. Just this past Friday, we're talking about procurement. We're still sole sourcing contracts. We're still having no bid contracts. But we know that's the not the best way to run government.

BLOCK: As the Chairman of the House Committee with oversight on the department, you meet regularly with the Secretary.

THOMPSON: That's correct.

BLOCK: Are you satisfied that he's a good manager? I mean with all of the problems that you're outlining and with other things that we've not talked about Deep Water, and some other contract issues, the lowest morale of any agency in government, are you satisfied that the department is managed properly?

THOMPSON: Well I would say that, you know, we've had three reorganizations in the short lifespan of the department, and that's not really good. Every attempt to correct it, we reorganize and that shortens the opportunity to get it done. Secretary Chertoff has had an opportunity to be more effective. He's tried to defend an organization that in some instances did not meet the expectations of Congress. Because of that, some Congressman think that perhaps he's not been the best Secretary. But I can say that within the last four years - four months, we meet with him on a regular basis informally with members of the committee. He's been before our committee more in four months, than he did the entire 109th Congress. We're trying to get at that in spite of.

Two hundred eight thousand full time employees is a lot of people. Sometimes we're playing musical chairs with senior management. And so you have to keep the team long enough to get it done. That's no excuse. And what we're trying to do is help the Secretary complete the task. And I think, if you look at the reports we've been very critical. They've not met many timelines that were congressionally mandated in terms of reports and information back to Congress, and that's not how it should be. We're trying to get it better.

BLOCK: Can I follow up with this notion that I hear from other Congressmen as well, is that perhaps the creation of the department was a mistake. That is was too much a bureaucracy. That too many agencies were put together. Do you think that perhaps we need to rethink the department?

THOMPSON: Well this war on terrorism, domestic preparedness is a real challenge. We have to have an agency with that mission. Our times that we live in now, are times like none other. The challenges we have on the home front, as well as internationally, we have to have an agency with that focus. And I think what we have had envisioned by creating it, was hoping that everyone instantaneously could become the Department of Homeland Security. And Congress did not take into consideration the legacies of those individual departments. And we didn't know that there was conflict between immigration and customs and border patrol.

LUMPKIN: But we all knew that.

THOMPSON: Well, you know, when you're out here trying to protect government and protect individuals you would hope people will set petty differences aside for the good of the order. And that's been a challenge.

LUMPKIN: Mr. Chairman but you've - speaking of challenges, the very first bill passed the House since the democrats took over was HR1, the 9/11 bill to your homeland security bill, that you - ushered through the House to implement many of the remaining recommendations of the 9/11 commission. The Senate passed its version, but nothing has happened since. There have not even been conferees announced. Is anything going on behind the scenes?

THOMPSON: Yes. We we're working it. Not as fast as it should be. I'm happy to report that on Friday, the Senate finally recognized its conferees and appointed it.

BLOCK: Friday today?

THOMPSON: That's correct.

BLOCK: This will air…

THOMPSON: Two days ago. And we will do ours not too distant future. Our rules require once conferees are appointed 20 days after that we have to report something out. And the question is whether or not we'll be ready to report.

Apart from that, I was privileged, as you say, to manage the bill. Speaker Pelosi asked me to do it because she saw it as a priority. But it's still a challenge even what we put in. I'm from a rural area. I put in that we ought to target the money to areas of greatest risk. The Senate looked at it and said, well I'm not sure that that's the best way to do it.

LUMPKIN: So how are you going to work that out? That's a huge difference between the chambers.

THOMPSON: It is. And that's why we have good staff and why we'll eventually go to conference. And I'm comfortable that at the end of the day, we'll have a deal. And when that occurs, I can't give it to you at this point.

BLOCK: Now the one issue on oversight in 9/11 recommendations that the bill didn't tackle was reforming Congress in terms of the jurisdictional questions. I mean, I think there's something like between 86 and 89 committees and subcommittees that have some kind of oversight role of homeland, and they complain that they're constantly going up across purposes. Now one of the things that commission recommended was that Congress needs to also get its House in order, no pun intended, to work this out. And yet, that's not happened.

THOMPSON: Well you're correct. But I can say that in the 110th, Speaker Pelosi has not tried to micromanage our committee in terms of what legislation we handle. We have a memorandum of agreement with transportation and infrastructure and chairman over (ph) staff (ph) and I have agreed in principle on those issues of jurisdiction. We worked very closely with judiciary. We have an immigration bill coming up this summer. Border security is homeland committee's jurisdiction. The rest of it is judiciary. We'll work together on that. And so I think the conflicts that occur, the standards and tone that Speaker Pelosi set has more or less dictated that chairmen had to work it out. And just as you said, Congress is not known to give up jurisdiction willingly. And so we take it on an issue by issue basis. And I'm happy to report that at this point, it has not been a problem.

SLEN: Next question.

LUMPKIN: Mr. Chairman, what about the possibility of actually getting an authorization bill through both chambers for the department? I believe that you have tried, or your committee has tried in the past, but there's never been an authorization bill. And why is it so important and will you get one?

THOMPSON: Well I'm happy to report, as you know, we completed our mark up on the House side with an authorization bill. We're cautiously optimistic that the Senate will do it. We talked to the leadership there, and they assured us, that they'll make every effort. Senate's jurisdiction is even more conflicted than the House jurisdiction. But we think, just like armed services annually prepares an authorization bill, homeland security should do the same thing because over time you create capacity and jurisdiction by doing so.

And so I'm optimistic. We went forward with it. Speaker Pelosi supported the effort. And really from a bipartisan standpoint, republicans on our committee felt it was in our best interest to have an authorization bill too. So collectively, we came together and at the end of the mark up, we had a unanimous vote, on our authorization bill.

BLOCK: You mentioned earlier, one of the things you were concerned about was contracting and sole source contracting. And it seems that inside department there's not a lot of resident expertise. On many issues it seems that they go to vendors, and they go to the industry itself and they say, we have a problem could you help us get out of this problem?

Or, "We're looking for a solution."

Do you think this puts too much power in the hands of the vendors and the contractors, and that is playing a role in slowing down things inside the department?

THOMPSON: Well, there's no question that, if we had the internal capacity to do these things in a timely manner, that would be preferable. But we don't.

To some degree, we have become too reliant on outside contractors, so that we have a disproportionate number of contractors running procurements, rather than employees.

Testimony in a hearing on Friday said that one of the reasons morale is so bad at the department is that an employee could be sitting next - a government employee - could be sitting next to a contracted employee that makes twice the salary.

BLOCK: For the same job.

THOMPSON: For the same job. And therefore, you can imagine the product you get from that full-time employee.

LUMPKIN: Well, are we getting back to the question again - my question again is whether the department has adequate resources. Does it have enough money? Does it have the wherewithal to hire good people?

THOMPSON: Well, the testimony also brought out in that same hearing that there are 1,100 positions at the department in procurement, but they've only filled 900.

BLOCK: Why is that?

THOMPSON: Well, I was told that, well, we have to get with our human capital person. And it was just too much red tape. The committee felt that the testimony today did not put the department in a good light.

We know every day of good people who are looking for jobs all over this country. And this notion that I can't find people who want to make $70,000, $80,000, $90,000 a year - they're ludicrous.

But unless you are committed to making that happen, then you'll sit back waiting for those individuals to come through the door, or as a stop-gap measure, you'll go hire for two or three times the amount of money a private contractor, who can go out and bring those individuals in.

So, that's a challenge. And I make no bones about it.

Our largest procurements, SBInet, which is our attempt to secure our southern border, we now have more …

BLOCK: Which is, I think, up to $22 billion.

THOMPSON: Up to $22 billion. We have testimony that over half of the people managing that procurement are from the private sector. We don't have enough people managing one of our largest procurements.

Deepwater, as we talked about earlier, is another large procurement with the Coast Guard. We had similar kind of irregularities come up, because …

LUMPKIN: Even with your best agency.

THOMPSON: Even with our best agency. So …

BLOCK: Well, I …

THOMPSON: That is an issue. And DHS uses more outside contractors, second only to DOD. And our budget compared to DOD is significantly smaller.

BLOCK: It seems to me as well, is that on the other side there are things that the department is in charge of in a way that doesn't require a lot of money, such as things like communicating with state and local officials.

Yet I hear when talking to people, there's a great deal of dissatisfaction in police and emergency management offices around the country, that they're not getting information and cooperation from the department in a timely enough manner.

I understand you have a bill that's trying to work on this. But could you talk about the problem a little bit?

THOMPSON: Well, we've seen the problem. We've heard it from law enforcement and other people involved and the first responders, that that is a problem.

We are mandating, if my bill gets approved, the LEAP, Law Enforcement Employment Assistance Program, where we will basically pay local law enforcement to work in federal agencies. We'll give that agency release time and pay for it, so that they can work.

We will make sure that national organizations have a place in many of the meetings that are going on right now. And that's mandated.

Our chief of police here in Washington, D.C., was one of the first persons who came to us and said, you know, this is what we need to do. My people for too long have felt like DHS passed this edict down without discussing it, and we don't have any comment on it.

So, that's our effort to respond to what we've heard.

Additionally, I was in El Paso recently, and the local law enforcement people were reading the report, saying this is exactly what we need in order to be effective. We need to know and be in the same room with DHS and all our stakeholders, so we can work collectively on the same problem.

And that - you know, that's, again, changing the culture of how we do things. But when bad people come after us, they're not going to ask, you know, are you a state or local? They're just going to try to hurt you.

SLEN: And we are out of time. Chairman Bennie Thompson, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, thank you for being on NEWSMAKERS.

THOMPSON: Thank you for having me.

SLEN: And we'll be right back with our reporters roundtable.

(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)

Source