¡Colores!; 12; The Senator from New Mexico: Pete Domenici; Colores Dominici #12-Nancy Interview Homeland Security

We're not from the Mexico, we unfortunately are from the United States, but the South takes care of you. That can't change. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That was so sweet. How are you? You know what? Number? Yes. 342. First. 31 last roll. Okay. And this says what we're doing is the road ahead for the HS, the HS oversight. The inspector general from the HS is going to be there talking a little bit about border security, necessary changes on the border. Which way do you recommend? I think this way. It should be just right down here on our left. Border security, some issues with critical infrastructure. Necessary changes for the transportation and security administration, things like that. So we've got a memo for you here with an opening statement and questions for the inspector general. You're going to

be there. I'm on the floor. 11 o 'clock. 11 o 'clock. Oh, this is it. Yes, sir. Can you hear it? It might be on the other side. It's getting in there, groove. I am doing my best. It's tough right now.

This is it. Please say yes. I don't think you're going to come in. Will they otherwise? I don't think they're in there. Is this you? The chairman of the Commerce Committee now also joining us. I'm always want to recognize Senator Stevens because he chose. He could bump me as chairman. So I'm grateful that he's not chosen. I do want to masterize that tip for our opinion instead of sitering. But the comments can be. Senator Lee, we thank you. Thank you very much. I'm Chairman. Thank you for your time. I must say that working with you on this committee has been one of the great posters of my 16 years in the United States Senator. You really set a standard for bipartisan leadership. And I have to think ultimately that the nation has benefited from that and the work that we've done together. I look forward to this new session.

Continuing that work. I also want to welcome the new members of the committee. Those two promising rookies, Senator's Warner, and you mentioned. A little bit. It's like pulling Richard Clements of rookies. I only wish John that you were being compensated to the same level. It's quite a tribute to this committee, really, that as you look around it, that we have. Senator Steven, Senator Domenici, Senator Warner. I don't know. I said, Senator Levin, Senator Cockley, who's in real. Real stature in the Senate. This may have become, in some sense, the committee of committees, you know. But anyway, I'm honored by the two senior members who have joined us. And also, we're going to welcome Senator Colburn. I look forward to what's going to be a pleasure to get to know you. I'm working with you. Madam Chairman, as you well know, this is the first hearing of our newly named committee,

the Homeland Security and Domenici Affairs Committee. It's quite appropriate that we're considering, as a matter of oversight, the state of our homeland security department. I'm looking at the road ahead. We've been in substantial accomplishments over the last three years. And I think one of the most important tasks we can perform in these two years is to oversee the implementation of what we have started. Even before our jurisdiction was formally expanded and named, this committee took the lead in restructuring our government, post -September 11, to make our people safer. We've had, I'm proud to say, some historic and far -reaching successes. Last members, obviously, ended with the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act. Remaking, we hope, an intelligence structure designed originally to fight the cold

war into one that is designing how to address the 21st century challenges out one, the 9 -11 Commission. Before the 9 -11 Commission, they're reported. We acted to address glaring weaknesses in our homeland defense, revealed by the tragic events of 9 -11 by creating the Department of Homeland Security. Scores of federal agencies had some responsibility for our homeland defense, but no single agency was clearly in charge. Homeland defense was organized because everyone was responsible, but no one was accountable. The American people were left vulnerable. Since its creation, the Department of Homeland Security has become a default point in the fight against terrorism here at home and is now the place where citizens, state and local officials, first responders, and the private sector can look for leadership and

resources in protecting the American people from terrorist attack. But the Department of Homeland Security, which just celebrated its second birthday on January 20th, but because the Department's mission is so vital to securing our nation from attacks that are clear and present danger, and identifying and systematically removing those obstacles must be a top priority for the administration and for Congress. The Department has made a real progress, understandable, but troubling, because beyond the crisis of the day, this Department needs to stand up and defend us from the crisis of tomorrow. A few undersecretary, as the CSI has heard, the poor recommendation of a new undersecretary was needed to develop a homeland security policy for the country, so that our national priorities are known and everyone's responsibilities and roles

are clear. The encouraging news is that legislation we passed at the end of the last session requires the Department of Homeland Security to lay out its overall strategy as part of its long -term budgeting process. The time this legislation passes, the Department must make certain that those officials responsible for integrating disparate systems and processes the CIO, the CFO, and others have sufficient authority to get the job done. It cannot tolerate that the Department relies on authority to not align with responsibilities from the reports that some of our witnesses will present today. That seems to be precisely and disciplined for the string of highly regarded, fully non -partisan reports that we've read. We've not invested enough in securing our courts or our rail systems in defending our borders,

or in preparing for bioterrorism attacks. I know we're operating in a resource -streamed environment, but we simply can't go in this direction and expect that the people of DHS are going to do the job we want them to do. Today we're going to hear some proposals for reform. As we consider them, I want to note that the intelligence and therapy administration to make sure that we faithfully implement these new provisions. I'm sure again, thank you for convening. This important hearing is the first of this session for this newly named respectful and powerful women defense. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We have interrupt the hearing very briefly to have a very brief business meeting so that we can do this one item of business and that is to approve the committee's funding resolution. A copy of it is in the red

folder set before each of you. This has been cleared on both sides. The funding resolution is identical to the resolution for the last Congress except the dates and the numbers have been changed to meet the guidance of the rules committee. I wouldn't know if that's true. I'm trying to do it for support resolution. I don't know if it's for the rest of the year. I have a question. He's ambitious. I don't know if that's true. It is. Are there any other comments? We have a motion pursuant to Senate real 26 paragraph 9. A motion has been made. Is there a second for the funding resolution? Thank you. All those in favor say I opposed. There's nothing further. The resolution will be reported in this business meeting this adjourned. We now return to the hearing and I think the indulgence of our witnesses. We need to have the money keep going within Sarah. Thank you. I have promised members have

an opportunity for brief opening remarks today. But I would ask the members to be very brief so that we can get to our witnesses. Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. The committee will not hold the hearing and the nominee to accept it. I don't know if that's true or not. You will have to hear if we leave that purpose. And I urge members to be brief also. We haven't reported as seriously. Sorry. Thank you. Senator, a comment. That will determine if I have some comments here. I mean, I said my full burden statement would be included in the hearing market. One of the things I'd like to join you as well. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator. Usually we call the early verdict roll, but today I'll be very very brief. I'll be very brief. Actually, I did not read your analysis or your testimony, but I think the biggest problem we have is not the problem of what we are not doing, but what we are doing. Because I believe there is a significant lack of prioritization. We cannot cover every risk that people dream of. If we did, we would spend more on this than the defense of our nation, and we would give everybody

what they want. Every small fire department across the country would want new fire trucks because they are part of the homeland security, and that's not disparity in the fire department. There are many others just like it. So I am very worried that this process could be, to the funding for homeland security, be the most recent piggyback Christmas tree that we don't call it, or congressional wishes. And I don't know what this committee can do about it, because it's principally an appropriation problem. But when a senator, Senator Lieberman, says we have to do more than any problem, making sure that things have been getting there by chance and bringing some light. You can't do all of that, and do all the other things that we are asking to be done by this committee. I have those who want to use this for them. I don't know Mr. Wormack, but

I think it is really paramount, because if you are here for now, people look at this and say, you know, we thought we were doing homeland security, but essentially they didn't do a big thing because we weren't so many things we shouldn't do. Every city in America is not under risk of attack by terrorists. They might think they are, or they might be worried about it, but somebody has to determine which, why, and what will, on every issue that we call them. I believe that you and the ranking member have a very serious responsibility for it. Everybody is going to be asking, you know, every time between 10 months. I would like to say, it's very hard for people now. The truth of the matter is we cannot be in risk -free from America. I don't think you have to be at risk, or you

just can't afford it. Thank you. Thank you. Senator, prior to your light, I'd like to have you back. I know, given your seniority on the committee and the change in ratio, that had to work to remain on the committee, you were very happy that you did. Thank you so much, Senator. Thank you. Chair, I look forward to working with you over the next two years in the development of the entire committee and the members here. I look forward to hearing from the panel today, and hopefully we'll focus on making America more secure, a very real meeting in the way. I'd like to get your thoughts on that. I have a statement for you. All statements will be added to another record of cigarette. Senator Warren. I'm not in charge of that, but I think you know where I am. Thank you for the opportunity to serve with me. We have a long association on the armed service committee.

And I view the work of this committee has been parallel in America, the federal world, on the ability to protect our nation. And I think that I can work with you. The carefully following, we've just been involved in the art of the separation between power, by the law, and power of the protection. We've gotten a wrench. I've had a seamless concept of techniques. Also, I was privileged to be a member of the armed service committee, working in the Senate to go over and over and over and over. I think it's the year. I think it's the year. It's the year. It's the year. It's the year. It's the year. It's the year. It's the year. It's the year. It's the year. It's the

year. It's the year. It's the year. It's the year. Senator, please be sure that you flipped the Fed, can we ask you some of the questions we gave. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Member. I would forward to sharing with you and with you some testimony that's important to you. Thank you, Senator Palmer. Thank you. It's a great feedback. I appreciate your relationship. And I appreciate it as the moment I was receiving an incredible strength in the bipartisan leadership armistice committee. It was pretty respectful. I remember all of us, I still accept. As you be here, I'll look forward to your testimony. Thank you. You've been one of our most active members more delighted to have you back. I'd now like to turn to our patient witnesses.

Our first witness today is Richard Alsanson, Homeland Security. Dr. Cara Fano is the co -author of the study that we will be discussing today. Following him will be Michael Werman, the senior policy advisor, analyst and domestic terrorism at the Rand Corporation. I had the pleasure. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're rolling. We thank you so much. We really appreciate you cooperating with us. The idea is almost just like if we just have a conversation, as I'm an old friend, Tiffany's boy, and it's just really the inner of the idea, the inner is just to get a sense of the old sense of the old sense of the kind of center. I mean, to feed them that. Well, Peter and I both went to UNM, and we were in a biology class together. So I remember him sort of as an older student in the biology class, sort of a nice -looking man, or, I guess, young man at the time, and just that we were in the biology class together, maybe in a

lab together. And he usually wore a long big overcoat, and I would see him around campus, and I knew the fraternity that he belonged to. I knew some of the other people in that fraternity. So I don't have, like, a real startling kind of picture in my mind. Other than he was a very confident, kind of easygoing, nice -looking, not real picky fellow, and I'd like to know him more. When was the first time you thought, boy, this fellow is so special? I guess that was maybe more of a gradual type of thing. We went out on a double date, and I thought I was going out with the other fellow, and not with Pete. I remember we went to a movie, and we were talking about this the other night. Did he think he was going out with the other gal? But he doesn't remember. But anyway, I do remember that

first date. And as for being something special, he liked to talk about ideas, kind of ponder over thoughts and issues, and wasn't gossipy, wasn't a very proscenicity, didn't complain if things were late, or they were early, or didn't seem to go right. So we started dating when I think I was a sophomore, and maybe I was a freshman or sophomore, and he was a junior or senior in college. What do you think was the quality that first made you attractive to him? Where I'm going is, was there something early on that you could see, boy, there was something special about this guy? Well, he wasn't like extra funny. He wasn't like a real jock

in those attractive senses. But I did like the way he talked and thought about things. And like I said before, he liked to kind of ramble on about different ideas or circumstances that were going on. So it was interesting to be with him. Perhaps that's the best way to describe it. I guess if you only had one thing to describe Senator Domenici to someone you'd never met before, what would be the one thing you would say? Well, overall, he loves America. He loves the American way of life. And he just feels so good about what this country does and what it stands for, that you kind of absorb that when you're around him after a while.

Do you want to put what was your reaction? What he first entered politics would have been married maybe six, seven, eight years. And by that time, we had a bundle of kids. So I was sort of in my own world, attending little folks, and being the feeder and the transportation master of the family. So one night he was supposed to stay home and babysit while I was managing some kind of bridge money razor for church, my sort of big thing at the time. And I came home and he had asked the girl across the street to babysit, and he had gone out and talked with his friends and confirmed that he was going to run for office. So it wasn't like we had long -term plans of one of these days I want to run for office. He was influenced by working downtown and he was a lawyer, so he would ruminate with other lawyers about problems of the city. He knew what the city

council was like. And he decided that he wanted to make some changes if possible. But it wasn't like we had long discussions about this is my future, and what do you think about it? It was sort of like, that's what I'm going to do. And I knew he was excited about it. It's better to have an excited spouse that's working than somebody that doesn't like his job. You know what that brings up? He was a teacher. I mean, quite love teaching, but that was short -lied. What was that like for you, the transition from being a teacher and deciding, now I'm going to become an attorney? You know, I wasn't married to Pete at the time. I knew him, and he was teaching for a year and then decided to go to law school. And we didn't get married until his last year of law school. So even though I knew he was teaching, it wasn't a transition period for me. It was knowing him as a law student.

Now most people have no idea about mounting a campaign, and obviously since you all did it so quickly, it happened very fast. What was it like when you first became, I got elected to the City Commission, and then he became, in fact, the de facto mayor that all happened so fast? That was a real short campaign. I can't remember it exactly, but it seemed like it might have been 30 to 90 days, like maybe announced in January and in March, you're elected, and shortly thereafter, you were working. You had the position. So it wasn't a lot of going or whole around the state, it wasn't like going to every event for six months. I did go to some of the events with him, but again, I had the small family, small in age, I mean, and when he transitioned to be on the City Commission, again, I had no idea what the City Commission entailed. I guess my head was in the sand, I don't know. But

they always met on a Monday or Tuesday night. That was a late night. But somehow or other, Pete, because he got, I think the most votes during that election, was the chairman. And at that time, we didn't have a mayoral system. We had an executive manager in the City. But Pete did an awful lot, and I think other commissioners did too, and they were paid very, very little. So he spent time going to functions or looking over situations or meeting with companies. And we did get quite a few phone calls at home. In fact, I'll just inject here. I admire anybody on the City Council or the school board where they're locally elected, and you're just open to any wish or thought that somebody has. It's really admirable. And they never get credit for it. Now, in four years, he decided to run for governor. What was that? I'm trying to give that context of a lot of people say that when you lose, it makes you better, or you learn

something. And he's both his sister and Judge Frankini said, he's pretty upset about Percy lost a Bruce King. What was that made? What was the suddenly in four years he's run in for governor? What was that like? Again, it was sort of a gradual going to something else. I think he found out that he liked being in his sort of leadership, making decisions, coming together with other people to focus on some problem, not tending to lots of details, which as a lawyer, he didn't like, and probably was not very good at. So he liked the things that it took to be in that role, and it was his best characteristics. So when the opportunity to run for governor came up, I think he was eager to try a new elected position. During that campaign, again, I did go around the state more, and met a variety of people, so

it was eye -opening. But again, the governorship, not the campaign, was something like, over the rainbow, I had no idea what that would have entailed either. I think he probably did, because New Mexico is such a small state that people, no matter where they live in New Mexico, no state legislators pretty much firsthand, and they know what the governor does. No, but he lost. Was that especially hard for him to take, or did he do soul searching, or how about that? You probably should ask him, for me, that night, after the election was so deflating, we came home, and for some reason, all the beds were full, except for one twin bed. And I remember sleeping in that twin bed and crying. I think that he'd had his let down at the Hilton Hotel when the election results were coming in, and he faced the crowd of folks there that had worked so hard to try to elect him. He also knew that he hadn't been practicing law himself, so the income was necessary for our

families. I think sort of was jolted back into, well, I got to go back to work. Now, then he decided to run for the Senate. He'd mentioned, you know, what kind of gamble was that in 1972? And it was not cheap. Like you said, it was a large family. That wasn't just something that maybe today don't people look quite get what that was like. But, you know, I have no idea what the campaign cost now, looking back. I know on our family, he was not earning money as a lawyer because he was not working that much. And Tom Bottom, his partner, used to say he was the only single man that was supporting eight kids and a wife and a husband. But he had settled some kind of large lawsuit, thank heavens, that came effective during that time. And when you run for a campaign now, it takes so much time to raise money. I don't think the portion of your time then

was as hard as it might be now. I mean, if you see all the millions of dollars in most of the campaign races. No, we're going to have to stop for just a second to tell that phone. Sorry, we should have shut that door, I guess. We're going to reload and manage the online. That's a good time. Okay, so we'll stop. Thank you.