[Senate Hearing 107-560] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 107-560 PRESIDENT BUSH'S PROPOSAL TO CREATE A DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JUNE 20, 2002 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs 80-607 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman CARL LEVIN, Michigan FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio MAX CLELAND, Georgia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM BUNNING, Kentucky MARK DAYTON, Minnesota PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Staff Director and Counsel Michael L. Alexander, Professional Staff Member Richard A. Hertling, Minority Staff Director William M. Outhier, Minority Chief Counsel Ellen B. Brown, Minority Senior Counsel Jayson P. Roehl, Minority Professional Staff Member Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statement: Page Senator Lieberman............................................ 1 Senator Thompson............................................. 3 Senator Levin................................................ 5 Senator Collins.............................................. 7 Senator Carnahan............................................. 8 Senator Voinovich............................................ 10 Senator Durbin............................................... 13 Senator Bennett.............................................. 15 Senator Dayton............................................... 16 Senator Cochran.............................................. 18 Senator Cleland.............................................. 18 Senator Stevens.............................................. 19 Senator Akaka................................................ 21 Senator Bunning.............................................. 22 Senator Carper............................................... 23 Senator Fitzgerald........................................... 24 WITNESSES Thursday, June 20, 2002 Hon. Tom Ridge, Director, Office of Homeland Security............ 25 Hon. Gary Hart, Co-Chair, U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century........................................... 58 Hon. Warren B. Rudman, Co-Chair, U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century.................................. 60 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Hart, Hon. Gary: Testimony.................................................... 58 Ridge, Hon. Tom: Testimony.................................................... 25 Prepared statement........................................... 77 Rudman, Hon. Warren B.: Testimony.................................................... 60 Appendix President's Proposed Bill for Homeland Security.................. 84 President's Proposal for the Department of Homeland Security..... 119 Excerpts from ``Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change,'' March 15, 2001, The Phase III Report of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century................... 148 Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury Employees Union, prepared statement............................ 170 Questions for the record and responses from: Hon. Tom Ridge............................................... 184 Hon. Gary Hart............................................... 211 Hon. Warren B. Rudman........................................ 215 PRESIDENT BUSH'S PROPOSAL TO CREATE A DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ---------- THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2002 U.S. Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Durbin, Cleland, Carper, Carnahan, Dayton, Thompson, Stevens, Collins, Voinovich, Cochran, Bennett, Bunning, and Fitzgerald. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN Chairman Lieberman. The Committee will come to order. Good morning. This morning, the Committee returns to its consideration of the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security--a focused domestic defense agency which would guard our great country against those who seek to suppress our values and destroy our way of life by terrorizing our people. Our challenge and our responsibility, after September 11, is to adapt, respond, and reform to protect the American people from future terrorist attacks. There should be no contention on this matter. We have so much more strength, wealth, talent, and technology than our enemies have, and we have our enduring faith, unity, and patriotism to guide us in our work. If you look at American history, you see two remarkable realities, which is that no matter how much we change to meet the challenges of each succeeding generation, we have stayed, in essence, the same people with the same values. Now we have got to change again to become not just safer, but better. In part, this is a matter of executive reorganization, but it is also more broadly a test of whether we can transform the people's government at a time of crisis against the friction of entrenched interests while protecting our fundamental freedoms. The urgency of our circumstances after the terrorist attacks of September 11, requires us to proceed with a singular focus on swiftly creating a new department of our government that has an unequivocal mission, broad jurisdiction, defined lines of authority, and adequate resources to get the job of homeland security done. In our work here, we have strong foundations to build on-- the excellent work done by the Hart-Rudman Commission, whose co-chairs we will hear from today. The proposal reported out of this Committee last month, and the President's proposal of 2 weeks ago, all call for a Cabinet-level Homeland Security Department. I am very grateful that the President's plan is, in many respects, similar to our Committee's proposal. That will certainly make our work here more manageable, but there are differences between the two plans, and we will have to reconcile them. We must also be open to construct the additions of ideas not included in either proposal or adequately covered in either proposal. Remember, we are not trying to create the biggest department here possible, but we are determined to build a structure that will give the American people the best protection we can give them. With all due respect to some who will criticize this reorganization, this is not about rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship; this is about building a stronger ship of state that is better equipped to carry the American people safely through the rough waters ahead. Now among the unsettled questions we face in our work are the following: First, we have to improve the collection of domestic terrorism intelligence, and decide how best to redress the awful lack of coordination and information sharing among key agencies of our government. The FBI and the CIA, now appears to have been the most glaring failure of our government leading up to September 11. The Committee's legislation would create a statutory office for combatting terrorism within the White House to oversee such coordination. The President's proposal would create an Information Analysis Center in the Department of Homeland Security which would collect and analyze intelligence. Neither proposals may be adequate to meet terrorist threats. Others have suggested, for instance, that we should take an even bolder step by creating a domestic intelligence agency similar to those in Britain and other European countries, perhaps within the Department of Homeland Security, perhaps outside it. We should consider those alternatives and others as well. Second, we must determine how best to integrate the resources and expertise of our military into this effort. The Department of Defense itself is in the process of being refocused to meet the challenges of asymmetrical, high-tech terrorist threats. A new modern command headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado, is being created, which will take on the responsibility of homeland defense for the Pentagon. So a Department of Homeland Security that ignores these evolving plans of our military will be the weaker for it. Third, we must optimize coordination between the new Department of Homeland Security and the hundreds of thousands of local police officers, fire fighters, emergency response workers, and public health officials on the front lines in our States, counties and municipalities. Those professionals, those public servants can be critically important, not just as first responders, but as intelligence gatherers. They must be in the mix, not on the sidelines, as we formulate this new agency. They will need to receive significant additional funds to do the job that we are asking them to do. I know there are likely to be other important areas that will need resolution and clarification, but I feel very strongly that this cannot be a leisurely process. Slowly, but surely, will not do it in this case. We must proceed swiftly and surely because our terrorist enemies have clearly not abandoned their intention to do the American people terrible harm. So I hope to move this legislation through the Committee and to the Senate floor by mid-July. I hope we can pass it and send it to the President by September 11, at best, or by the end of the session, at least. After September 11, the meaning of security has changed in America. The painful fact is that we allowed ourselves to become vulnerable, but as we rebuild and raise our defenses, we must not grow fearful, we must not begin to believe that future successful terrorist attacks are inevitable or that future loss of American life must be accepted as a necessary casualty of freedom. That is why we need to raise our guard and organize our strength quickly and surely in this new department. A long time ago, in 1777, William Pitt, the elder, advised the British, with regard to the feisty colonies that had broken away from the Crown that by securing their freedom, America cannot be conquered. Two hundred and twenty-five years later, we will prove Pitt right again. Creating a Department of Homeland Security now is, in fact, a direct fulfillment of the mission that those feisty and principled Founders of ours gave us, who are privileged to serve today in our Federal Government when, they wrote the Preamble to our Constitution. ``To form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.'' When we come together in this session of Congress to create this new department, as I am confident we will, we will have formed a more perfect union, ensure domestic tranquility, provide it for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Senator Thompson. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMPSON Senator Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The legislation we are considering today has been preceded by a national consensus that is rarely achieved. Most Americans now clearly agree that deficiencies in our homeland security must be addressed for reasons too obvious to mention. A structural change in our Executive Branch institutions, and hopefully later on our Legislative Branch, clearly, will be part of the solution to making our country safer. I am very pleased that Governor Ridge could be here with us today. Governor, you are, without a doubt, the Nation's foremost expert on President Bush's reorganization proposal, and I must say your leadership over the past 10 months has been outstanding. You effectively coordinated the Federal Government's response to several different crises and built from scratch the Office of Homeland Security. You have also been a reassuring presence to the American people. We are also joined today by Senators Hart and Rudman. It took courage a year and a half ago to propose a massive reorganization of Federal Government's homeland security efforts. Prior to September 11, there seemed to be no reason to reorganize on such a grand scale, yet you were not detered. You pressed on. Today, you can say you had the right idea and can be credited as the fathers of the concepts behind the President's proposal and Senator Lieberman's bill. Gentlemen, you displayed a considerable foresight in devising your proposal, and your country owes you a debt of gratitude. When this Committee considered Senator Lieberman's bill, I had thought that, while a new statutory framework with a head confirmable by the Senate was necessary, a coordinator of the many government agencies relating to homeland security was probably preferable to a new department. It seemed impossible to bring in all of the homeland security-related agencies into a new department. Mainly, I thought that it would be impossible to pass any legislation without the support of the administration, and that we should wait until the administration had an opportunity to make its own assessment. Well, now it has done so. Over the past 10 months, the President's Office of Homeland Security closely examined every facet of our homeland security effort. It considered numerous homeland security organization proposals that emerged from outside studies, commissions and Members of Congress. The administration eventually came to the conclusion that reorganization on a grand scale needed to be done. The President's proposal would not have been possible had the administration not taken the time to conduct this comprehensive review. This legislative proposal is unique in many ways. Reorganization on this scale has not occurred for 50 years. It moves 22 agencies and programs, with just 170,000 employees, in a total proposed fiscal year 2003 budget of nearly $38 billion. While it is very bold in scope, it is very brief in detail. It gives the new Secretary broad authority to organize his new department without telling him how to do it, unlike other reorganization proposals of the past. While I think that this is a good thing for the most part, it will surely engender much discussion, as it should. We should not shy away from the fact that while some bureaucracies will be reduced or eliminated, we are creating a large new bureaucracy with new leadership, a new culture, and a new mission. It is going to be complex and difficult. However, even advocates of smaller government realize that it is a mission vital to the security of this Nation. Protecting the citizens of this country is the most important responsibility of this government. This new department must improve communication between our border agencies, protect our critical infrastructure, provide up-to-date analysis of the threats facing our Nation, and improve and streamline coordination of the Federal Government's emergency response efforts. Moreover, it will also have to work to ensure that the new department has a clear mission understood by all of its employees, sufficient research and development capacity, as well as adequate talent for its new Intelligence Analysis Unit. Now, during this process, we should also consider what tools that we must give the administration and the Secretary for this new department. The President has requested that the Secretary be given great latitude in redeploying resources, both human and financial. I believe the Secretary will need as much flexibility as possible. The ability to develop its own acquisition system, for example, would be an invaluable tool for this new department. Information technology is not something that the Federal Government does very well, but in this new department, information technology must serve as a key backbone by tying different offices together and allowing the department to share and analyze critical information. Moreover, the department should have significant flexibility in hiring processes and compensation systems and practices. Homeland security is too important not to have a high-performance, accountable workforce. Creating a results- based framework of clear strategic and annual goals linking day-to-day operations to these goals and understanding results being achieved should be guiding principles for this new organization. But while considering what this new department must, and should, do, let us be clear about what creating this new department will not do. It does not address what I consider to be the most immediate and troubling deficiencies in our country's intelligence and counterintelligence/counterterrorist capabilities. The areas of most immediate concern, quite frankly, even more than reorganization in our battle against terrorism, have to do with the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence information. Clearly, the FBI, the CIA and other intelligence-related agencies are in need of substantial reform, a different mind-set and a different way of doing business. Reform must be done, not as a part of homeland security legislation, but within those agencies themselves. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I know that we are going to work long and work hard under your leadership and the initiatives that you have already taken in this area. Because of the scope of what we are doing, the importance of what we are doing, and the fact that once passed into law, this new framework will be a part of the American fabric forever, let us take the time necessary to carefully consider all of the issues presented by this legislation. Then we can move forward together with the confidence that we have truly taken a major step toward enhancing our Nation's security. Thank you very much. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Thompson, for the very thoughtful statement. I look forward to working with you on this with the same sense of purpose, and shared purpose, that you and I have had in so many other matters we have worked on together. Senator Levin. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your leadership in this area. The bill that you have introduced, and which we have now passed in this Committee and is now on the calendar, is going to be the bill that we will use as the beginning point, the starting point for what has to be done and has to be done quickly. I want to join you in welcoming Governor Ridge and our witnesses. He has done an outstanding job in the few months that he has been on the job, and we want to thank him for that. As we look forward to changes that have to be brought about, we do not want to overlook the work that he has done. We should not kid ourselves or the public about the complexities involved in developing this major reorganization. We know you have to crack some eggs to make an omelette. We have to make sure that when we crack the eggs, we don't end up with scrambled eggs. For example, the agencies that are being proposed to move to a new department are, in many cases, agencies that are currently broken--the INS, to name just one. We have to make every effort to reform agencies that need reform as we move them to a new department, rather than simply transferring a broken agency, and that is going to take some time and some real effort. Of particular concern to most of us is whether or not this department is going to improve the coordination and the analysis of intelligence information. As important as the restructuring of our agencies and functions is, it pales in significance when compared to the need to change and reform the way in which we do not adequately analyze and utilize intelligence information. I am going to come back to that in a moment, but first a word of history. We have been around this block before many times in the last 15 years. Starting in 1986, when the Director of the CIA created the DCI Counterterrorist Center, or the CTC, for the CIA to defeat terrorism, a major responsibility of the CTC was to coordinate the intelligence community's counterterrorist activities and the sharing of information. When one goes to the Central Intelligence Agency's website and reads the functions of the Counterterrorist Center, it sounds exactly like what still needs to be done. The CTC's mission is to assist the Director in coordinating the counterterrorist efforts of the intelligence community. And now I am reading the website of the Counterterrorist Center. ``By implementing a comprehensive counterterrorist operations program to collect intelligence on, and minimize the capabilities of, international terrorist groups and State sponsors; exploiting all source intelligence to produce in- depth analyses of the groups and States responsible for international terrorism; coordinating the intelligence community's counterterrorist activities.'' Sound familiar? It is what still needs to be done and what has not been done. In 1989, with the explosion of the Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, the Counterterrorist Center was showcased as the promising innovation to respond to that terrorist act in a coordinated and effective way. In 1994, President Clinton issued a presidential decision directive to foster increased cooperation, coordination and accountability among all U.S. counterintelligence agencies. That directive created a new structure under the National Security Council, a new National Counterintelligence Center, led by a senior executive in the FBI, and it required the exchange of senior managers between the CIA and the FBI to ensure close and timely coordination between the two agencies. That directive was issued after a review of intelligence operations following the Aldrich Ames espionage investigation and highlighted the need for improvements in the coordination of our counterintelligence activities, and on and on. After the terrorist embassy attacks in Nairobi and Tanzania, the general counsel of the CIA was quoted as saying that the CIA and the FBI had to confront their lack of cooperation, but that they were making some headway in the investigation. In September 1998, after a meeting of more than 200 officials from across the country in Washington to discuss emergency preparedness, in light of the growing fear of terrorism, the domestic preparedness coordinator in Atlanta was quoted as saying, ``even we often do not know who to talk to at the Federal level.'' Addressing the failures of coordination, both within agencies and between agencies, is not just a question of coordination between our agencies, it is a question of coordination within agencies, which we have found does not exist in our intelligence hearings which are going on right now. So, as important as the shifting of functions is from one agency to another so that we have a much greater Homeland Security Agency with responsibility and accountability--it pales in significance when compared to the need to get our intelligence act together, to put together the information in one place, where it can be assessed, where it can then be acted upon, and most importantly, where somebody can be held accountable. That accountability does not exist now. We must make sure that it is created, and I consider that to be our greatest chore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much, Senator Levin. Senator Collins. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing. Our purpose, which is to begin examining President Bush's proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security is of utmost importance. The decisions that Congress will make over the next several weeks on reorganizing the Executive Branch will have both near- and long-term consequences for the preservation of our democratic institutions, our national security, and the success of the war against terrorism. Two of our distinguished witnesses this morning, former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart, have noted that we face a threat that is neither conventional war, nor traditional crime, and combatting it requires new government structures, new policies, and new thinking. They are absolutely right. The President has recognized that reality by proposing a bold and unprecedented reorganization of the Executive Branch to bolster homeland security. Since September 11, much has been done to make our Nation more secure. Congress has approved billions of dollars to help beef up security. The administration has created an Office of Homeland Security and proposed tens of billions of dollars in additional spending to secure our borders, protect critical infrastructure and train first responders. The President has also recently signed into law legislation to help us deter, detect and respond to a bioterrorism attack. There is still much work that remains to be done, including reorganizing the Federal Government to provide the best possible structure to deal with the current and future threats to our security. One must improve coordination among Federal, State and local governments, as well as the private sector. We must have adequate funding. We must avoid wasteful duplication. We must have realistic plans and effective training and exercises. We also must ensure that information about the presence of terrorists and potential threats is shared among Federal agencies so that the Berlin Walls that have impeded communication and cooperation are taken down once and for all. As many as 100 Federal agencies, with hundreds of thousands of Federal employees, now share responsibility for homeland security. When that many entities are responsible, nobody is really accountable, and turf wars and bureaucratic barriers are inevitable. The President's plan may not be perfect and there are many questions, but it certainly represents an excellent beginning. It will remedy many of the weaknesses in our current structure, including a patchwork of agencies and the resulting lack of focus, poor communication, myriad jurisdictional rivalries, and the inadequate sharing of intelligence and information generally. The magnitude and complexity of the tasks before us are daunting. The implications of our decisions are great. While we cannot afford to rush to a judgment that we will later regret, we also cannot afford to delay. We must get this one right, for our future may well depend on it. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much, Senator Collins. Senator Carnahan. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARNAHAN Senator Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor Ridge, I want to thank you for answering your country's call to duty during such perilous times. Our Nation is very grateful. In one of Shakespeare's plays, two people meet who have not seen each other for some time, and one does not recognize the other. The one that is unrecognized explains: ``Grief hath changed me since you saw me last.'' Well, grief, and fear, and insecurity have changed the face of America, and we are now having to think about things that we did not even dream as being imaginable many years ago. During this time of uncertainty, the American people are looking to their government for leadership. Since September 11, under the guidance of Senator Lieberman, this Committee has been laying the groundwork to develop a national strategy to secure our homeland. We learned from our hearings that our government is currently not structured to meet the new threats that we face. We responded by reporting an excellent bill that would create a Department of Homeland Security, and now we will be perfecting that bill in light of the President's proposal. I commend President Bush for his decision to support the creation of a Homeland Security Agency, and I pledge to work with him to create a strong, effective, and well-equipped agency, one that is robust and ready. The American people rightly demand that the first duty of the Federal Government is to provide security. So we should give this department the personnel and the resources it needs to get the job done. I think it would be a mistake to set arbitrary limits at the beginning of the process; rather, we should establish a clear mission for the department, then dedicate the resources needed to accomplish that mission. As we set about the task of creating the new agency, I want to raise a couple of general thoughts about the capabilities that we will need. First, this agency, more than most, will have to coordinate with State and local governments. Homeland security is a joint responsibility, requiring a partnership of effort. We need to do a better job of making sure that States and localities have the resources they need. I have heard repeatedly from responders in Missouri that they lack the funds for basic equipment to respond to national security threats. Remarkably, despite the clear intentions of Congress, very little funding has made its way down to the local level since September 11. I hope that improving this situation will be among the new agency's priorities. Second, coming from the Heartland, I believe it is important for the administration to focus on developing a strategy to avoid agro-terrorism. Because our farmers feed the world, we need a comprehensive effort to protect our food supply, and we need to implement it right away. Finally, I would like to learn more about the President's proposal to create a division dedicated to protecting Americans from bioterrorism and weapons of mass destruction. I have been focusing on the issue of dirty bombs. The DOD authorization bill that is on the floor contains requirements for the Department of Energy to develop plans for securing radiological materials around the world. Of course, in light of the recent detention of Jose Padilla, we need to increase our vigilance in protecting radiological materials right here in the United States. I will be interested to learn about the administration's plans to do this. I want to thank Governor Ridge, Senator Hart, and Senator Rudman for testifying today. As I said, Senator Lieberman, you have led well, and I know you will continue to point the way in this new effort. I want to close by saying that during the past 9 months, we have heard a great deal about threats, and plots, and dangers, and they certainly do exist, and because they do we must be vigilant, but we must not be fearful. I take solace in the words written by the late Jack Buck, whose passing we mourn this week. Just after the attacks on September 11 he wrote, ``With one voice we say, as our fathers did before, we shall win this unwanted war, and our children will enjoy the future we will be giving.'' Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Carnahan. Senator Voinovich. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you for being one of the Senate's first responders to the President's proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security by scheduling this hearing so expeditiously. I extend a warm welcome to our distinguished witnesses, including Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, who I have had the pleasure of working with in the National Governors' Association and the Council of Great Lakes Governors. It is comforting, Tom, to know that you have been working on this issue for quite some time. I also welcome Senator Hart and Senator Rudman. On June 6, the President announced his proposal to the Nation for the largest government restructuring in over 50 years. The last restructuring of this magnitude resulted in the creation of the Department of Defense, the CIA and the National Security Council in 1947. The creation of a new Department of Homeland Security shows that we are in this fight for the long haul, and it will require a commitment from all of us to win this war on terrorism at home and abroad. As a Federalist, I do not, as a rule, advocate increasing the size or scope of the Federal Government, but this is a necessary strategic reorganization that will coordinate and oversee the full range of domestic security resources to more effectively address the new threats and challenges that we face. Securing our homelands against enemies who have neither territory nor government means we have to be more creative and proactive. Our critical assets include transportation, information network, cyber and telecommunications, energy and power plants, financial markets, our public health system, and most importantly, our people. Protecting Americans from further acts of terrorism is our top national priority. It is an enormous job that involves the cooperations of hundreds of thousands of dedicated local, State and Federal employees who guard the entrances and borders of our country, gather and analyze intelligence, protect our citizens and investigate leads, make arrests, and respond to assist the victims of terrorist attacks. These brave Americans are our Nation's fire fighters, first responders, Federal investigators, ambulance drivers, health care providers, analysts, scientists, and men and women in uniform who work around the clock and around the world. Fifteen short months ago, in February 2001, the Hart-Rudman Commission released its final report on the status of U.S. security in the 21st Century. At the time of the release of that report, I suspect that no one realized how urgently needed the recommendations of that report would be to our national security. One of the Commission's findings was, ``Attacks against American citizens on American soil, possibly causing heavy casualties, are likely over the next quarter century.'' The Commission further stated that, ``The United States finds itself on the brink of an unprecedented crisis of competence in government,'' and that ``the maintenance of American power in the world depends on the quality of the U.S. Government personnel, civil, military, and at all levels.'' Based on my past experiences, I did not support the initial push in Congress to create a new Homeland Defense Agency. As a former governor and mayor, I do not believe Congress should force a management structure on an administration without its input and agreement, and the administration originally did not favor the creation of a Cabinet-level department. The President's new proposal follows months of analysis, and Congress should now work closely with the President to expedite the creation and operation of the new agency. Mr. Chairman, we must set aside partisan differences to ensure that the new Department of Homeland Security has the people, the process, and technology to complete its vital mission. Many have questioned whether it will work, however, citing as examples the past failures of Federal agencies to cooperate, communicate and operate with a level of effectiveness that is needed to get the job done. I hope that because the administration has been so deliberate, and I assume there is strong support within the Executive Branch to create the new department, that the executives in those departments will rise to the occasion and demonstrate the leadership necessary to motivate their employees. The interpersonal skills of those executives and their commitment are going to be very, very important if this reorganization is going to succeed. This new agency is a needed step forward, but without also making it easier to recruit and retain good people, the agency's effectiveness is threatened. Rearranging the furniture will accomplish little without the people to sit on it. We have a real opportunity with this new department to do it right the first time and provide the tools needed for success, including the ability to hire, train and retain the right people. The war on terrorism has been successful so far. At the same time, however, we are losing the war for talent. I would conclude that unless you address the personnel problem, as so well enunciated in the Hart-Rudman report, this reorganization is not going to be successful. Governor Ridge, about a third of the people in five large agencies of this new department are going to retire by the year 2004 or 2005. So we have a critical problem that needs to be addressed. I think you know that we have introduced legislation that represents a broad consensus on some of the things that we need to do across the board to give the government the flexibility to attract and retain the best and brightest people in government. I would hope that that is a major emphasis of reorganization. I know that there are some broad flexibilities that you are asking for the new department. I would like to see exactly what those flexibilities are and how they fit into this legislation that I have been working on for the last couple of years and see if they can be harmonized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you for being one of the Senate's ``First Responders'' to the President's proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security by scheduling this hearing so expeditiously. I extend a warm welcome to all of our distinguished witnesses, including Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and former Senators Hart and Rudman. On June 6, President Bush announced his proposal to the Nation for the largest government restructuring in over 50 years. The last restructuring of this magnitude resulted in the creation of the Department of Defense, the CIA and the National Security Council in 1947. The creation of a new Department of Homeland Security shows that we are in this fight for the long haul, and it will require a commitment from all us to win this war on terrorism at home and abroad. As a Federalist, I do not, as a rule, advocate increasing the size or scope of the federal government, but this is a necessary strategic reorganization that will coordinate and oversee the full range of domestic security resources to more effectively address the new threats and challenges we face. Securing our homeland against enemies who have neither territory nor government means we have to be more creative and proactive. Our critical assets include transportation, information networks (cyber and telecommunications), energy and power plants, financial markets, our public health system, and most importantly, our people. Protecting Americans from further acts of terrorism is a top national priority. It is an enormous job that involves the cooperation of hundreds of thousands of dedicated local, state, and federal employees who guard the entrances and borders of our country, gather and analyze intelligence, protect our citizens and investigate leads, make arrests, and respond to assist the victims of terrorist attacks. These brave Americans are our nation's firefighters and first responders, federal investigators, ambulance drivers and health care providers, analysts, scientists and men and women in uniform who work around the clock, around the world. Fifteen short months ago (in February 2001) the Hart-Rudman Commission released its final report on the status of our national security. One of the Commission's findings was that ``Attacks against American citizens on American soil, possibly causing heavy casualties, are likely over the next quarter century.'' The Commission stated further that, ``The United States finds itself on the brink of an unprecedented crisis of competence in Government,'' and that ``The maintenance of American power in the world depends on the quality of U.S. Government personnel, civil, military, and at all levels.'' Based on my past experiences, I did not support the initial push in Congress to create a new homeland defense agency. As a former governor and mayor, I do not believe Congress should force a management structure on an Administration without its input and agreement and the Administration originally did not favor creation of a cabinet level Department. The President's new proposal follows months of analysis and Congress should now work closely with the President to expedite the creation and operation of this new agency. Mr. Chairman, we must set aside our partisan differences to ensure that the new Department of Homeland Security has the people, the process, and the technology to complete its vital mission. Many have questioned whether it will work, however, citing as examples, the past failures of federal agencies to cooperate, communicate and operate with the level of effectiveness and reliability that is needed to get the job done. Because the Administration has been so deliberate, I assume that there is strong support within the Executive Branch to create the new Department and that the executives will rise to the occasion and demonstrate the leadership necessary to motivate their employees. This new agency is a needed step forward, but without also making it easier to recruit and retain good people, the agency's effectiveness is threatened. Rearranging the furniture will accomplish little without the people to sit on it. We have a real opportunity with this new department-to do it right the first time and provide the tools needed for success: including the ability to hire, train and retain the right people. The war on terrorism has been successful so far. At the same time, however, we are losing the war for talent. In May, I met with representatives from the FBI Agents' Association to discuss the human capital challenges facing their Special Agents. The problems confronting their workforce were similar to the ones I have heard about from almost every federal department and agency: an aging workforce, outdated personnel systems, and not enough new talent coming in the door. The meeting solidified my belief that we must conduct a thorough examination of the federal government's classification and compensation system to assess what is needed by the federal workforce in the 21st century. This is more than a human capital management problem; it's a matter of national security. Classification and compensation reform are only two pieces of the human capital puzzle. According to recent findings from the Partnership for Public Service, nearly one-third of the employees in the five major agencies forming the Department of Homeland Security will be eligible to retire in the next five years. Mr. Chairman, I hope that you find these statistics as troubling as I do. It is imperative that we provide the Administration with new tools to shape and manage a 21st Century federal workforce. To provide the Executive Branch with a foundation for the necessary system, I am pleased to announce that today I am introducing the Federal Workforce Improvement Act of 2002. I developed this legislation after extensive collaboration and cooperation from key stakeholders, including officials from the Bush Administration, former Clinton Administration, our federal employee unions and private and non-profit sector management experts. It is not the 100% solution to our personnel problems, but it provides agencies, managers, and employees with enhanced flexibilities and training needed to accomplish their mission. We must also consider the human resource proposal submitted by the President in his Homeland Security bill. This proposal calls for the creation of a Department with significant flexibility in hiring processes, compensation systems and practices, and a performance management system to recruit, retain, and develop a motivated, high- performance and accountable workforce. It may be the right solution for this agency. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your efforts on this issue, and I look forward to a lively and engaging discussion with our witnesses. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. Senator Durbin. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor Ridge, thank you for being here. Thank you for your service to our country. I believe all of us have said, and it bears repeating, that the President made an excellent choice in asking you to take on this historic responsibility. You have handled it well, we have enjoyed working with you, and I look forward to this experience. I want to thank Senators Hart and Rudman for their continued service to this country. Your recommendations are the backbone for this hearing and for many of the proposals for genuine reform, and thank you for that. Governor Ridge, let me follow up with Senator Voinovich's question because, under his leadership, our Subcommittee has focused on this question of resources in the Federal Government. There has been no greater leader on the issue than Senator Voinovich, who has really reminded us that, as good as the ideas may be, we need the very best men and women in America prepared to serve our country and to make them work. I hope that becomes an important part of this conversation. Second, and I think equally important, is to consider the technical capacity of the Federal Government today to meet this challenge. Several weeks ago, the Attorney General suggested that we might initiate a program of photographing and fingerprinting many of the millions of visa holders who come into the United States each year. Certainly, you can argue that that is a valuable law-enforcement tool and that we want to protect our Nation and its inhabitants from anyone who comes to this country seeking to do something which is evil or wrong. But we have to put it in the context of technical reality, and the context of technical reality tells us that today we are physically incapable of even considering a program of this magnitude. We were told by the Inspector General at the Department of Justice that 6 years ago Congress mandated the Immigration and Naturalization Service to keep track of all exit visas in the United States. We told them get your act together. We want to know who is leaving this country, who had a visa. Six years later, they still have not done it, and according to the Inspector General, they are years away. Three years ago, we told the INS and the FBI, you each are collecting fingerprint databases. Merge them into one so you can work cooperatively together. Three years ago we gave them that mandate. It still has not happened. According to the Inspector General, we are still a long way from seeing it achieved. So the idea of expanding the collection of this data, in a dramatic fashion, to include 100,000, a half-million or 5 million more pieces of information is certainly an interesting goal, but one that is currently unachievable with our current technical capacity and level of cooperation between agencies. I think this has to be a critical part of this conversation. The second thing I would like to point out to you is the whole question of food security. It is something we have talked about, I have discussed with Secretary Thompson and the President, I think that this departmental proposal gets close to considering with the transfer of APHIS into this new Department of Homeland Security. This is a major vulnerability in America that we cannot ignore. The possibility that the next attack is going to be against our food supply is sad reality, but it is a reality, and we have to focus on it. I hope that we can consider, within this new department, some authority to bring together the 12 different Federal agencies responsible for food safety into one scientific, coordinated effort. I hope that can be part of it. The final point I will make is this: There was a recommendation made by Senators Hart and Rudman, also made by General McCaffrey when he testified before this Committee in October of last year, which is not part of either Senator Lieberman's proposal or the President's, that I would commend to all of the Members of the Committee, and that is the suggestion of the role of the National Guard in this conversation. We have an enormous asset in America in our National Guard. We spend about $15 billion a year on the National Guard. We have men and women who are dedicated to the country and show it with the sacrifice that they make, but we clearly can use them, I think, more effectively as part of homeland security. That was suggested by Senators Hart and Rudman, that they would be the front-line force for the defense of America. It was suggested by General McCaffrey as well. I hope that, as we consider the President's proposal, we will go beyond talking of coordination with the National Guard and start actively engaging them in being the front line of defense in every State of the Nation. This is a role they were originally intended to accomplish. It is one that I think they can handle extremely well, and I hope that we can utilize their great resources and talent to make it happen. Thank you for being here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Senator Bennett. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Governor Ridge, welcome. Sometime this morning we will give you an opportunity to talk, but not very soon. [Laughter.] Chairman Lieberman. We are getting there. Senator Bennett. I have two themes, neither one of which will come as a surprise to Members of this Committee. I have discovered there is no such thing as repetition in the Senate, and so I will launch on both my themes again. First, the recognition that, in today's world, as a result of the Information Revolution, a revolution as fundamental as the Industrial Revolution was--everything is connected, and it is connected by computers, it is connected to cyber activity-- and I commend you, Governor Ridge and the administration, for recognizing that in your basic proposal and talking about the importance of information sharing and protection of our critical infrastructure, as represented by computers and high- tech connections. A terrorist who wishes this country ill could bring us to our knees economically without setting off a single bomb. If he could get into the telecommunications system, shut down the Fedwire, there would be no financial transactions of any kind take place in this country. The devastation would be more far- reaching, admittedly not more deadly in terms of human life, but more far-reaching on the economy than a nuclear device set off on Manhattan Island. Your proposal recognizes this. I want to underscore, once again, how important I feel this is. I have a bill that deals with it. We have had a hearing on it in this Committee. We have had hearings on this issue before the Joint Economic Committee, and I want to underscore the fact that you recognize the importance of this, you realize that we are in a brand-new world, that the private sector that owns 85 to 90 percent of the critical infrastructure will not share information about cyber attacks with the government unless they can be sure that that information, when it is shared, is secure. Members on this Committee have heard me on this subject many times, but I do not want to let the opportunity pass without underscoring it once again and making it clear that I am prepared to work with you in any way to see to it that this portion of our protection is given the proper significance and attention. Now the other theme that I have stems from my own experience--and, once again, Members of the Committee have heard this--I was almost present at the creation of the Department of Transportation, which comes closest, I think, to being a parallel to what we are doing here. The FAA was a separate administration, reporting directly to the President; the Highway Administration was in the Commerce Department; the Coast Guard was in the Treasury Department--the Coast Guard seems to be a nomad, being picked up and moved around all over the government here; the Urban Mass Transit Administration was in HUD, and all of these agencies, pulled from a variety of existing departments and circumstances into a central group. When the Nixon Administration took office, and I joined the staff of Secretary Volpe, another distinguished New England governor who came down to try to pull something together, the Department was 18 months old and all over the lot. There was little or no cohesion after 18 months. And I will not bore you with the details of what I went through trying to bring my office together. I was in charge of all congressional liaison. Every single one of the groups I have described, plus several more, had their own congressional liaison operation, and pulling them all together into a single operation that was reporting to and, more important, loyal to the Secretary, was one of the most significant organizational challenges I have had in my young life. Now the point I want to make is do not put your initial proposals as to how the department will be structured or functioned into concrete too soon. We were still making adjustments 10 years later, and Congress thought they gave us flexibility to do that for a long period of time, and when that period of flexibility ran out, we still wished we had it. I say to you, Governor Ridge, and to you, Chairman Lieberman, let us structure this in such a way that the Cabinet officer has as much flexibility as possible, for as long as possible, to move boxes around if, after you discover that putting one thing here makes eminent good sense the first time you do it, and after 9 months or 12 months or 20 months, you say, no, it really belongs over here. Let us leave the CEO of this giant new corporation that we are creating with the flexibility to make those kind of changes on into the further, rather than lock him up on the basis of our wisdom between now and the end of this year. That is the other theme that I feel very strongly about, having lived through a similar kind of experience, and I will burden the Committee with my expertise again and again on this subject because I feel so strongly about it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Bennett. Senator Dayton. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAYTON Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will echo your remarks, Senator Bennett, with regard, when you are hung up through seniority as I am, avoiding the futility of repetition or the futility becomes readily apparent. As my freshman colleague, Senator Nelson, once observed in the Senate, if it has not been said by everyone, it has not been said. I will proceed on that basis to, first of all, say to you, Governor Ridge, as others have, thank you for your very distinguished service to our country at this critical time. Senators Hart and Rudman, I say the same to you. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership in this area. I also thank you for your initiative with the legislation that we are now integrating along with the President's proposals. Your foresight in this has already been demonstrated to have been quite prescient. Thank you. I hope and trust that we can proceed in a good, bipartisan way to bring forth this entity that must serve the entire Nation and must do so very swiftly. My experience parallels Senator Bennett's from the Executive Branch of State Government. There, the reorganization of agencies which I participated in were in the single digit, rather than in the triple digit, and the number of employees involved were in the thousands, rather than the hundreds of thousands. I am sure that you, as the Governor of Pennsylvania, had similar experiences with the perils and pitfalls of reorganization of agencies. Unavoidably, they involve some measure of short-term pain and the hope of long-term gain. In this situation we do not have that luxury of time. We need the short-term gain and the benefits of this coordination, and we need to sustain those benefits over the long-term. I would agree with Senator Bennett. I think one of the keys is to give maximum flexibility to the new Secretary to shape this agency in a way that involves more than just rearranging old administrative boxes. That can enable him or her to eliminate the redundancies and to create the new synergies that are necessary. I also think the problems that the new Secretary and management team will face within the new agency may be less than without the agency. This is because the major intelligence-gathering agencies, such as the CIA, are still outside of this entity, as are the major law-enforcement agencies, such as the FBI. I, in my questioning, would like to inquire as to the reasons, the rationale for excluding the major players in the creation of this other new major player. I would like to ask how it is that it can gain this new entity, the necessary co- equal working status, the access to information and the parallel coordination of activities with these other major intelligence and law-enforcement players. We have seen the lack of effective communication, between the FBI and the CIA. We have seen the lack of effective communication within the FBI itself. So how is this new agency going to gain the necessary status? How will they create the imperative and the willingness of these major agencies to communicate and share information? Then, in addition to instilling the will to communicate, we must provide the way to communicate. I assume that the computers and the communications systems within these 100-plus different entities that are going to be brought together in this new agency are going to be different from one another. In many cases, they are going to be incompatible, as evidently the FBI's are with the CIA's. We have got to provide the necessary funding up front for completely new, state-of-the-art computer communications systems for this agency. If it is appropriate, for the CIA, the FBI hooking up with the National Security Council. We have to bring all of us into the modern era. We can afford to have no less than whatever is called for in this situation to allow these agencies to have as much seamless communication among themselves and within themselves, as they can possibly have. In that regard, I will just say that, in addition to the supreme importance of the selection of the new Secretary of this department, is the importance of the selection of a Deputy Secretary or someone from the private sector who has the experience and expertise with large-scale corporate mergers. This person needs to have dealt with these problems on a hands- on basis so they can provide the maximum amount of expertise and coordination so we can avoid the kind of delays that others have identified that would be, I think, just crucially important in this situation to maximize the expertise we have throughout this country, and much of that is in the private sector, how we can do this as quickly and as efficiently as possible. I trust we will pass this legislation very soon so you can get started immediately. I think that is very important. Come back then and tell us what more is needed, but let us get started. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Dayton. Senator Cochran. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COCHRAN Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening today this hearing to examine, first of all, your legislation for creating a Department of National Homeland Security along with the President's initiative in establishing the Office of Homeland Security and now his proposed legislation to reorganize existing agencies under a new department of government. I think all taken together are very important contributions to enhancing our national security. It is clear that winning the war against terrorism and defending the American people from terrorist attack will require a major reorganization of the government. While reorganization by itself will not be sufficient to secure our Nation from terrorism, it is a very important step. Reorganizing our national security agencies is something that has not been done since 1947, and I think we should learn from that fact that the product we produce, as a Committee, may very well have the same long-lasting effect on our Federal Government, as did the reorganization of 1947. The proposal before us is very important and deserves our very best efforts. I am encouraged, because we are off to a genuine, bipartisan beginning in this effort, that we will be successful in doing something very positive and important for our Nation when we report out legislation to create this new department. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Cochran. Senator Cleland. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CLELAND Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Governor Ridge, good morning, sir. I am proud to be with you. I feel a certain kinship with you, having served in Vietnam and having fought that war. I think that you and I grew up in an era where those of us who served in the military felt that we were doing our country a service and, in effect, defending our homeland by serving abroad because we felt that the enemy was over there and better to fight them over there than here. Quite frankly, I am sure, from time-to-time, that you are like me in that you never dreamed that you would be using the phrase ``homeland defense'' in this particular context. Literally, you are trying to figure out not only how the military can go on the strategic offensive against the bad guys somewhere else in the world over there, but how we can go on the strategic defensive over here and organize ourselves in a better way that protects ourselves and defend ourselves. You may feel, and I have thought about this about your position, you may feel like that drunk who was arrested for the hotel fire, and he told the police officer that, yes, he was drunk, but that bed was on fire when he got in it. [Laughter.] In many ways, I am sure you feel that somewhat. This bed was on fire when you got in it. We would like to help you put that fire out and get better organized in defending our country. A couple of things that have really come to my mind bear on the Armed Services Committee. I have the seat that was formerly held by Senator Nunn. He came to our Committee and talked about his experience in a mock exercise defending our homeland put on by Johns Hopkins last June called ``Dark Winter,'' a mock smallpox attack, and he played the role of the President. He said a few days into it he got very frustrated with bureaucracy. What he was really trying to say was the myriad of the different agencies that seem to be unorganized and have no clear line of communication or general authority. I, also, am reminded of Senator Pat Roberts on the committee about 3 years ago was Chairman of the Emerging Threat Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, and he had a wonderful sense of humor. So at one point he called in about 20 or 30 agencies engaged in so-called homeland defense or bioterrorism preparedness and so forth and told them just to sit in the chairs in the order that they were organized, and of course it was just musical chairs. After September 11, we are all in this boat together, and we have to figure out a way to better organize ourselves. I think, for me, the guideposts for our meeting this challenge are, first, does the new organization or the new proposal help improve communication, coordination and cooperation--the three ``C's.'' They seem to be things we have difficulty with, whether it is at the intelligence community level or at our homeland security level. Second, I do feel that the acid test is it must work for our hometowns. If homeland defense does not work for our hometowns, something is missing, and that is a tremendous challenge. Third, again, building on the Armed Services Committee, I do have some legitimate questions about how the Homeland Security Agency, which I will support and was the original co- sponsor of the legislation that came out of this Committee, how that entity interacts with, shall we say, the Coast Guard and the National Guard and also the new CINC that will be put in charge of military operations in North America and Canada. So there are a lot of questions out there, but I just want to welcome you to the ``burning bed'' here. We are all in it together, and I look forward to putting out the fire. Thank you very much. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Cleland. Senator Stevens. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to tell you, at the beginning, that Senator Byrd and I are working on a response to your letter concerning the impact of this legislation on the appropriations process. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. Senator Stevens. We do hope that you and other Members of the Committee will consider our comments. As a former Chairman of this Committee, I intend to be deeply involved in this process, if possible, because, as my comments will indicate, I have some real problems with it, and I have discussed these previously with Governor Ridge. Last October, the subcommittee of the Commerce Committee dealing with Oceans and Fisheries held a hearing on the role of the Coast Guard and NOAA in strengthening security against marine threats. Following September 11, the Coast Guard diverted numerous cutters to secure ports and began missions of patrolling waters that approach critical infrastructure, such as nuclear power plants, water treatment plant intakes and oil refineries. That was appropriate and necessary in that emergency, and the Coast Guard performed extraordinarily. However, even at that time, the Coast Guard expressed concerns that it could not actively patrol the fishing grounds, could not enforce the Nation's exclusive economic zone from foreign intrusion, and it could not perform other priority missions such as search and rescue, narcotics interdiction, and its role in terms of maintaining the blockade against Iraq. This situation has been attenuated somewhat by resuming the normal activities of the Coast Guard, but having watched those events, I am really concerned about the role and the mission of the Coast Guard in this new department. There are missions that are absolutely vital to our total Nation, particularly vital to our State of Alaska, which has half the coastline of the United States, and the waters off our shores produce half of the fish consumed by the United States. When you look at that and have the total abandonment of that mission by the Coast Guard, as is implied by the concept in this bill, I think that concept requires refinement and deep consideration. We are entirely in support of the concepts of homeland security. The Coast Guard has primarily had a role of external security, not internal security. I know, for political reasons, we are not going to call this the Department of Internal Security, but that is what it will be. To abandon the concept of the Coast Guard, in terms of maintaining the safety of ships off our shore, particularly the small boat safety in the areas of our enormous population centers of the country, would be wrong. To abandon the role of the Coast Guard in the area of maintaining not only the protection of the fisheries, but the safety of our fishing fleets, I think if you look at a place like Dutch Harbor, and, Governor Ridge, I looked at it for a long time because my son used to be captain of one of those king crab boats, three times he went out with three other boats and came back alone. They were 2,000 miles from the Coast Guard. The only thing to save them was the search and rescue capabilities of those Coast Guard helicopters. They were not available because the Coast Guard had been sent on a new Bluewater Mission, in terms of the narcotics interdiction and the patrolling of Iraq. Now we have tried our best to increase the facilities of the Coast Guard to meet their needs, and we have tried to ensure that the country understands what it means to the coastline, what it means to external security which, from my point of view includes the protection of our fisheries. It took us 20 years to get the foreign nations out of our waters and to restore the capability of protecting the reproductivity of the fisheries off our shore. We have done a marvelous job. The major fish--pollock--has increased in its biomass 5 to 10 times since we started managing it correctly and kept the foreigners off of it. If the result of this legislation is to take the Coast Guard off of that mission, it denies the ability to maintain the boats that are necessary to assure the fisheries are patroled, we would lose the largest biomass of fish that has the greatest productivity for the future of the world. I hope that the administration will listen to those of us who represent Alaska. It is unfortunate there are just three of us who represent half the coastline of the United States, but I have been here long enough to think that I can find a way to do that, and I hope that you will give us the cooperation to see to it that we can do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Stevens. Senator Akaka. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wish to welcome our witnesses. Governor Ridge, it is good to have you here. I also want to say good morning to our former colleague, Senator Hart and Senator Rudman, and thank you all very much for the part you have been playing in our national security and for being a springboard for our discussion today. I join with the themes and concerns expressed by my colleagues. I want to speak about an integral part of the responsibility of this Homeland Security Department that hasn't been discussed. As we review the administration's proposal for Department of Homeland Security, we must not forget the 170,000 Federal employees who will staff this new agency. I look upon this as the hands that will drive and make this new department successful. It is vital that as we seek to protect America by reorganizing the government we do not overlook the fundamental rights of our Federal employees. The creation of this new department should not be used as a vehicle to advance broad changes to existing laws that erode the rights now accorded to these Federal employees. These rights do not pose a threat to our national security and should not be used as a litmus test for the patriotism of the Federal workforce. The administration's proposal calls for enhanced management flexibilities in hiring, compensation and workforce management. Many of the workforce challenges that these flexibilities propose to address are not new. I find it interesting to note that the Comptroller General convincingly argues that agencies already have 90 percent of the tools needed to manage more effectively. Rather than doing away with what has worked, we should ask why agencies are not using the flexibilities they have now. Real solutions for civil service reform require strong leadership from the top down. There must be a commitment to the Federal merit system and the employees it protects. The Federal service is a model, fair employer. This comes from a long tradition of Congress and the Executive Branch working with employee unions and management associations to enhance the principles of accountability, openness and procedural justice in government. Throughout our Nation's history, Federal employees' rights have been compatible with national security. The right to collective bargaining, a fair grievance system, equitable pay and protection from retaliation from disclosing waste, fraud and abuse are consistent with homeland security. It is important to note that Federal employees are prohibited by statute from striking. Their right to union representation does not constitute a national security risk nor are union members less loyal than other Americans. As Chairman of the International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services Subcommittee, I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that our homeland security is strengthened and the rights of our Federal employees are preserved. These objectives are complementary. On September 11, the Federal workforce responded with courage, loyalty and sacrifice, reminding us that we are all soldiers in the war against terrorism. As we begin the difficult task of reorganizing broad segments of the Federal workforce into this new department, let us recognize the valuable contributions Federal employees make to their government and their Nation. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Akaka. Senator Bunning. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BUNNING Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would especially like to thank Governor Ridge, my former colleague on the House Banking Committee and the former governor of my adopted State, for being here today. I, also, would like to thank Senators Hart and Rudman for their fine report. September 11 has forever changed the way this country thinks about its safety and security. President Bush's proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security is just one more step this administration is taking to protect the American people. I would also like to mention the fact that Senator Lieberman's bill that came out of this Committee also can help both sides merge their ideas in a bipartisan manner. The President's proposal is an aggressive plan that will affect, as Senator Akaka just said, 170,000 Federal employees and will combine everything from FEMA to INS to the Transportation Security Administration. Creating this department will be one of the biggest endeavors Congress has ever undertaken, and it will require a truly bipartisan effort on behalf of all of our members, not only on this Committee, but on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Just like in the forties, when Congress created the Defense Department, we need to put our differences aside and do what is best for the country. In many respects, the department's success and the security of this country will depend on how willing we are to do this and to work together. We cannot let the American people down. Everybody on this Committee will try very hard not to do that. This important issue is too critical to the defense of our country. We also should not lose sight of the fact that this new department will only be one component of homeland security. We will continue to rely on the Department of Defense, the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies to do their jobs and provide us with critical information. Unfortunately, we were completely caught off-guard on September 11, and these agencies must make necessary reforms to ensure that we are never in that position again. I look forward to working with the administration, and the Members of this Committee on creating this new department and I appreciate the time Governor Ridge and our other witnesses have taken today to be with us. Thank you. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Bunning. Senator Carper. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I will say to my friend and former colleague, dear colleague, welcome, and we are delighted that you are here today. I want to lead off my comments, Mr. Chairman, simply by extending to Governor Ridge our thanks, our thanks for his continued service to our country, our thanks for his willingness to step down as governor in mid-term, and as an old governor, I know how hard that is. I thank you for his willingness to endure extended separation from your family, and as one who knows his family, I know that is difficult. Thank you, governor, for your willingness to work long hours. Thank you for your willingness to put up with a lot of second guessing from guys like me and others, not only in government, but outside of government as well. I am grateful-- we are all grateful for what you do every day. I have a lot of respect for the judgment of Senators Hart and Rudman, who we are going to hear from in a few minutes. I certainly have a lot of respect for Senator Lieberman, who has authored legislation to redraft/redraw the way we run homeland security in this country. There is a lot of expertise on this Committee, not only in the Members, but in the staff as well. I feel a whole lot better about our chances of crafting a plan that will work because you are going to be involved, Governor Ridge, and because those with whom we work, and the President and full administration are going to be involved to try to figure out not only what will sound good, what meets the common-sense test, but what will truly enhance not just our sense of security in this country, but will actually make us safer. We will get to a point here in a few minutes where we can ask some questions, and one of the questions I will be asking-- and I know others will, as well, and I think you are addressing it in your testimony--is this issue of sharing information, not just sharing information across intelligence-collecting agency lines, but acting on the information that we have received. The other thing I would say, as governors, from time-to- time, we actually reorganize our State Governments. I am trying to think of how the size of this undertaking might compare to reorganizing a part of a State Government. We have about 25,000 State employees in Delaware, when you add in all of the educators and police officers. My guess is, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it would probably be between 150,000 and 200,000 people. So this job is about the size, I think, of reorganizing the whole government of the State that you once led, and I feel encouraged that we are going to do a better job because you are going to be involved in working with us, rather than sitting on the sidelines. Finally, I would just say, Mr. Chairman, heretofore, the success of this position, the ability of a person in the position of Governor Ridge to be successful depends, in large part, on his relationship with the President and the willingness of the President to listen to him and to act on the advice that he receives from Governor Ridge. His ability to serve well in this capacity also draws from the great respect that a bunch of us have for him. My guess is his family will not let him serve in this capacity forever, and at some point in time they are going to pull him back home and reclaim him as their own, and when that happens, whoever is going to take his seat and fill his role might not have the kind of relationship that he enjoys and, frankly, may not have the kind of stature and respect that Governor Ridge enjoys within this body, and throughout the government, and I think throughout the country. So it is a big day for us. It is an important undertaking for us, and it is one that we approach with that in mind. Frankly, again, I am just so pleased that we are going to be working on this one together, rather than at cross purposes. Thank you very much. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Carper. Senator Fitzgerald. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR FITZGERALD Senator Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Governor Ridge. I want to dispense with an opening statement so that we can finally get to Governor Ridge's testimony. It has been almost 2 hours. I just want to welcome you to the Committee. I want to emphasize that I hope Congress can move quickly to enact the necessary legislation to put the new department in place. We do not have that much time. We really have a few weeks in July and September to work on this. I hope that this Committee, and I appreciate the Chairman promptly convening this hearing, that we can work to merge this Committee's bill, the Chairman's bill that is already on the Senate floor, with the President's proposal. This is very important. It is more important than anything else we do, I think, because it is about protecting our people here at home, and so I look forward to working with Governor Ridge. I compliment you for your hard work in protecting our Nation thus far and for your solid proposal. I also want to thank Senators Hart and Rudman for their important contribution. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Fitzgerald. I thank all of my colleagues for their opening statements. Sometimes Senator Thompson and I only do the opening statements, but this is a matter of such importance that I wanted to give each Member of the Committee of both parties a chance to speak, and I think it was well worth it. I appreciate your patience in sitting through it, Governor Ridge. I thank my colleagues for their thoughtfulness. Some of them have raised some very reasonable questions. I thank them for their sense of urgency because, unlike some of the other great reorganizations, creation of the Department of Energy or Department of Education or Department of Transportation or even the Department of Defense in 1947, in this case, the enemy really is at our door. I mean, the enemy has really struck us here at home, and there is a great sense of urgency in doing this work together. My impression from the opening statements is exactly what I think all of us would want. We are on the same team, and we are on the same team with you, Governor Ridge, and with the President. I hope that the Committee can go to the floor united on a proposal. If, per chance, we do not, I am confident that the divisions between us will not be partisan. That is exactly the way it should be. I thank you, Governor Ridge, for being here. We are honored. I believe this is your first official testimony before the Committee of the Congress. Governor Ridge. Yes, it is. Chairman Lieberman. Long awaited, much pursued, greatly anticipated, and I thank you for honoring this Committee by being here. Obviously, you had a distinguished history and record of public service and private life, as a Member of Congress, in public service, and Governor of Pennsylvania. It has been a pleasure to work with you, and I know that we will work very closely together to get this job done. I am pleased to call on you now. I think the least we can do for you, after having you sit through this, is to tell you to go on and speak for as long as you want to make your points. [Laughter.] TESTIMONY OF HON. TOM RIDGE,\1\ DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY Governor Ridge. Well, first of all, Chairman Lieberman, let me thank you for the extraordinary courtesy that you, and Senator Thompson, and your Committee have shown to me, even prior to this day, when I testify publicly. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Governor Ridge appears in the Appendix on page 77. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I, frankly, felt it was very appropriate that I sit, and listen, and learn and catch a glimpse of some of the legitimate concerns that your colleagues have. I think there is unanimity, there is a shared sense of urgency, there is a shared commitment to getting it done. We know there may be some differences of opinion as to how we accomplish the goal, but I share the same optimistic tone that you do that we will get it done. As everyone on the Committee has talked about, we must get it done. So I have prepared a fairly lengthy testimony, and I would like to share with you an abbreviated version and then get into the questions and answers. Chairman Lieberman. Good. Governor Ridge. Thank you. To all of the Committee Members, I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today in support of the President's historic proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security. I am here in keeping with the President's very specific directive to me to appear before you to present and to explain this legislative proposal. The President has given me an additional responsibility, by virtue of Executive Order, to lead a Transition Planning Office in the Office of OMB, as we work with the Congress of the United States toward the goal of securing a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. It is certainly in that capacity that I am prepared to testify not only before this Committee, but as you pointed out, Senator Lieberman, there has been some pent-up interest in my testimony, and we are going to do our best to respond to other requests as well. I want to reiterate personally the President's desire to work with Members of Congress in a bicameral, bipartisan way, and to thank all of you for the bipartisan support you have already expressed and the commitment to act on this proposal by the end of this session. There are other more optimistic time frames, and the President's instruction to us is that the Congress will work its will according to the schedule that it deems appropriate and your job is to work with them according to their schedule to get it done. As I mentioned before, lengthier testimony has been submitted for the record, so I would just like to make a few preliminary remarks. First of all, I wanted to assure Members of the Committee and Members of Congress that this proposal was the result of a deliberative planning process that really began with an effort led by Vice President Cheney a year ago in May 2001 and continued as a part of the mission of the Office of Homeland Security when it was created on October 8, 2001. My staff and I have met with thousands of government officials at the Federal, State, and local levels, with hundreds of experts and many private citizens. Throughout these discussions, we have constantly examined ways to organize the government better. The President's proposal also draws from the conclusions of many recent reports on terrorism, reports by blue-ribbon commissions, and you have identified the two primary authors of one that was a focal point of not only your proposal, I believe, Senator Lieberman, but obviously it is reflected in the President's proposal as well, that of Senators Hart and Rudman, the Bremer Commission, the Gilmore Commission, and as you can well imagine there have been a variety of reports from different think tanks around the country that we took a look at as well. It also drew on the legislative proposals of Members of Congress. We have had many discussions with them about various details of their individual proposals. I remember very distinctly a conversation I had with you, Senator Lieberman, about your proposal some time ago. This historic proposal would be the most significant transformation of the U.S. Government since 1947. The creation of this department would transform the current, and occasionally very confusing, patchwork of government activities related to homeland security into a single department whose primary mission is to protect our homeland. Responsibility for homeland security, as Members of Congress know, is currently dispersed among more than 100 different government organizations. I think we all agree we need a single department whose primary mission is to protect our way of life and to protect our citizens, a single department to secure our borders, to integrate and analyze intelligence, to combat bioterrorism and prepare for weapons of mass destruction, and to direct emergency response activities. With the creation of this department, we will put more security officers in the field working to stop terrorists and, hopefully, managed right, pool our resources in Washington managing duplicative and redundant activities that drain away critical homeland security resources. The proposal to create a Department of Homeland Security is one more key step in the President's national strategy for homeland security. Like the national security strategy, the national strategy for homeland security will form the intellectual underpinning to guide the decisionmaking of planners, budgeters, and policymakers for years to come. I will tell you there are really no surprises in the remainder of the national strategy to be released later this summer. From securing our borders, to combatting bioterrorism, to protecting the food supply, the majority of the initiatives the Federal Government is pursuing as part of our strategy to secure the homeland have already been discussed publicly. The strategy will pull together all of the major ongoing activities and new initiatives that the President believes are essential to a longer term effort to secure the homeland. I would like to just turn to the details of the President's plan, if I might, for a moment. I did not keep an accurate count. My sense it is just about every one of your colleagues, along with you, Senator Lieberman, have highlighted the need to do a better job with intelligence gathering, fusion, dissemination and action, and that goes to the heart of the highest priority of homeland security, and that is prevention. Prevention of future terrorist attacks must be our No. 1 priority. It is a shared goal. Because terrorism is a global threat, we must have complete control over who and what enters the United States. We must prevent foreign terrorists from entering and bringing instruments of terror, while at the same time facilitate the legal flow of people and goods on which our economy depends. Protecting our borders and controlling entry to the United States has always been the responsibility of the Federal Government, yet this responsibility is currently dispersed among more than five major government organizations in five different departments. The new department would unify authority over the Coast Guard, Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service and Border Patrol, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture, and the recently created Transportation Security Administration. All aspects of border control, including the issuing of visas, would be not only informed, but improved, by a central information sharing clearinghouse and compatible databases. Preventing the terrorists from using our transportation systems to deliver attacks is closely related to border control and the primary reason that we would ask the Congress of the United States to take the newly created Transportation Security Administration and graft it onto, in part, to Senator Lieberman's bill. Our international airports, seaports, borders, and transportation are inseparable. The new department would unify our government's efforts to secure our borders and the transportation systems that move people from our borders to anywhere within our country within hours. While our top priority is preventing future attacks, we cannot assume that we will always succeed. Therefore, we must also prepare to recover as quickly as possible from attacks that do occur. I had some experience with the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a Member of Congress, both in terms of their response to natural disasters that struck my congressional district, along with working with Senator Stafford on the revision of the Federal Emergency Management Agency back in the eighties. I am well aware of the core competencies that they have and the primary responsibilities that they have within this country. The Department of Homeland Security will build upon this agency as one of its key components. It would build upon its core competencies, and the relationship that it has established over years, if not decades, with the first responders as they turn out to respond to the natural disasters that normally brings FEMA to your community. The new department would assume authority over Federal grant programs for local and State first responders, such as the fire fighters, the police, the emergency medical personnel, the humble heroes that we kind of took for granted in our communities before September 11 and suddenly now are at the forefront of our efforts, as so many of your colleagues have indicated by their brief opening remarks, that we need to integrate into any national capacity that we develop to combat terrorism. This new department would build a comprehensive National Incident Management System that would consolidate existing Federal Government emergency response plans into one generally all-hazard plan. We enhance the capability of this department, we enhance the capability of FEMA. It will be not only better equipped to deal with a terrorist event, but, frankly, better equipped to deal with any other event to which they have historically responded. The department would ensure that response personnel have the equipment and systems that allow them to respond more effectively, more quickly and, frankly, to communicate with each other a lot better than they have been able to do so in the past. As the President made clear in his State of the Union Address, the war against terrorism is also a war against the most deadly weapons known to mankind--chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. I do not think there is any doubt in anyone's mind, at least from my point of view there should not be, if our enemies acquire these weapons, they will use them, with the consequences far more devastating than those we suffered on September 11. Currently, efforts to counter the threat of these weapons are too few and too fragmented. We must launch a systematic national effort against these weapons that is equal in size to the threat that they pose. We believe the President's proposal does just that. The new department would implement a national strategy to prepare for and respond to the full range of terrorist threats involving weapons of mass destruction. The Department of Homeland Security would set national policy and establish guidelines for State, and local governments to plan for the unthinkable and direct exercises and drills for Federal, State and local officials, as well as integrating the Federal capacity and the response teams that we have in various agencies throughout the Federal Government. Again, several Members of this Committee have highlighted the critical nature of this reorganization around the need to establish even stronger partnerships, stronger relationships with State, local government, and the private sector. That is at the heart and is one of the primary reasons the President has proposed the reorganization in this fashion. The Department of Homeland Security would provide direction and establish priorities for national research and development for related tests and evaluations and for the development and procurement of new technology and equipment. Additionally, the new department would incorporate and focus the intellectual power of several very important scientific institutions, our national labs, on this mission as well. Finally, and certainly I think at the heart of most of the comments that Members of the Committee have made, this Committee would look at the new Department of Homeland Security and the unit that deals with information analysis and integration and infrastructure protection as perhaps the most critical component of this effort. Preventing future terrorist attacks requires good information in advance, actionable information that people can act upon. The President's proposal recognizes this, and it would develop the new organization with the authority and with the capacity to generate and provide that critical information. The new department would fuse intelligence and other information pertaining to threats to the homeland from multiple sources, not just the CIA and the FBI, but NSA, INS, Customs, and you are very much familiar with the other information- gathering capacity and organizations we have within the Federal Government. It would also comprehensively evaluate the vulnerabilities of America's critical infrastructure and map pertinent intelligence. Take the threat assessment and match the threat assessment against the vulnerabilities, and once that is done, make recommendations or direct that certain protective measures or protective conditions are put in place. You get the information, you analyze it, and for the first time it would all be integrated in one place, and you map that information against the potential vulnerabilities, and if it calls for action, then the Federal Government directs the action that must be taken. We have never done that before. I am pretty confident that is something both the President and the Congress of the United States want to empower the new department to do. There is no question that the literally thousands of men and women who work for the organizations tapped by President Bush for the new Department of Homeland Security are among our most capable in government, and we must view them as not only capable public servants, but as patriots as well. We are proud of what they are doing to secure our homeland and call upon them to continue their crucial work while the new department is created. It is kind of interesting over the past couple of months, when I stepped in the new position, there was still a notion within the public, generally, that there were just a few people working on homeland security issues. But Members of Congress know and members of these organizations and departments know that many have been working for years, if not decades, on issues relating to homeland security. So, in fact, we have a capable group of people who have been working for quite some time on securing the homeland, and obviously we need them to continue to bring the same focus and the same commitment to their mission, as we go about reorganizing their agencies in a new department. This consolidation of the government's homeland security efforts can achieve greater efficiencies and free up additional resources for the fight against terrorism. These men and women should rest assured that their efforts will all be improved by the government reorganization proposed by the President. To achieve these efficiencies, the new Secretary will require considerable flexibility in procurement, integration of information technology systems and personnel issues. Even with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, there will remain a strong need for the White House Office of Homeland Security. Homeland security will continue to be a multi-departmental issue, and it will require, continue to require interagency collaboration. Additionally, the President will continue to require the confidential advice of a close assistant. Therefore, the President's proposal intends for the Office of Homeland Security to maintain a strong role. The President believes this will be critical for the future success of the newly created Department of Homeland Security. In this transition period, the Office of Homeland Security will maintain vigilance and continue to coordinate the other Federal agencies involved in homeland security efforts. The President appreciates the enthusiastic response from Congress and is gratified by the many expressions of optimism about how quickly this bill might be passed. He is ready to work together with you in partnership to get the job done. As I mentioned today, earlier he signed that Executive Order to help match your accelerated pace by creating a Transition Planning Office, led by me and lodged within OMB to tap its expertise. One of the principal missions will be to ensure that we get you the information you need as you consider the new Department of Homeland Security. Until that department becomes fully operational, the proposed department's designated components will continue their mandate to help ensure the security of this country. During his June 6 address to the Nation, the President asked Congress to join him in establishing a sole, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission, a mission I believe every single Member of Congress believes is their priority as well: Securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. We know the threats are real, we know the need is urgent, and we must succeed working together in this endeavor. President Truman did not live to see the end of the Cold War, but that war did end, and historians agree that the consolidation of Federal resources was critical to our ultimate success. Ladies and gentlemen, we too have that opportunity for leadership and for the same kind of legacy. I look forward to working with you and your leadership to establish that legacy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Governor Ridge, for an excellent statement. Let me focus in the beginning of my questioning here on this matter that, as you said, engages all of us. This is: How do we improve the collection, analysis, and sharing of intelligence information, all of it obviously, to try to prevent terrorist acts before they occur? I wonder if I might approach this by asking you what other alternatives the administration considered before adopting the recommendation in the bill for the section on information analysis within the Department of Homeland Security as this may help us as well. I think there is a genuine concern in Congress about this matter and not yet a clear consensus at all about how best to deal with it. So I think we might be helped if we had some sense of the path down which the administration went before coming to the recommendation it has. Governor Ridge. Senator, the President believes that the CIA, as a foreign intelligence-gathering agency, must continue to report directly to the President of the United States and that the FBI must continue to remain an integral part of the chief law enforcement agency of this country; that is, the Office of the Attorney General. Upon that predicate, we took a look at some of the public concerns expressed by the Congress of the United States, some of the concerns expressed by Senators Hart, Rudman, and others with regard to the lack of a single point, a single venue where all of the information, all intelligence analysis is available for integration and a lack of a place where, once the information and intelligence is aggregated and analyzed, to match that threat and the potential threat against the critical infrastructure of this country and then to match that with the potential need, depending on the credibility of that threat, to give specific direction for protective measures. So the President's belief, again, that the CIA and the FBI should provide reports, assessments and their analytical work to the new Department of Homeland Security, but in addition to that information, that the new Secretary be in a position to aggregate all of that information in one place and then, if required, act upon it. Chairman Lieberman. Am I correct in understanding that in the administration's proposal, that the Information Analysis Section of the new department would not be involved in the collection of intelligence? Governor Ridge. Your assessment is correct, Senator. Chairman Lieberman. But it would be involved in analysis of intelligence information sent to it by the various intelligence agencies. Governor Ridge. That is correct. Chairman Lieberman. So that it would develop its own analytical capacity and analytical team. Governor Ridge. Correct, Senator. As you can recall, in my brief remarks, one of the reasons we are looking for some flexibility, generally, in the new department is to avoid some redundancies, but the President believes, and I suspect Members of Congress believe, having competitive analysis, have another set of experienced people looking at the same information, but perhaps from a different perspective would--this is one area where redundancy adds value. Again, I think that is at the heart of the President's idea. This could very well be a competitive analysis. But, again, this will be the only venue where all of the information gathered from all of the intelligence-gathering agencies and departments within the Federal Government could be reviewed. In addition to that--and I cannot underscore the importance of this enough--this is also the same agency that is going to have to do the critical infrastructure analysis and then make recommendations for people to act. Chairman Lieberman. Is it the intention of the administration and the bill to create, within the Information Analysis Section of the new department, the power to request data from the intelligence agencies, including raw data. In other words, that it is not just going to be a passive recipient of whatever the CIA or FBI decide to send it, but it is an aggressive customer? Governor Ridge. It is the intention of the department at the heart of this is if, after separate analysis, that there is need for additional information, if they choose to go back and look at the raw data that led to the report or the assessment or the analysis, that this could be secured. If there is any dispute, obviously, it could be resolved by the President of the United States, but there is the potential of that tasking back to the Agency that would be preserved in this legislation. Chairman Lieberman. As you know, in the bill that the Committee reported out, we set up a National Office for Combating Terrorism in the White House, and its purview was going to be larger than homeland security. It would include homeland security because that is part of the fight against terrorism, but it would also be the place where all of the other agencies of the Federal Government working to combat terrorism would have their efforts coordinated. That would include the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and intelligence and law enforcement agencies. I appreciated what you said. I was going to ask you a question about this because, obviously, if and when, we create the Department of Homeland Security, the office that you now hold will have responsibilities that will presumably diminish. So I wanted to ask you to talk a little bit more about how you see the White House office, post creation of that new department, and also whether the administration would be willing to consider broadening its jurisdiction to go beyond just homeland security, and to be a coordinator for the President, as an adviser to the President, of the government's total antiterrorism efforts? Governor Ridge. Senator, the consolidation of some of these departments and agencies will, actually, I think, be a very enabling turn of events for the Office of Homeland Security within the White House. One of the major challenges that I have experienced over the past several months is that you have so many agencies that are focused on homeland security. Now that you have one whose primary focus is homeland security, I think it will be actually an enabler. It will add value to the work that this individual performs. I do think that the initiatives that the CIA have undertaken over the past several months, and the reorganization that Bob Mueller has proposed within the FBI, and the information sharing and the collaboration that they have undertaken, and I suspect will continue to improve in the months and years ahead, go a long way toward addressing the concerns that you have with regard to integrating our effort to combat terrorism. For that reason, obviously, we are going to work with you on this legislation, but I think the enhanced capacity of both those agencies, coupled with the new Department of Homeland Security, would suggest to me that the result you seek to achieve will be done once those are completed. Chairman Lieberman. My time is up. Obviously, we will continue that particular discussion. Governor Ridge. Yes, sir, we will. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Governor Ridge. Senator Thompson. Senator Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Governor Ridge. Governor, I want to follow up on the Chairman's opening line of question with regard to the analysis function and the access to information, specifically, Section 203, in the bill. I was reading your summary of what the bill did, and you broke it down into three categories of information that this new team of analysts would be receiving. One--and I am paraphrasing--reports an analysis, not raw material, that would come to the Secretary without request. Is that correct, the first category? Governor Ridge. That is correct. Senator Thompson. That essentially would be the Secretary's people analyzing the analyzers or analyzing the analysis. In other words, these would be summaries, analyses, or reports that the intelligence agencies did, and they would come in that form to the Secretary. The second category has to do with information concerning vulnerabilities to our infrastructure, and that might include raw materials. The third category, as I understand it, is the one I want to focus in on because I am a little bit unclear about it. It would include raw materials that your analyzers would have access to with regard to matters other than vulnerabilities to the infrastructure if the President provides. If the President makes the determination that the Secretary should have access to that information, the Secretary does not even have to ask for it, it is supposed to come to him. I guess I am trying to try to figure out exactly what kind of material that would be. Because there you are really getting down to the raw data, the reports and so forth, that would provide your entity, really for the first time in this set-up, to make their own analysis, their own independent analysis, in addition to the analysis that they have reviewed that the other agencies have made. Can you identify for the Committee, when it refers to matters other than vulnerabilities, the kinds of information that the President could give the Secretary access to with regard to this raw material? Governor Ridge. Senator, let me see if I can respond to the very important question you have asked. There are several dimensions to it. First of all, the President believes that the new Department of Homeland Security should be tasked with its own information integration and analysis, but not collection. As you can well imagine, there is some very unique privacy and civil liberty concerns associated with that process. It is well-defined with regard to the CIA's activity and well-defined with regard to the FBI activity, and for that reason the President feels very strongly that the collection activity should remain in those institutions who are now guided by law, with oversight of the Congress, to collect material. Second, the concern that you raised--it has been raised by others with regard to the new department--simply doing analysis of analysis. The fact is that, by statute, they would be required not only to give the new department the analytical work that they had done, but the reports and the assessments upon which the analytical conclusions were drawn. I mean, here is a piece of potentially competitive analysis that might lead these men and women in the new department to come to a different conclusion or at least to say that this investigation or the tasking or the work of these agencies should move in addition to where they were moving or perhaps in an entirely different direction or task them to do both. So I think the fact that they are going to be provided not the raw data, I mean, there is a clear distinction there, for obvious reasons, and as you know--because so many Members of this Committee are also, I believe, on the Intelligence Committee--at some point in time there has to be a filter because there are literally thousands and thousands of pieces of information, data that come across desks and tables in the intelligence community every single day. So we start with the filter of collection, but task back the possibility of getting additional information to these agencies by virtue of the statute. The vulnerability assessment, Senator, is one that the President feels very strongly about because his predecessor, President Clinton, I think back in 1998, directed about a dozen Federal agencies to take a look at critical infrastructure and come up with a comprehensive plan by January 2003. In our research, while we understood and lauded the direction of the Presidential directive, like a couple of other things that some of the other Senators have referred to today, it just did not get done. So this will accelerate the fusion of the work that these other agencies have done and the work that the new agency will do, so that as we take a look at telecommunications, we take a look at energy, we take a look at our food supply, we take a look at financial institutions, we have some sense of what the vulnerabilities are, and then make an assessment as to what needs to be done to protect them. So, again, Senator, in a long response to a very appropriate question, the capacity to fuse and integrate intelligence, match it against vulnerabilities, and then ultimately, if the need arises, to give specific direction either to a department of the Federal Government, to an economic sector that appears to be in peril because of the threat assessment and the vulnerability to a company, to a city, then for this department to issue the warnings to give the specific direction. Senator Thompson. But there are circumstances here where the President can provide that the department have access to raw material, also. Governor Ridge. Correct. Senator Thompson. It has to do--and we will have to come back to this in a minute, I suppose. Another point I wanted to ask you about and ask your consideration is the threats of terrorism in the United States. In the statute, it talks about terrorist threat to the American homeland, threats of terrorism within the United States. I presume that is a deliberate delineation between terrorist threats to the United States and terrorist threats to our interest abroad. Obviously, most of the attacks that we have suffered have not been in the American homeland. Governor Ridge. Correct. Senator Thompson. And whether or not this department should have access to information that might constitute a terrorist threat to our embassies, a terrorist threat to our military personnel overseas is undefined. How do we determine, when this data is being collected by our agencies, which category it falls in? As you know, with regard to September 11, in looking back at it, we had a lot of information from a lot of different places abroad that turned out to relate very directly to our American homeland. It could have just as easily been discovered--we knew about a threat. We knew some of the personalities involved, some kind of a general threat, but we did not know where it was. So, presumably, our new department does not want to shut itself off from that kind of information until that the time where there is definitely a threat to the homeland itself. I would ask you, perhaps, to consider whether or not you might want to broaden this language a little bit so you could get access, whether it be in summary form or I assume the President would make a delineation as to when raw material should kick in, to a terrorist threat not only to the American homeland, but possibly to our other interests. Unfortunately, this delineation could come very late in the game and sometimes not until after the fact. Governor Ridge. Senator, I would suggest to you that, within the foreign intelligence-gathering community, within the CIA, there is, to your point, even greater sensitivity to that notion that there is a nexus between foreign terrorist information and potential domestic incidents. There has been for quite some time. In that context, that information is shared, on a daily basis, with me, and I suspect that that would continue to be part of the kind of information, again, very discreet and appropriate. You cannot burden--this is a Homeland Security Agency. There are volumes and volumes of information about foreign terrorist threats, but again the clear understanding that George Tenet has, and the President has, and the FBI Director has, and the Congress has that, from time to time, there are connections between that kind of information and a potential domestic attack. We are pretty confident it can be done. Senator Thompson. My time is up. I would just ask you to consider the possibility that someone from an agency, sometime down the road, might come to the Secretary and say, ``We had all of this information, but there was no indication that the threat pertained to the homeland,'' and it would have been information that you would like to have seen. Thank you very much. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Thompson. Senator Levin. Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions relate to that same area that Senator Thompson and the Chairman addressed. The provision in your proposed bill says that the Secretary would receive promptly all information relating to significant and credible threats of terrorism in the United States, whether or not such information has been analyzed if the President has provided that the Secretary shall have access to such information. That is the provision which you have just described. Why would the President not provide that the new Secretary of this new agency would have all information made available to his agency for assessment when it is information that relates to a credible threat of terrorism in the United States? Governor Ridge. Senator, I think the President has demonstrated his commitment and his focus on getting the intelligence-gathering community to work together more closely than they have ever worked before. He presides over the daily briefings, gives very specific direction, and there is a legitimate concern, I believe, on behalf of the administration that the new department not be viewed, and I think very appropriately so, by this country as an intelligence-gathering agency with regard to citizens of this country, and we should not be involved in the collection. Senator Levin. We are not talking about gathering intelligence. That is clear. We are talking about analyzing intelligence that has been gathered properly. Why would not the President provide that the new agency have access to all of such properly gathered information? Governor Ridge. Senator, we will. I mean, the new Cabinet Secretary, if he or she seeks additional information, can make the request---- Senator Levin. I am not talking about that, Governor. I want to be very precise, and I think this is troubling a number of us. Governor Ridge. Let me get a copy of the language to which you are referring. Senator Levin. It says here that all information would be provided relating to credible threats of terrorism, whether or not the information has been analyzed, if--and I presume only if--the President provides that the Secretary has access to it. My question is the same as others are driving at here. Why would not all properly gathered information go to the new agency for analysis? Otherwise you are going to be splintering this process. You are going to have analysis continuing in the CIA. You are going to have analysis in the FBI. The new agency that we are talking about presumably is aimed, in your words, at fusing and integrating intelligence. I am talking about properly gathered intelligence. I do not see why that is not an automatic. Governor Ridge. There are pieces of information, analysis, that are unique to the presidency itself, that the President gets on a day-to-day basis. And this would preserve the presidential option to share that information with a new Cabinet Secretary. Senator Levin. You mean the information, instead of coming to the President from a Cabinet Secretary that is integrated at all, would go from the President to the Cabinet Secretary? I mean why would the Cabinet Secretary not have all of this information and have analyzed it and then present it to the President? Governor Ridge. There will be several people involved and several agencies involved in providing information to the President of the United States. Clearly the CIA does and they give this President, as they have given past Presidents, a daily report based on information that they have. They also share other information that they have gathered within the FBI, and in that process will be sharing additional information with the new Department of Homeland Security. The FBI, along with the CIA, give to the new department the reports, the assessments and the analysis. They will get raw data from the other intelligence gathering agencies with the Federal Government potentially. We can get raw data from the local and State police hopefully as we would build up the capacity to make sure that the information shared is going in at both directions. But the function, the primary function of this office is to integrate all of the information that is received from these agencies initially without the raw data. If they choose to go back based on their assessment, unanswered questions, or believe that perhaps the assessment was inaccurate or should be different, they have the capacity to go back and request the raw data. There is a tear line here, Senator between this agency becoming a collection agency and the access on a day-to-day basis to raw data---- Senator Levin. I am sorry to interrupt you, but we are not talking about collection. We are talking about assessment of data. Governor Ridge. Well, they get that, Senator. Senator Levin. No, only, according to these words, if the President provides that the Secretary has access to the information, and it seems to me that it leaves the problem, the gaps, the cracks unanswered because right now we have a situation where the CIA and the FBI and other agencies do not share data. It is not integrated. The dots are not connected. What you are saying is your agency is not going to connect the dots, the dots being properly gathered intelligence. The new agency is not going to connect the dots. That would be done by an analysis inside the CIA. That will be done by an analysis inside the FBI. The trouble is they do not connect the dots as we have recently seen. So I would suggest that this issue, if it is unresolved in this way, that the President would have to provide that there be access to properly-gathered information, does not solve the problem that has not yet been solved despite efforts during the 1980's and the 1990's to save it. I mean we have been through this before, so I am still troubled by the failure to connect the dots, the information dots, in any one entity because it leaves unaccountable--there is no accountability here. If the FBI doesn't share the information with you, you do not know about it. If the CIA does not share information with the FBI, the FBI does not know about it. Where is all the relevant information properly gathered about threats, terrorist threats, going to be coordinated, fused, as you put it? I do not see that this language does it. Governor Ridge. Senator, perhaps then we need to work on the language, but the intent, specific direction from the President of the United States is to see to it--and I believe the language in the President's proposal assures that this department gets the series of reports, the work product of the intelligence community, and they have the capacity to perform or provide their own competitive analysis. They have the capacity to connect the dots the same way or potentially connect the dots in a different way. And if their reach would reach this department and those in charge of this integration and analysis would reach a different conclusion based on the same reports the CIA shared with the FBI, the FBI shares with the CIA, and both those agencies share with the new department. And that is the kind of redundancy, based upon the statutory requirement to these agencies to share that information with our department, it is the kind of competitive analysis the President believes will enhance our ability as a country to identify threats and be prepared to act on them. This is another opportunity to connect the dots, but unlike the CIA and the FBI, we will also be the repository of it, potential information from the State and local government, from the private sector, as well as access to the information and raw data it may see fit, from the INS, the Customs, the Coast Guard, the DEA, and other intelligence gathering agencies within the government. So, Senator I would just respectfully share with you, I think they do connect the dots. There is redundancy there, and apparently I need to sit down--we need to sit down with you to make sure that the language satisfies you, because the President intends for this agency, based on the reports, the assessments, and the analysis, to do their own independent effort in connecting those dots. Senator Levin. My time is up, thank you. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks. Governor, I think Senator Levin is on to something, or at least from my point of view. It troubled me as I read the proposal, which is why the additional condition that the President has to give approval for certain information to be shared with the department? In other words, if we go in this direction and we decide that all this consolidation should occur within an information analysis section, why not just spell it out in the statute? In other words, why would the President not want to have that information shared with his Secretary of Homeland Security? That I think is a question that we have to keep talking about. Senator Collins. Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor Ridge, I, too, find that language to be somewhat puzzling, and I am glad that you have committed to work with us, but I want to switch to a different issue. The INS has been plagued with problems for many years. The revelation that the Service sent extensions of visas to the two dead hijackers 6 months after the attacks on our Nation was only further confirmation of how dysfunctional this agency is. The House of Representatives recently passed legislation completely overhauling the INS, separating it into two entities, one of which would have a very clear enforcement focus. Yet as I read the plan put forth by the President, the INS would be moved into the new department, without reform. Are there additional plans to reform the INS? Because if all we are doing is moving an agency, that clearly has failed in performing its essential mission, to a new department, we are not really going to produce the kind of reforms that are so desperately needed. Governor Ridge. Well, Senator, as you recall, the President supported INS reform during the course of the campaign and the administration worked with the members of the House to work their will on the INS reform package that passed several weeks ago in the House of Representatives. One of the opportunities that this department will have to continue that reform effort will rely heavily upon, not exclusively, but heavily upon the ability or the willingness of Congress to give the new department some flexibility as it relates to personnel and resources. And so I think there are many ways we can go about changing the INS and reforming the INS. It is clearly the intent of Congress that it be done. I think one could also argue that trying to effect change of culture in the old agency with the old relationships may be more difficult than effecting a change of culture if you literally pick up the entity and put in a new department, with a new mission, new leadership and greater flexibility. Senator Collins. Thank you. I want to explore with you the administration's decisions not to move parts of the FBI and the CIA into the new department. Our government structure has long drawn a distinction between foreign intelligence gathering and domestic law enforcement with its web of procedural safeguards. Was that the reason that those two agencies were not moved into the new department? Our country has always been leery of blurring the lines between foreign intelligence gathering and domestic law enforcement. Is the administration's decision intended that those lines are preserved? Governor Ridge. Senator, I believe that is in part one of the reasons that the President's proposal does not include the CIA and the FBI as part of its Intelligence Integration and Infrastructure Protection Unit. It also is based upon the President's belief that the person in the Executive Branch to whom the CIA and the Director of the CIA should be reporting is not to a member of the Cabinet, that they should be reporting directly to the President of the United States. It is also predicated upon the President's belief that the FBI is very much at the heart of the chief law enforcement agency in this country, the Attorney General's Office, and it should not be removed from there. But he also recognized that much of the work they do, not all of the work they do, but much of the work they do is relevant and germane to enhancing the security of the homeland, and it is for that reason that there is very specific statutory language in the legislation that directs those agencies to provide certain kinds of information, analytical documents and reports, to the new department. Senator Collins. I want to follow up also on an issue that Senator Stevens raised in his opening remarks about the Coast Guard. I have talked to Coast Guard officials in my State who are expending enormous time, resources and energy to patrol harbors much more frequently, and to check foreign vessels that are coming into the port in Portland, Maine. They have expressed to me a great deal of concern about whether the reorganization and the movement of the Coast Guard into the new department, which on one level makes a great deal of sense, will undermine the more traditional mission of the Coast Guard and the important role that it plays, for example, in search and rescue operations. Such operations are extremely important to a State like mine with its strong tradition of fishing and the maritime industry. Could you please comment on how the traditional missions of the Coast Guard will be preserved despite the new priority of homeland defense? Governor Ridge. Senator, like you, I share enormous admiration for the Coast Guard. They had a unit in Northwestern Pennsylvania that I visited many times when I was a Member of Congress, and boater safety was at the heart of the mission on the Great Lakes, among other things. I have had the opportunity to visit with them and with the former Commandant Admiral Loy, and now Commandant Collins in the past several months. And you and I understand that this is a department of government that is probably underappreciated because the value is enormous. Historically, they have many missions. They do them all very well. They are cross trained to use their equipment and personnel to perform a variety of tasks, and I would say to you that is not unlike the challenge that other departments or agencies are going to be pulled into the Department of Homeland Security. It is not unlike the challenge that they will have. But inasmuch as the tasks exist because of congressional mandate, I mean they are obliged to perform those functions because Congress wants them to perform those functions. So in a sense the President has realized since September 11 that in addition to their traditional functions, they have an enhanced responsibility for homeland security. That is the reason in the 2003 budget proposal he gives the Coast Guard the largest single increase that they have ever received before so they can begin to build up the additional capacity they need because their mission base has been expanded. But I am confident with the continued oversight and support of the Congress, and clearly the recognition by the new Secretary that they are multi-tasked, but the same folks who do the maritime work and the boat safety work, we also may want them to do port security or intercept the unknown vessel or the vessel with the manifest that raises some questions, either on the Great Lakes or in the ocean. So it is very difficult to pull out specifically personnel and equipment and platforms that could be assigned to one task and not the other. So I think they can perform both well. They have done it in the past. They have done it in the Department of Transportation. And I think the President's recognition that we need to build additional capacity because of the enhanced requirement with regard to homeland security, goes a long way in addressing the concerns, the legitimate concerns you have. Senator Collins. Thank you. Senator Thompson. Mr. Chairman, 30 seconds. Chairman Lieberman. Yes. Senator Thompson. You made a very good comment concerning Senator Levin's point. Before the issue gets cold, with regard to the Presidential prerogative issue, it occurs to me that besides the sensitivity of raw data and the fact the President might not want additional people seeing certain raw data because of the nature of sensitivity, it is possibile that the new agency would be inundated with truckloads of additional information every day. It would be in the same position that some of our other intelligence agencies are already in in trying to separate the dots if they received everything. And there probably needs to be some kind of a firewall or break there to make a determination as to which raw data. I am not sure if Section 203 gives the Secretary access to enough raw data, but I can see where the President might want to step in there and make that determination. So that is the good thing about these hearings. I think we have quickly identified an area where we need on the one hand that additional set of eyes to oversee something that is broken and on the other hand we do not want it to be so that we are so inundated that it becomes meaningless. I think it is going to require some good consultation and work with Mr. Ridge here. I think that balance can be struck, and I appreciate you for highlighting that issue. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Thompson. And your comment demonstrates how complicated this problem is because while it is true if you dump truckloads of information every day at the Department of Homeland Security, it is a problem, but if you do not guarantee in some sense that all the information is coming together somewhere, then there is a danger that pieces of it will be overlooked. That is the challenge we have. How do we filter and understand the immensity of the information? I mean we have a story in the paper today about the National Security Agency intercepting the two communications on September 10 which were not translated or made available until September 12. This is out of the kind of cacophony of conversations that they are overhearing worldwide. This is a serious challenge for us to make this work. Governor Ridge. Again, Senator, I appreciate the recognition that there may be occasions when the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should have access to that raw data, and again the legislation can provide for a tasking, but as Senator Thompson pointed out, at some point in time there has to be a filter. At some point in time you need the ability to get back and ask additional questions. But to inundate the new Secretary within this particular unit with reviewing and assessing all the raw data again after the CIA has done it, oftentimes in conjunction with the FBI, is just, the President believes, not the most effective use of the new analytical unit that would be set up in the Department of Homeland Security. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks. Senator Dayton, you are next. Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, the saying goes that halfway measures avail us nothing. In this instance you would define the primary mission of the new agency to protect our homeland. There are agencies, like the Coast Guard, which are not in performance of that mission, yet they are included in this new agency that the President is proposing. Then there are others, such as most prominently the CIA and the FBI, where their primary mission does seem to be very much in conformance with the primary mission you have outlined, yet they are not included in the new agency, If we start from the side of complete inclusion of everything in the Federal Government that performs the primary mission of this new agency, give some rationale for why entities such as the CIA, the FBI and the other primary intelligence gathering and law enforcement entities were not included in this new agency. What was the tradeoff involved and why would we not be better off discussing all these coordination problems and not having everything assumed under one agency or department? Governor Ridge. Senator, the President is mindful, as we all are, that the concern about the relationship between the CIA and the FBI, the information shared, the information communicated, is an ongoing concern, and frankly, you have got hearings that are going on at this time relative to that. Whatever reform you may believe is necessary, if you conclude that additional reforms are necessary with regard to the CIA and the FBI is a matter yet to be determined, and Congress will work its way through those hearings and draw some conclusions and then take some actions. Regardless of that, the President feels very strongly, one, that that is certainly the congressional prerogative and he knows obviously the content of the hearings remains to be seen if it will lead to any demand or legislative reform. But any reforms--and there have been some done unilaterally within both the CIA and the FBI, would only go to enhance the quality of the work product we believe that will ultimately get to the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. There is a distinction between collection and analysis. There needs to be a filter, so it is not another agency dealing with raw data from the entire intelligence community. It gives the administration, this President and future Presidents and this Congress and future congresses, a sense that there is a competitive, analytical unit out there that can take a look at most of the information--I mean from raw data to report is not--obviously it is a work product after somebody has secured some additional information, and I can understand the need from time to time and protect the option of the new Secretary to go back and take a look at the raw data depending on their analysis, that the President feels strongly on collection. It is a very appropriate filter that can be the case to go back and take a look at the raw data if their competitive analysis takes them in a different direction, and you build in, I think, institutionally a significant enhancement of our ability to identify the threat, but I cannot underscore again the importance of this particular unit within the Department of Homeland Security. It is important to have the redundancy in terms of the analytical capability, but you are going to take that and map it for the first time, which has never been done, with a vulnerability assessment. And depending on that mapping and the conclusions you draw, it is this agency that then says to somebody in your State, or says to another member of the Cabinet, or points to a sector of the economy, ``The threat is real. It is predicated upon this information. The vulnerability exists. We think you ought to do these things in order to prepare for it.'' That integration has never occurred anywhere in the Federal Government before. Senator Dayton. It has not, and I wonder if it has ever occurred anywhere on the planet, given the contradictions that you are establishing here. On the one hand you say that you want this new agency to be a customer for information generated by these other entities. Next you say that you want a competitive analysis to be done with the information they are provided. I am not aware, private sector, public sector or anywhere else, of anyone who could find a willing provider of information on product or anything else that is going to be used by the purchaser in a way that is competitive and has whatever effects that competition, if successful on this new entity, will have negatively on the other. I mean, one of the reasons it seems to me we have this difficulty in sharing information and this bureaucratic protectiveness of it, is that it is seen as having value. It is seen that sharing that with somebody else who might upstage or prove wrong or whatever else the fears are, is part of this mentality which results in nothing being provided unless it is extracted. And I go back to what Senator Levin said: How is this new agency to know what it is it does not know, what is not being provided to it. It seems to me you are setting up an inherent contradiction in these two parallel cooperative versus competitive tracks that is going to be inherently self defeating. Governor Ridge. Senator, first of all, Members of the Committee who have been working within the intelligence community for years and years, I think, appreciate the fact that competitive analysis is something that people who deal with this information do not view as an impediment or an obstacle or in any way denigrating the work that other agencies do. The fact that you have another group of trained professionals, based on experience, based on archives, based on intuition, based on a lot of things, it would take a look at the information that has been compiled. Then to take a second look or a third look is not in any way underlying the need for reform that the CIA Director has recognized and has moved himself to task within his agency. Bob Mueller has begun reform and been discussing the measures he would like to do with regard to creating an intelligence unit in the FBI and the reconfiguration of those assets. The fact that they are organizing internally, today as we speak, themselves to add value to their work product which would be shared with the new Department of Homeland Security, which would be again reviewed along with a host of other information that is provided by a variety of other agencies including down the road, State and local police, and I cannot emphasize again, the private sector, would give us I think a flow, a relationship between information, vulnerability and action that we need in this country. Senator Dayton. Governor, my time is up. I will just take a line from President Reagan, ``I do not know whether the competitive analysis is part of the problem or part of the solution.'' If we look back on September 11, I am not convinced that competitive analysis has served our shared desire to protect our homeland and to maximize that protection. And I just would leave this with you. I think you are adding another player into this equation, and I think you are going to compound the difficulties of getting that information provided to everybody. I hope you are certain that the cooperative goal of protecting our country would be better achieved than it has been heretofore by competitive analysis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Senator Dayton. Senator Voinovich. Senator Voinovich. I would like to make some big picture observations and get your reaction to them. Last year when Jim Schlessinger and Admiral Train testified before my Subcommittee on behalf of the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, their statement said that a precondition to fixing everything that needs to be repaired in the U.S. national security edifice was addressing the government's personnel problems. We used to have a coach at Ohio State by the name of Woody Hayes who said, ``You win with people.'' If you look at the deficit that we have in the Federal Government today--we are borrowing $300 billion this year. I can see red ink all the way out. You have limited resources. You have been through this as a Governor. The Chairman held hearings last year about securing post offices, trains, metro stations, water systems--you name it. All of this requires more money. How do you prioritize all of this? Another vital issue is intelligence and the sharing of intelligence. It is the people and technology in those intelligence agencies. What are we doing now to address the inadequacies of these intelligence agencies? Then there is the issue of retirements and the ``the right size of agencies.'' The Partnership for Public Service says that one-third of the employees from five of the major agencies being merged into the new department are going to be eligible for retirement in 5 years. Former General Barry McCaffrey was before this Committee last year, and he said the Border Patrol needs 40,000 agents to properly do its job. I was with the Coast Guard this past week in Cleveland, and our new admiral said he cannot do the job with the people he has. In fact, the Coast Guard has cut a public service announcement for a new program called ``Eyes on the Water,'' enlisting private citizens to help them with their task. What I would like to know from you is what are you doing to address the issues of retirement and right-sizing the agencies that are going to be part of this new department? Governor Ridge. Senator, you have highlighted a challenge to the Federal Government generally, because these men and women in those agencies that would be merged into the new Department of Homeland Security will be retiring in that time period whether or not they become part of this new agency. And that, as you well know, is system wide. That is government wide. And frankly, one of the reasons that the President seeks additional flexibility as the administration would go about setting up this new agency with regard to procurement reform, personnel issues and the like, is to make the agency a lot more agile, and give it some of the tools that it may need to deal with the personnel challenges you are talking about. But we cannot do anything now because we do not have a department. I am sure that is an issue that Members of Congress and the leaders of these agencies have been looking at for quite some time, but it is a government-wide challenge that we are going to have to deal with in the Department of Homeland Security but every other department and agency as well. Senator Voinovich. Do you not agree that in some of these agencies you are going to need more people to get the job done if they are going to continue to do the missions that Congress is already expecting them to do? For example, the Coast Guard, does it need additional resources now that we have given them additional homeland security responsibilities? Governor Ridge. Senator, I think, from our review of the existing agencies that would be merged in here, there are probably people that could be redeployed to enhance homeland security, but I think the President has recognized in his budget in 2003, because of the vulnerability at the ports and the enhanced mission of the Coast Guard, and frankly, under funding over the past couple of years, he has requested the largest single increase they have ever received. So I think once you get the agency tasked and set up, once you give the new Cabinet Secretary an opportunity to reorganize the government, reorganize these agencies on the basis that we have to do it in a way that enhances the protection of this country. Once you give him a chance to reduce some redundancies, once you give him a chance to take a look at all the IT contracts, and there are some on that that are pending. Senator Voinovich. In terms of IT, I know there was a bill that passed the House, and I have introduced it in the Senate, that establishes an exchange program with the private sector to help the government develop its information technology capability. Since 1991 we have failed to fully implement the Pay Comparability Act. Roughly 75 percent of the people in the Senior Executive Service get paid the same amount of money. The FBI Agents Association tells me that their locational pay is inadequate for high cost of living areas such as San Francisco. Agents there have to go 60 miles outside the city to find an affordable apartment. There are some realities that the administration and Congress are going to have to face up to if we are going to deal with the personnel crisis we have confronting the Federal Government. I think the more we invest in people, the better off we are going to be. Governor Ridge. Senator, I am sure that the new Cabinet Secretary wants to attract and retain the best people possible in order to enhance what the President and Congress feels is their most important responsibility, that is to protect America and our way of life. It is for that reason that the President has requested, in this legislation that has gone to the Hill, some flexibility to deal with personnel and procurement issues to enhance that capacity. Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Voinovich. After Senator Specter and I introduced the legislation last fall to create the Department of Homeland Security, I was greatly encouraged that the first colleague to come on as an original cosponsor was Senator Cleland. I was encouraged for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is all he has done to protect the security of the American people over his lifetime. So I am proud to call on you now, Max. Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And in that legislation, as I understand it, the head of the Homeland Security Agency sits on the National Security Council, which may be one way to solve this problem of access to intelligence and what role the intelligence communities play. I agree with you, Governor, I do not think that the Homeland Security Agency ought to be in the intelligence collection business, but certainly the intelligence analysis business except in the context of the National Security Council and what is threatening the national security. So I think the head of the Homeland Security Agency ought to have access to whatever intelligence members of the National Security Council have. And in the Lieberman bill, that I am a proud cosponsor of, that is the case. Do you have a comment on that? Governor Ridge. It does point to one of the ways that the bill addresses the concerns that the Members of Congress have with regard to giving that Secretary access to as much information as possible. So I mean we are in agreement there, Senator. Senator Cleland. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I request that the remainder of my questions be entered into the hearing record. Chairman Lieberman. Without objection. Senator Cleland. I would like to just focus for a moment on the CDC. I understand that in the proposal by the administration the head of Homeland Security relates to the agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services basically in a contractual relationship. In other words, if you need services from HHS you deal with the Secretary of HHS and may provide funds accordingly and so forth, that the CDC under your proposal is left intact in HHS. What I would like you to think about is an idea that I had that might help. In 1995 the President indicated that the FBI would be the lead agency in terms of a terrorist attack. About 2 or 3 years later, 1998, the Congress said that the CDC should be the lead agency in terms of a bioterrorist attack. And when the anthrax attack happened, both agencies converged. The CDC identified, down in Boca Raton, Florida, the substance as anthrax. Then the FBI went in, declared it a crime scene, and in effect, muzzled the CDC somewhat. Both of those agencies competed thereafter. So we do not need competition. We need coordination, cooperation, communication as we mentioned earlier. One of the ways to solve this dilemma I have put forward, and that is that in the case of a terrorist attack, yes, the FBI is a lead agent, or in this case the Secretary of Homeland Defense could be the lead agent. But there may be a point at which someone concludes--in my view it was the HHS Secretary or it may be the head of the Homeland Security Agency--concludes that a threat to the public safety is occurring. Therefore, automatically, by a stroke of the pen, all of a sudden the CDC becomes the lead agent. In other words, sorting out the protocol on a public--not just a terrorist attack but when a public health emergency occurs. Interestingly enough, I understand the Pentagon has put forth some 50 different pathogens out there, only about 15 of which we have vaccinations for. So the threat of a biological attack, surely in the wake of the anthrax attacks, is a real potential threat. Sorting out the protocol though ahead of time I think is very important. I wanted to throw that concept out, that at some point, either with the head of the Homeland Security Agency or the HHS Secretary, have that authority to all of a sudden, boom, by the stroke of the pen, declare a national public health emergency, and all of a sudden then the CDC is triggered with its 8,500 employees who are the world's greatest experts in detecting and identifying pathogens. A little concept I would like you to think about in regard to the CDC. Most of that agency has to do with about seven or eight different centers, focused on one thing or the other, but about 34 percent of the total agency's mission now has to do with bioterrorism. I am looking at the question of whether or not we ought to have a center there in the CDC for bioterrorism, and whether it answers to the homeland defense secretary, or HHS, is not a big challenge to me, but I do think that the synergy that happens between those centers and with those professionals there is a big plus. So as we walk down this road, attempting to get a handle and establish protocol dealing with a bioterrorist attack and the run on the CDC, I would like for you to just keep those thoughts in mind. We do not have to have civil and internal turmoil between agencies every time we have a biological, bioterrorist attack. We can sort it out through some established protocol. And I think that is one of the contributions that you can make, and one of the contributions that legislation can make, that we work these kind of things out before the next biological attack hits the country. Do you have a response or a reaction? Governor Ridge. Yes. Senator, since you live with the CDC as part of your constituency every day, you more than most appreciate the talent and the expertise and the professionalism of the men and women that are there. I have had the chance to visit a couple of times. And the reason that they are specifically included in the legislation referred to through the Secretary of Health and Human Services is because there is a dual infrastructure here. That infrastructure should remain part of Health and Human Services. It has been tasked historically with dealing with public health issues, but now the new threat and the permanent condition we see on the horizon is the enhanced threat of a bioterrorist attack, so they can do the kinds of research we need that improves our knowledge in both arenas. So the notion that we would work through multiple agencies to establish a protocol in advance of an incident, I think is very consistent with putting several of these agencies together, having a strategic focus--remember, this is one of the four units of the President's proposal. There is a strategic focus to set priorities in conjunction with other Cabinet agencies and the other talent that we have in the Federal Government as it relates to countermeasures to weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, CDC is going to be a part of that, the NIH is going to be a part of that. So the notion that you have an intergovernmental memorandum of understanding based on future contingencies makes a great deal of sense, and I think, frankly, having a Department of Homeland Security will make it much easier to affect that kind of working relationship in anticipation of an event. Senator Cleland. I agree, and thank you very much for that opinion. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Cleland. Senator Bennett. I probably should indicate, to give hope to both Governor Ridge and Senators Hart and Rudman, whose patience I appreciate, that I know Governor Ridge has to testify on the House side at 1 o'clock, so we are certainly not going to do any additional questions after we finish this round. And your reward for your superb testimony today will be that we will call you back to the Committee again. Governor Ridge. Good. Senator Bennett. You mean I have only 45 minutes? Chairman Lieberman. Well, I was thinking more along the lines of 7 minutes, actually. Senator Bennett. Senator Bennett. I detected there may be some issues we may have to---- Chairman Lieberman. Yes, there is a lot here. Senator Bennett. Both in public and in private. Chairman Lieberman. We may want, next time, just to have all of us sit together around a table and talk out these issues. Governor Ridge. Good. Thank you, Senator. Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back to my theme. Ninety percent of the critical infrastructure in this country is owned in private hands. All of the conversation we have had in this hearing so far about intelligence assumes intelligence that is gathered by the government from foreign sources, or if not foreign sources, at least domestic terrorist sources. And all of that information, all of that intelligence, rather, is classified because it is gathered by the FBI or the CIA or the NSA or whoever all else, the DIA. And it is classified information because if we disclose the information, in some cases we would be jeopardizing the source. In many cases with the CIA, you would be compromising, perhaps jeopardizing the life of some individual who shares that information with you. That is not the dynamic when we are dealing with information from the private sector, information that the private sector is very nervous about sharing with the government, and frankly, has every reason about sharing with the government because of past experience. I will give you an example. The EPA asked people in the chemical industry, ``Tell us where all of your chemical plants are that may have the potential of causing some kind of public health problem.'' They said, ``We are reluctant to share that information with you.'' The EPA said, ``It is essential for us to do our job to know that.'' So the industry shared that information with the EPA, which then put it on its website, so that any potential terrorist would know the location of every single sensitive vulnerability in that industry, which is why the industry said, ``This is why we did not want to tell you. It is not that we do not trust you with the information. We do not want this information to be public and create a road map for attack on us.'' We are having this debate right now about Yucca Mountain. And the argument is being made by the Senators from Nevada that there will be a great terrorist opportunity with the shipment of nuclear waste, high-level nuclear waste across the country. You want to know when that stuff is being shipped, but do you want everybody in the world to know when that stuff is being shipped? That is not intelligence information. That is regular business information. But when we are dealing with this new world of vulnerability--and again, 90 percent of the critical infrastructure in this country that is vulnerable is in private hands. We have to address the question of how private industry can share information with the government and not have that information be translated into terms that a terrorist can use. Now, I am shilling shamelessly for my bill that says--I understand that the administration has endorsed it--that says that this information, voluntarily given to the government--you can see how I am doing this here--voluntarily given to the government, is not subject to a FOIA request. FOIA anticipates that, says that such information need not be reported, but the FOIA definitions are vague. All my bill does is sharpen that. I am on this crusade because I do not want us to get away from the understanding of the private sector vulnerabilities that we have as we get tied up in legitimate conversations about intelligence gathered by our intelligence agencies. The private sector has created their own form of information sharing in ISACs, Information Sharing and Analysis Centers, but they keep that to themselves. If the new department is going to do its job, it is going to have to create cooperative relationships, not only with these ISACs, but with industry generally. Where the information can be shared, analyzed by government, the analysis shared back with the private sector, but in a way that does not provide information for those who wish this country ill. So again, that is my enthusiasm. I would like your reaction to it and any contribution you might have. Governor Ridge. Senator, the concerns that you have raised with regard to the necessity, one of the private sector sharing some very sensitive proprietary information to the Federal Government as we assess critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, is a concern that we have had based on our conversations with the private sector as we prepare--we are in the process of preparing a national strategy for the President, which is one of the tasks assigned to the Office Homeland Security. So, I want to be as supportive as I can with your efforts. As someone who believes that we need this kind of confidentiality and we need this kind of information, because the nature of the new threat involves terrorists taking advantage and targeting really economic assets and turning them into weapons. And you and I know, and I think we see potential weapons of catastrophic impact in States and communities around this country. So we need to know that kind of very confidential, sensitive vulnerability information. But some of it has a proprietary interest. They do not necessarily want their competitors to know that is what they are doing or that is what they have. And so we do need to come up with a mechanism so this becomes sensitive only as security information that we can use in the government, can be accessible to the Department of Homeland Security, because depending on assessment, depending on the credibility of the threat and how real it is, it might be the private sector that is the target. But we do not know it. We will not be able to assess the vulnerability unless we have that information, so I am encouraging you to continue to be such an aggressive and successful advocate for the change. And I might add, some of the companies are concerned about antitrust as well, as they have conversations with the Federal Government. Senator Bennett. Sure. That is part of my legislation. The image I want people to keep in mind, if this is a battlefield to protect the homeland, 90 percent of the battlefield is outside the government ownership and purview. Do you want to be the general that goes into battle with 90 percent of the battlefield being blind to you in terms of intelligence gathering? Because the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and so on, are not involved in gathering this information. It must be voluntarily given and we have got to create the channels that make it possible for it to be voluntarily given, and in this battlefield, we are not necessarily talking about weapons of mass destruction, but we are talking about tools and weapons of mass disruption, which in terms of the impact on the economy can be just as great. Thank you very much. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Bennett. Senator Akaka. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My concern is with the workforce. Senator Voinovich said earlier that we must have an adequate workforce. And, I want to ask you why the President's proposal does not include recommendations for additional staff or resources. Let me give you an example. It was reported by the FBI unit to be transferred to the new department, and the FBI has a shortage of trained intelligence analysts. This is the same unit that would be expected to provide many of the intelligence analysts for the new department. Moreover, GAO found that this unit lacked the staff and technical expertise to fulfill its mission. Using this one example, my question is why do you believe the White House came to the conclusion that new staff and resources would not be required. Wouldn't the lack of resources impact the department's need for intelligence in a timely fashion? Governor Ridge. Senator, the President believes that if the new Secretary of Homeland Security is given the kind of flexibility he or she needs to reorganize this department in such a way that it significantly improves our capability of preventing a terrorist attack and protecting citizens and our way of life. If he or she is given the flexibility to reprogram dollars, to transfer dollars on an annual basis, to reorganize the department, in the short term, clearly they believe that out of that 170,000 people, qualified people, people who have been working very hard on homeland security issues for a long, long time, that ability to move personnel about, we should be able to fill any short-term needs that would exist. I think obviously if you take--and again, it will be up to the new Cabinet Secretary--depending on what Congress allows for purposes of the reorganization, what consolidation is permitted and what kind of flexibility the new Secretary is given with regard to that consolidation. There are a lot of critical decisions that will be made about personnel at a later date, but presently, as constituted for at least a short-term, the President very much believes that out of 170,000 extraordinarily talented people, if we have some flexibility we can move them around. I do recognize the particularly innate challenge that you have addressed, however, with regard to analysts. And obviously that is a capacity that Bob Mueller looks to enhance, and I think he is looking to add another 500 or 600 analysts in his Central Intelligence Unit. I think George Tenet is looking to increase the number of analysts, and obviously, the new Department of Homeland Security will be looking to enhance their analytical capacity, building an analytical capacity. Some have been looking to the other agencies potentially to bring some people over, going to get some retired analysts potentially, but looking for flexibility to hire on a personal services basis some people out there perhaps in the academic community or others that have had experience. So you have highlighted a concern that Congress has, the President has and all of us. We want to enhance our analytical capacity, and for that purpose, I think giving this new Secretary some flexibility with regard to personnel decisions will enhance that interest, will enable him or her to do so. Senator Akaka. Thank you. You have referred to the movement of personnel from one department or agency to another. And that is why in my opening statement I was urging us to be careful about how we do this so we protect the rights of the workforce. You also alluded to the budget and your hope that we will not require additional resources to carry out the intent of homeland security. In addition to September 11, which was a great disaster for our country, there were lethal attacks on the U.S. Postal Service. The lethal attacks on the U.S. Postal Service caused death and illness to postal employees and customers from anthrax. The use of a bioweapon severely impacted the Nation's $9 billion mailing industry as well, and this is the kind of problem that I am highlighting. My question to you is how will the new agency work with agencies like the Postal Service, that play such a major role in our economy, and to protect that agency's mission and the people it serves? Governor Ridge. Senator, I believe it was the day after the President appointed me the head the Office of Homeland Security within the White House. Within 24 to 48 hours we had the first anthrax incident, first anthrax murder. And it was at a very early stage that I began to work with Jack Potter and the leadership of the unions that provide postal services in this country, and it was because of their leadership and their courage and their tenacity during a series of very, very difficult events, that I think we worked our way, as best we could, based on the knowledge that we had at the time, through a very terrible period for this country and for the men and women of the Post Office. The one thought that I would share with you immediately as to how this new agency would help postal employees and customers, is the strategic focus that the Department of Homeland Security will give to research and development as it relates to homeland security issues. The first impulse for the Postmaster General and for the Post Office was to purchase billions of dollars worth of irradiation equipment. They pulled back and said, that is dealing with the problem after it occurs. Why do we not take some of the hundreds of millions of dollars--and the Congress very appropriately, in the supplemental, gave them, I think, last year $500 million more, and I think there is another $89 or $100 million in this year's supplemental. They pulled back and said, ``Let us explore the universe of bio-detection equipment that we could deploy to determine whether or not we have got a problem to start with.'' So with this notion that working with government agencies based on what they need to serve not only the employees, but their customers, the people of the United States, that I could very much see the interaction between the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security, setting a priority for bio-detection equipment or protection equipment based on the kinds of threat that exists and the needs that they have. So I think that is the most immediate example of how I think they can, would and should work together. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your responses. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Akaka. Senator Akaka. I have some additional questions that I will submit. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Akaka. We will leave the record open for additional questions to be submitted. Senator Carper. Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, how long have you been in your new post? Governor Ridge. Senator, ever since October 8. I cannot tell you I have counted the days. I do not know, it seems like yesterday--9 months. Senator Carper. If we had in place the kind of structure that the administration is proposing in revamping our Federal Government to deal with the issue of homeland security, if we had it in place prior to September 11, how would this proposal have helped us to avoid that catastrophe? Governor Ridge. Senator, I think that is a difficult if not almost an impossible question to answer right now, because we do not know exactly how the new department would be set up. We do know that there is an affirmative obligation that I try to underscore that the CIA and the FBI would have to give their reports and assessments and analytical work to the new agency, whether or not another set of eyes or experiences would have been interpreted differently, if there would have been any enhanced capacity to connect the dots, I think, at this point, is the worst kind of speculation. I do think, however, that prospectively the notion that we will be able to integrate information and match it against vulnerabilities and take action, that there will be a strategic focus on the billions of research dollars that we have spent well and wisely in the past, but more on an ad hoc basis rather than based on an assessment of threat. These are unprecedented times. This is an enduring vulnerability. This is a condition that we are going to confront for a long, long time. And finally, we are going to have a strategic focus on where we place some of the public's money to come up with countermeasures of weapons of mass destruction. The Congress of the United States has been talking for a long, long time about an exit system. I think Senator Durbin pointed out in his opening remarks, 6 years ago the INS was tasked with developing one. And someone else talked about several years ago the INS was tasked to develop a database with the FBI based on fingerprints, so you have had all these ideas very relevant to homeland security in one measure or another, just kind of lingering out there. There is no command structure. There is no accountability structure, that the Congress of the United States calls in somebody and says, ``Look, you were tasked 2 or 3 years ago. Plenty of time has elapsed. Explain to us why you haven't done this.'' And so I cannot talk to you about how it could have been done in the past, but I do know the President likes to align responsibility and accountability. But it is not all good for the President. Might say it would be good for the Congress of United States. The Secretary of Homeland Security, I presume, will pick up those responsibilities to get that job done, hopefully given a reasonable period of time to do it, and if it is not accomplished, be accountable not only to the President but also accountable to you. Senator Carper. When you look back at the months since last October 8 and you think of the challenges that you faced in taking on this new responsibility, can you pick a single challenge that has just been especially difficult to face? How does the proposal of the administration better equip the next leader, the next Secretary, to address that challenge? Governor Ridge. The existence of an agency within the Federal Government, whose primary purpose is to meet the goal of the President and that is shared by the Congress of the United States, to protect American citizens and our way of life, substantially, I believe from the get-go, improves our ability because there is now a consolidated structure and a command structure, an accountability in place that did not exist before. But in addition to relying on the Federal Government to get the job done, the additional advantage--and I think Senator Lieberman felt this way in his proposal; other senators have alluded to it. This task is complex. It is monumental. It is unprecedented. And as well intentioned as we are in the Federal Government in all the programs in the Federal Government, we have to have partners, and the partners have to be in the private sector, and the partners have to be the States and the partners have to be the mayors. So not only does this structure, does this department enhance our ability to protect the homeland with regard to the deployment of Federal resources and people, but I think it is the best way to develop the kind of national partnerships that we need to protect ourselves as well. Senator Carper. In the questioning today, some of our colleagues have talked about areas where we need to invest more dollars, maybe in additional people to patrol our borders, resources at the INS. In the last administration, when they sought to reinvent government, they tried largely to do so in a way that shrunk the size of government, not grew it, in a way that allowed them to provide better services more efficiently. In the end they invested more money in a number of places, but they tried to find ways to spend less and achieve greater efficiencies in others. I think we are going to be real tempted, both in the Congress and in the administration, to invest more money, to invest more dollars in areas that logically make sense. I just hope that as we go through this we will also be mindful of the need to try to find those efficiencies, find ways to look for economies of scale, large or small, to even spend a bit less money in other ways. I think it was Senator Voinovich who talked about how a country which for the last couple of years was able to balance its budget for the first time in ages is now finding itself back in the tank. He said our deficit was $300 billion. It is $300 billion, and we just raised the debt ceiling by another $450 billion. So I just hope that we will be mindful of the need to, while we are trying to save real lives here, we are also spending real money here, and we have to be smart about both of those. I do not know if you have a comment you would like to make on that or not. Governor Ridge. Senator, I think the notion of bringing efficiency to government is something that you and I felt as governors we had the responsibility to do, and not necessarily for saving it, putting it back into necessarily government's pocket, but if you can save it in one area and use those resources in another area, you have enhanced the capacity of government without increasing the size of the budget. We both share that point of view---- Senator Carper. I hope as we go through this process and fashion this legislation, hopefully put on the desk of the President a bill he can sign, that you will feel free in sharing with us how to save money as well as to spend it. Governor Ridge. I think we are going to clearly find at least a preliminary look at the interoperability of the technology that is available to these departments is rather remarkable. I think based on our experience as governors--I know we have talked about this a great deal--you can empower people and make them far more efficient, if you equip them with 21st Century technology, but you cannot layer it, you have to integrate it. And I think as we took a look just at the first quick blush at the IT contracts that may be let with some of these other agencies going out, we would not want them to let those contracts in and of themselves. We would want to design a system so that you can fuse the data and the information from the INS and the Customs and the Coast Guard and everybody else. So I think there are quite a few places we can bring some efficiencies, and if you can save a few dollars there, then of course the new Secretary with the transfer authority can then deploy those resources someplace else, more personnel, more research and development. It creates more options for the new Secretary, and more importantly, more options for this country. Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Governor Ridge's time has not. And we look forward to continue to work with him for a good long while. Thank you. Chairman Lieberman. After this morning, I am grateful that Governor Ridge has not expired. [Laughter.] I have informed Senator Durbin that his questions are all that stand between you and the House, and even the possibility of getting lunch. And I always feel that no one should be asked to face the House on an empty stomach. [Laughter.] So Senator Durbin has said that he would try to keep his questions short. Governor Ridge. My former colleague from the House. Chairman Lieberman. I do not know whether he would care to comment on that. Senator Durbin. Thank you, Governor Ridge. As I reflect on the fact that you and Senator Carper and I got into this business at the same time 20 years ago in the House, I am gratified that you are where you are today. You were the right choice by the President, and I think you have done an excellent job. Let me follow through on the last question that relates to my opening statement. Governor Ridge. Yes. Senator Durbin. I talked about the glaring deficiencies when it comes to information technology, particularly at the FBI and the INS. To think that the FBI, 2 years ago on its computers, did not have access to the Internet, did not have E- mail, still today does not have word search, which for $750 at a Radio Shack in Peoria or Pittsburgh you can buy; they still don't have it. To think that they still use teletype machines to transfer information between different offices, stone age technology that is still part of the premier law enforcement agency in America. It draws me to a conclusion that if we are going to do this and do it right, we ought to take a lesson from history. The Manhattan Project, 60 years ago, summoned the best scientific minds in America to come up with a device to end the war, and it did it effectively. And we have the same challenge today, a Manhattan project challenge, to get the best scientific computer/IT minds together, to put not only the Department of Homeland Security at the cutting edge, but also the FBI, the CIA, and related agencies, so that they can interface, they can communicate, and they can be effective. What do you see as part of this? I mean it seems to be kind of an adjunct to this discussion. We have talked about Departments of Homeland Security, but how are we going to do this Manhattan Project-type approach that really brings us up to date with all the technology currently available? Governor Ridge. Well, Senator, I believe that your goal of creating a 21st Century Department of Homeland Security that is empowered with the best technology on the market, every conceivable application being deployed within the new Office of Homeland Security is at the heart of what I believe the President hopes to work with Congress to create. It is pretty clear that some of the stove pipes that have been created among the agencies initially were created because of particular mandates given to them by Congress, but then once they were told to share information, they never adapted technology to do that. And the fact of the matter is, if we are to maximize our effort collectively to protect America, whether it is the unit that is dealing with intelligence sharing and infrastructure protection or it is the border unit, or it is the FEMA unit, this new Department of Homeland Security gives this Congress an opportunity to design, for the first time, a new department empowered with the best technology available, that once we determine what the policy is and what our mission is--we know what the general mission is, but again we have some other decisions to make with regard to the particulars of the agency--but once we decide what that mission is, getting together the best group of technology minds to look for solutions, not sell products--we will get to the products later--but to come up with a technological solution to empower this is something that we would welcome the opportunity to work with you and similar-minded members of---- Senator Durbin. Take me up the organization chart. Assuming we have a Department of Homeland Security, a CIA, a FBI, and the need for the NSA, and all of these to communicate at certain IT levels, where do I go? Which box in the chart do I go to to make sure all of these are coordinated? Governor Ridge. Well, you will see in the recommendation, as part of the organizational structure we will have an information officer, a technology officer, but the---- Senator Durbin. That is in the Department of Homeland Security. But what about these other agencies; who is going to bring all of these agencies into communication? Governor Ridge. Well, you have begun that process, as I understand it, with regard to the FBI. You have given Director Mueller, I think, the Congress has given Director Mueller several hundred million dollars, so that he can finally create an infrastructure where they can begin sharing information within the agency itself. It is one thing to look to them to share information externally. The Director recognized shortly after he arrived, that they were not even equipped technologically to share information with each other. So again, Congress has taken a leadership role in trying to bring some of these agencies into the 21st Century with new technology. I just think that real aggressive oversight and partnership between the new Department of Homeland Security with partnership with Congress will see to it that from the get-go, this agency is equipped with a kind of technology that is needed to meet the mission that you gave them perhaps even as long as 6 years ago. Senator Durbin. I have two questions and not enough time for both. I would, just for the record, indicate that if we are successful in creating this Department of Homeland Security as envisioned, we will also be creating the 13th Federal agency responsible for food safety. We currently have 12. Now we are going to add the Department of Homeland Security. I think that is mindless. I think we ought to get it together in terms of where we are going. But I really want to ask my question. Did you consider the Hart-Rudman approach suggested, the use of the National Guard as the front line of defense in homeland security, preserving it as a State-run entity, but meeting some national training goals, developing resources, really kind of redefining--or I should say returning to our origins for the National Guard as our homeland defense? Did you think about using that as part of this approach in the Department of Homeland Security? Governor Ridge. We read the Hart-Rudman report thoroughly, as evidenced by the President's initiative and grafted onto his initiative many of their recommendations. I would tell you, Senator, that it is the belief of the administration that the new unified command plan setting up a North American Command under the reconfiguration proposed by the Department of Defense will add value to the new Department of Homeland Security, because there will be a much more direct relationship from secretary to secretary with regard to the deployment of the National Guard. In response to an earlier question that one of your colleagues raised, this is another opportunity and responsibility for the two secretaries to plan in advance of an emergency as to how to deploy and under what conditions to deploy those assets. So clearly my experience with the men and women of the National Guard as Governor of Pennsylvania was as good and as positive as I believe most governors have felt and experienced, the ultimate citizen soldier who responds to the challenge at a moment's notice, and configuring them in the future, configuring their future deployment under certain circumstances on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security would be one of the most important and one of the first missions that the new secretary should undertake with the Secretary of Defense. Senator Durbin. Thank you, Governor Ridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Governor Ridge, thanks very much. It has been a very helpful morning. We have covered a lot of ground. There is obviously some we have not covered. I know our staffs are in close contact. You and I, Senator Thompson and other Members will be. There have been important questions, some of those are--I have not heard anything today that tells me that we cannot or will not get this job done this session of Congress, so thank you very much. Do you need a note for Congressman Shays on the House side or---- [Laughter.] Governor Ridge. Well, you know, I think your note would do just fine, Senator. I appreciate spending some time with you today. Thank you very much. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. Well done. Senator Hart and Senator Rudman, thank you very much for your patience, and for your presence here. As a measure of the high regard in which you are held and the fact that people are interested in what you have to say that at least the four Ranking Members of the Committee are still here at this hour to hear you. It struck me that Hart and Rudman may be competing with McCain and Feingold as the most sought-after tag team here in Washington. Gary, I said to the hearing on the House side last week, when Warren Rudman was there, that in the new age of security that we entered in on September 11, as we look back, you two are going to be the Paul Reveres of this age, in effect, your work and report--we are seeing that the terrorists are coming, unfortunately. We did not respond and organize quickly enough and well enough. We thank you for being here. We are interested in hearing anything you have to say, most particularly your reactions to the President's proposal. Senator Rudman. Let Gary go first. Chairman Lieberman. Is he the older, more senior of the two? Senator Rudman. Smarter. Senator Hart. I just look older. Chairman Lieberman. Senator Hart. TESTIMONY OF HON. GARY HART, CO-CHAIR, U.S. COMMISSION ON NATIONAL SECURITY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Senator Hart. Mr. Chairman, Senator Thompson, Members of the Committee, thank you very much for letting us come. To the end we can presume to speak for the 12 distinguished Americans who served on this Committee with us, and with whom we were honored to serve, I think it is safe to say that all of us our deeply gratified that the President has endorsed the proposal that we made to him very early in his administration, and has indeed gone well beyond the structural suggestions that we were able to make. It was beyond our capacity and our mandate to design a new National Homeland Security Agency, but we certainly tried to lay out the framework and the implementation for that. Objections have been raised. Each of them is answerable very quickly. The suggestion is that this is going to be too costly. That decision has already been made. I think the Congress and the President have concurred that something in the range of $37 or $38 billion will be spent on Homeland Security, and that will of course continue and increase as time goes on. The issue is whether it will be spent under a single coordinated command by one Cabinet officer accountable to the President, the Congress and the American people, or whether it will be disbursed among several dozen existing Federal agencies. The same is true of the allegation of scale, this new agency will be too large. It is already large. Whether it is too large remains to be seen. The fact of the matter is, all the pieces, 98 percent of this new agency is in existence. Again the question is, will they be reorganized and consolidated under a single command, or will they be disorganized and spread throughout the national government? The allegation is made that there will be ``bureaucratic resistance.'' I cannot imagine. I simply cannot imagine. The congressional committee chairperson or subcommittee chairperson or the head of an office in this government, standing before the American people and saying, ``It is more important that I maintain my personal, political prerogative than that 280 million Americans are secured.'' And that is the issue. So if somebody wants to stand up and say, ``Let us keep things the way they are because I have my committee or I have my office, and that is more important,'' I think they will be and should be too embarrassed to make that argument. On the issue of intelligence that we have spent a good deal of time on this morning, it seems to me, and to our Commission, fundamentally apparent that intelligence collection and analysis is one function, operational organization of the Homeland Security is yet another. In 1947, the appropriate analogy, I do not think anyone really seriously suggested that the new Central Intelligence Agency should be in the Department of Defense. And likewise, the existing intelligence assets of this government should not be in this new operational Homeland Security Agency. Now, can an argument be made, and a strong argument, for reorganization of intelligence, the intelligence network in this government? Absolutely. That is a separate issue. The CIA and the FBI were designed or came to be designed to fight the Cold War. The Cold War is over. And yet they persist on as existing bureaucracies. I think serious thought ought to be given, by this Committee particularly, about what to do about that, but that seems to me to be a totally separate issue from the new Homeland Security Agency. One thing that interests me--and I cannot speak for my Co- Chair person, Warren Rudman or the other Commission members--is the issue whether traditional functions such as collection of Customs duties can be maintained in the traditional agency, Treasury, and law enforcement aspects of Customs be moved to the new agency. In other words, should the new Homeland Security Agency be in the business of collecting customs? I think not. Should it be in the business of protecting fishermen? I think not. There are functions that can be left where they are and the law enforcement aspects of all those agencies consolidated. That is one person's opinion. I do want to emphasize, as Senator Durbin did earlier, the importance of the National Guard. This is not contained in the new legislation, but this Committee and indeed all the Congress ought to be thinking about the three arguments for the preeminence of the National Guard in this capacity. One is constitutional. The National Guard exists today as the heirs of the original constitutional State militias for the specific constitutional purpose of protecting the homeland. That is why we have two armies in this country. Second, statute prohibits the use of regular forces to enforce the laws of this country, the Posse Comitatus Act, and I for one think it ought to stay that way, and I think the military thinks it ought to stay that way. And third, the practical issue. 2,700 National Guard units are forward deployed around this country and, properly trained and equipped, they are best prepared to be the front line, the first responders. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the nature of conflict is changing. A couple of Members of the Committee have said that. I am not sure the political leadership in this country had adapted to the notion that what we are dealing with here is not quite war and it is not quite crime. A lot of the confusion about how to deal with the detainees is because of this blurring of distinctions and the changing nature of conflict. I would hope that this Committee as the oversight, or the future oversight committee for this new department, and the new department itself, indeed the entire government, will begin to understand the fact that conflict in the 21st Century is not going to look like conflict in the 20th Century, and declaring war on criminal conduct is probably going to end up, as some people believe with drugs, as the ultimate in folly. My closing thought is that 50 years ago or more, then- President Dwight Eisenhower thought about shifting elements of the national government to the center of the Nation, particularly Colorado, and I thought he had a very good idea at that time. I have noticed that there is some talk about this new agency being housed somewhere outside Washington. Given my own considerable experience on this matter, I think if that happens there is probably a very good chance it will be West Virginia. [Laughter.] Senator Hart. But on behalf of my own State, I would like to say we would welcome this new agency. Thank you. Chairman Lieberman. We will take your recommendation under advisement, Senator Hart. Thank you. Thanks for those excellent thoughts. Senator Rudman, I say it at almost every--also I should say it in your presence: The bill that the Committee reported out is largely a legislative expression of your superb report. So I cannot thank you enough. Senator Rudman. TESTIMONY OF HON. WARREN B. RUDMAN, CO-CHAIR, U.S. COMMISSION ON NATIONAL SECURITY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Senator Rudman. Mr. Chairman and Senator Thompson, and my other friends on the Committee I served on for many years, thanks for inviting us. I join Gary in expressing our appreciation for what you did originally when you responded to our testimony long before September 11. This may be the single most important piece of legislation you will act on in your careers. I happen to believe that as I look back at 1947 or 1948, George Marshall created the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the things that got us through the last 50 years of the last century. It is important to note this is only a beginning. It is hardly the end. The structure the President proposes, your bill, our recommendation are very similar, identical in many ways. It may need to be changed here and there. My experience up here was usually you would take a bill like this, whatever it is, and when it comes out of the Congress generally it is better than it was originally submitted, and I think that is what will happen here. But then the implementation is so important, and I think the comments of Senator Voinovich and others about personnel are so important. I recognize, but you have got to be very careful not to take on too many fights that you could sink the entire proposal, and there are those who would like to use this as a vehicle to reform and change civil service. Whether you can do that, I do not know, but I do know that our report talks about human capital. I want to just make two comments because Gary has really expressed our collective thoughts of our group, and then take your questions. First, in our recommendation--by the way, there are seven recommendations in the report on Homeland Security and there are 43 in the whole thing. The Secretary of Defense has looked at it very carefully, and obviously adopted two or three of the key recommendations. The CINC North Bureau is in this proposal. The establishment of an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security, I understand may well happen. Senator Levin may have a more current view than I have, but we recommended that. And of course the National Guard we said should maintain its dual role. It should keep its current role of being combat support. It is part of the integrated plan of the Joint Chiefs for deployment under various scenarios. We do not want to take that away. But the chances are that some of those things will never happen. The chances are that further acts of terrorism well may happen, and thus we recommend they be dually trained. My understanding is that is under serious consideration. Finally, be very careful about confusing what this new agency will do with the traditional roles of the FBI and the CIA. I have heard many of the same questions when I served on the Intelligence Committee. I chaired the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board for 4 years and served on it for 8 years. The majority of the work the agency does is not homeland security. The great majority of what it does deals with support for military operations, supporting the State Department, supporting strategic policy, and nuclear proliferation. It belongs where it belongs, and the President is absolutely right, the Director of the CIA ought to report to him. The FBI is traditionally a law enforcement agency. If you look at its history during World War II it did an extraordinary job in counterespionage. The war ended. It continued to work as an anti-KGB function within this country, and had some great success. Now it has to shift its focus into a whole new area. And Senator Hart raised it, others have raised it, something not for today, not for this legislation, do we want an MI5 in America? Go back and read the history. There was a very interesting collection that opposed it. It was J. Edgar Hoover and the American Civil Liberties Union, who together did not want to give the CIA an MI5 function for reasons that we could understand even today. Has that changed? I think that rather than debate that issue, which my sense is will not occur, you ought to look long and hard at what you have been looking at during the hearing. How is this analytic agency going to be set up within the department? What access will it have to what information? How will it operate? What kind of technology will they have? Those are the implementation questions. I have said for a long time that the problem with U.S. intelligence is not collection. We collect a lot. It is not analysis. We have too much to analyze. It is dissemination and how we do that, and that is a key role that you are going to have to sit around the table with a lot of smart people and figure out how it is going to look here. It has got to be spelled out in my opinion. So let me take your questions. Chairman Lieberman. Great, thank you. Let me begin with this question that has been the focus of a lot of our attention today. Senator Hart, let me ask you to build on a statement you made which is that we should not create a domestic intelligence agency, if you will, or division, within the new Department of Homeland Security, Senator Rudman has developed it a little more in terms of an MI5 type of operation, either outside of the new department or inside it. Why not, just to get your thoughts on the record? In other words, I am going to make the argument for it, though I have not reached any conclusion on it--if the FBI is now developing to meet the new terrorist threat, a new capacity for domestic intelligence to prevent terrorism, why not put it under the new department? Senator Hart. My study of the Cold War is that separate intelligence collection and analysis guaranteed objectivity. When the producer is also the consumer, conflicts of interest arise. People begin to tilt their judgments because they are on a different career path. If their career is moving up through the agency that is also consuming what they are producing, they may be inclined to say different things for their own personal or bureaucratic reasons. I think the history of intelligence, the intelligence profession, if you will, in this country, which you can date from the mid-20th Century; clearly there were predecessors, but it really began in the 1947 period as a serious professional enterprise--basically support the notion that the collection and analysis is one function, putting that information to use is a separate one, and they ought to be kept separate. Beyond that I can give you more philosophical reasons. Senator Rudman. Can I just comment on that? Is the Chairman's question that the part of the FBI that will deal with counter-terrorism--ought to go into the agency? Chairman Lieberman. Yes. Here is the argument. In other words, obviously traditional post-crime law enforcement that the FBI does: Investigating a crime that has occurred, apprehending the alleged criminal, will be kept where it is. But now if we are going to develop a whole new domestic intelligence counter-terrorism in the FBI, like stuff they have done before but bigger, should that not be outside of the---- Senator Rudman. No, it should not, emphatically. I am going to give you the most important reason why it should not. You will then separate it from its collection. The collection of the FBI is not in a ``counter-terrorism unit.'' It is in every FBI office in every hamlet and city of this country. We saw it with the reports from Minneapolis and Phoenix. These are agents working on general FBI investigations who had it called to their attention that something funny is going on. They report that back to headquarters. Their collection comes from the field. The FBI has no independent collection, so you cannot separate it. If you did you would cause chaos in my view. Chairman Lieberman. OK. One of the questions that I did not get to ask Governor Ridge is about the way in which the Hart- Rudman Commission, our Committee and the President handles the INS. In the end I think this may be one of the more controversial parts of the President's proposal in a political congressional context. The Commission, as I recall---- Senator Rudman. We did not. Chairman Lieberman. I think you might have taken the Border Patrol but that is all. Senator Rudman. Right. Chairman Lieberman. We ended up taking some of the other law enforcement functions from INS, putting them in a new department, but we left all the so-called traditional immigration functions in the Justice Department. The President has taken all of INS--and you know the argument here, which is if you take all of INS and put it in a security agency, then the INS and the country, if I can put it that way, are not going to be as traditionally open and welcome to immigration as we have been. So I wonder if you have a comment on what the President's proposal is here? Senator Rudman. Well, we debated it, and we had quite a debate during the last year of our deliberations, and if you will look at the proposal and you look at the seven, that clearly is not there. The reason it was not there is we could not develop consensus on separating those very parts that you have just captioned from their home agency, Justice in that case, and moving them into this particular unit. However, in conversations I've had since the President's proposal was developed, with various people within the government, people make a strong case that there is more connectivity between these various parts of these individual agencies than we staked, and that we believed at the time we did this. That is one of the reasons that we did not. We thought that there was not that much connectivity. I will give you a good example. The head of the U.S. Customs service is someone I have known for a long time, have a lot of respect for, Bob Bonner, who called the other day and had a long chat about our proposal versus the President's proposal. He pointed out, as he will to you I am sure, that there is so much reliance on one part of that agency with the other, that to separate them starts to really impinge on their effectiveness. Now, he will have to make that case, but I know Gary and I have talked about separating fund raising, called tax collection, from law enforcement. He would say that is the wrong thing to do and he would give you some strong reasons for it. So I think my most important point is you have got a tough job. You have got to sit down with these people. You have got to listen to their arguments and decide whether they are turf arguments or whether they are policy arguments. Chairman Lieberman. Right. Last question for me in the time that I have. Since you made your report and since the developments of September 11 have occurred, as you pointed out, Department of Defense has now established the Northern Command, incidentally in Colorado Springs, and there is possible talk of an Assistant Secretary. Would you fit something into the new Department of Homeland Security statute that guarantees some kind of links or cooperation with---- Senator Rudman. We did. Chairman Lieberman. You did? Senator Rudman. Yes, that is in our report, and I expect they will. We have a very strong connection between DOD and this department in terms of liaison because, Mr. Chairman, in the final analysis, if there was a weapon of mass destruction visited upon an American city, the only organization in America that can respond to it is the United States military. There is no one else. We all know that. Chairman Lieberman. Senator Hart, you have done a lot of thinking about national security policy. Do you want to add anything in this regard? Senator Hart. Yes, I am just perhaps more concerned than Warren is about the two-army principle, and the resistance in the regular military itself to performing a law enforcement function. There is a notion among some Americans that the Defense Department wants to run America. This is not true. Career military officers are the first people to tell you, ``We do not want a law enforcement function.'' Now, the scenario that Warren has cited, a catastrophic attack of some kind, obviously every asset of this country is going to come into play. Nobody is going to be worrying about the niceties of the Posse Comitatus Act. But short of that, we have an army, we have citizen soldiers for this purpose. They must be trained and equipped for this mission of response to an attack. But they can be there first. Under the statutes they should be there first. And then if additional help is needed, our vast military network is available. Now, I happen to think if the attack is on Denver, the Colorado National Guard is going to get there faster than the 82nd Airborne Division in any case. Chairman Lieberman. That is right. Thank you very much for all you have contributed here. You set a high standard of public service after Senate service for Senator Thompson, who will most immediately confront this opportunity. Senator Rudman. Before Senator Thompson questions, I would like to refer the Chairman to page 17 and 21 of the final report, which diagrams the linkage between DOD and the new department as we envisioned it. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. Senator Thompson. Senator Thompson. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. These gentlemen do remind me that there is life after the Senate. Gentlemen, I think the reason why we are hearing so much today about the intelligence gathering activities is because so many of us feel that while what we are doing today is something we can go ahead and do and must do and should do. It is a broader problem and really more pressing, and maybe one that we cannot solve. It seems to me that one of the jobs that we have got here is to make sure we do not do anything in this Homeland Security endeavor that complicates that problem. And I can certainly see the logic of the Chairman's suggestion. We are now moving the FBI into a different category. The three top goals of the FBI now are things that probably would not have even been on a chart a short time ago, much less being the top three priorities. They have to do with before-the-fact activities, instead of after-the-fact solving the crime activities, and there is a logical distinction there. We have got to make sure that we do not do anything with regard to that in this process. It complicates the problem because the Congress and the President have to address these problems inherent in the FBI and intelligence gathering activities that have been on the public record for years. We have all known the difficulties and the transition the CIA has made from the Cold War to the current threat. We have all known that we have lost so many good people at a time when our requirements are much more sophisticated in terms of language skills and things of that nature than ever before. And, of course, these are problems that we have seen with the FBI over the past several years. So we welcome your comments and your help and assistance in that balance as we go forward. One of the things I would appreciate your view on is with regard to the President's proposal and the set up pertaining to the analysis of these reports. I think we have clearly got a lot of discussion as to exactly what they are going to get, when they are going to get it, and what the impetus for the provider of that information is going to be. My question is, getting back to the personnel issue that you have raised so many times, where are they going to get these analysts? Senator Rudman. That is the question of the hour. There is a shortage of analysts at all of the defense agencies. The FBI has extraordinary shortages. There are language issues involved, translation issues involved. You can pull all these blocks down, but unless there is some sort of a system that is going to give some incentive for language education--by the way, one of the recommendations in this report, as I know you know because we have talked about them, Senator Thompson, have to do with education. That is also a national security. We have got to do some things to influence people's careers to go into this kind of work. Senator Thompson. While we have got an immediate problem, we have got to create these analysts ourselves in the meantime. Senator Rudman. America's colleges and universities are turning out a lot of struggling bright young men and women, who I think would enjoy the opportunity to serve their country in what is a very challenging profession. But we are not doing a great deal on that, outside of what the CIA does with its recruiting, to educate people to the fact that here are those opportunities. I would commend that to someone to take a look at. Senator Thompson. And I would imagine we marry that with new information technology capabilities that are out there in the corporate world. It would allow you to determine certain trend lines and probabilities and things of that nature. There seems to me an awful lot in terms of personnel and information technology together that we are not using. Is this correct, Senator Hart? Senator Hart. I think we can turn this problem into an opportunity, and I concur completely with Warren on this. I have spent a good deal of time on campuses, including in Senator Lieberman's State, in the last few months, and the overwhelming reaction of young people in this country, very bright, intelligent young people, was they want to do something for their country, and we have not heard that for 10, 15, or 20 years. So they need to be sought out, and what also is needed in the institutions is fresh thinking. So we can use a generational change here, bring in a new generation of people into the intelligence services, into this new department, and challenge them to think differently. What worries me about the new--very frankly, about the new FBI unit, whatever this is going to be, is if they put old timers in there, if they put people who are the heirs of the Cold War and who are used to chasing KGB agents in there, they are going to be thinking exactly the same way. And we are in a totally new age, and what is lacking is leapfrog generational thinking, that is, not Cold War, not traditional crime behavior, it is something totally new here. So the recruitment of a new generation of young people can be of benefit. Senator Thompson. And unfortunately, that is going to take some time, is it not? Senator Hart. It is. Senator Thompson. But you are right, if we get the analysts, if we get the right kind of people from these other agencies, what were they doing all this time anyway, I mean before these problems all became so apparent? Briefly on another subject, as I looked at this bill--well first of all, I looked at some of the comments some corporate leaders have made with regard to this effort, and they are pretty bleak. They talk about the odds of it succeeding as being pretty bleak. The new head of this thing is not going to have the dictatorial powers that a lot of people have when dealing with a board. They have got to deal with us and everyone else, and they give all these reasons why the difficulties. These reasons seem overpowering. And then I look at this bill. It is a rather short, brief piece of legislation which got my attention. Then I got to thinking that perhaps that is exactly what it has got to be because it seems to give the leadership of this new department the maximum flexibility. Flexibility with regard to management issues, flexibility with regard to personnel, procurement, things of that nature, might be necessary. It is very briefly dealt with in the legislation. But it allows, through regulation, the notification of Congress, and gives the Secretary the ability to do a lot of things that perhaps we should have been doing in other parts of government. Senator Lieberman and I have tried to do some of these things in the procurement area and in some other areas. In order to overcome these hurdles that all these corporate merger experts who have been through all of this before in much smaller versions, we have got to do something unusual ourselves. Perhaps that means that we give the Secretary maximum flexibility. We allow the new head to do some things that we perhaps not allowed before. Do you agree with that? Senator Rudman. I do and I want to make one comment. In the course of our deliberations, we discussed this very issue when we talked about the consolidation, and we did have people like Norm Ohrenstein on our group. I mean this was a group of extraordinary people with a lot of various knowledge. There is a reason we used two words, as I recall from one of our meetings, and I want to read it to you, which responds to your point precisely, and if you do not do this, then you are going to have a serious problem. We said, under recommendation No. 3, the President should propose to Congress the transfer of the Customs Service, the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard to the National Homeland Security Agency, while preserving them as distinct entities. Now, this is what these corporate people do not understand. I have read their comments, and with all due respect, most of them do not know what they are talking about because they do not understand this reorganization, as opposed to corporate mergers, which I am also very familiar with. We are trying to merge a whole bunch of different cultures into the same building. We said separate entities for a reason. The Coast Guard ought to be the Coast Guard. They ought to wear the same uniforms and the same line of command as true with Customs and so forth. Now, after a year or two, if the new department, though there were ways to do this more efficiently and the Congress agrees, then you can do that, but right now to do anything but transfer them as entities that are separate would be to invite disaster. I would make that point. Senator Thompson. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Thompson. These were very good exchanges, particularly on that question of the talent pool to draw on for analysts. In the 1950's some of the most exceptional people were coming out of colleges and going into the CIA. We need information age kids today doing this stuff. Senator Rudman. We sure do. Chairman Lieberman. Senator Levin. Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me add my welcome to two dear friends, former colleagues. You guys were great Senators, and you are great ex- Senators. I just want to thank you for your contribution here. You showed tremendous foresight in your report. I want to go back to the intelligence coordination function. Senator Hart, I listened carefully to what you said, that you thought that this issue should be totally separate from the reorganization proposal that you have made, and I do not think it will be or can be or should be. In the proposal that the administration has given us, it clearly is part of their proposal. I do not know if you had a chance to study their proposal or not, but Section 203 clearly deeply involves this new agency in having access to all reports, assessments, analytical information, all information concerning infrastructure, whether or not the information has been analyzed, that may be collected, possessed, or prepared. And then again, regardless of whether the Secretary has made a request to enter into arrangements, Executive agencies will provide all reports, assessments, and analytical information to the new Secretary. The Secretary will receive all information relating to significant and credible threats of terrorism in the United States, whether or not such information has been analyzed if the President has provided that the Secretary shall have access--it is hard to imagine that a President would not provide for that access. Senator Rudman. I listened to that exchange between you and Governor Ridge, and it was like ships passing in the night there. I do not think you were connecting, either one. I think I understand the reason that language was written that way from my last 8 years on the---- Senator Levin. We welcome your comment, but it is clear that the agency is going to be involved in a coordination function and an analysis function, and my struggle is to figure out where the buck should stop relative to the analysis of information of intelligence that comes in relative to terrorist threats. Right now we have a FBI Counter-terrorism Unit. They do analysis and assessment of the information that comes to them. They get that information through their own sources from the field, they get information through their Counter-terrorism Center in the CIA that they are a part of. We then have the Counter-terrorism Center in the CIA, which is supposed to now put together all of the information from whatever source. That is what exists. You folks are experts on this subject, and I think I am accurate, and when I read their website and understand what they do, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, they have got this function of putting together all of the raw information, trying to connect those dots. And now we are going to have another entity that has got a coordinating purpose and an analysis purpose, quite clearly. Governor Ridge talked about redundancy of analysis as being good. Maybe it is good. Basically though, I would like to know where the buck should stop, where should all the raw information come, providing it is properly collected. I do not want the CIA snooping on American citizens. I want their information about terrorism collected subject to the restrictions that are on the CIA relative to American citizens in the Constitution. I want the FBI to collect properly. But when you get information about a terrorist threat or activity that is in various places, somehow or other it has got to get to one place where dots can be connected, and that did not happen, and it has not happened. Where is that place? Is it going to be the new agency? You are both shaking your head no? It has not been the CIA's CTC. They have not successfully done that. And tell me where that one place is where we can hold accountable an agency head for that kind of analysis. So either one of you or both? Senator Rudman. Well, I will lead off here. In the first place, I think your question has to be answered in two ways, first, over the next 2 or 3 years, and then thereafter. I would say, Senator Levin, that there is no way that this thing can get up and running that they are talking about, and if you were to start to put all of those various dots into that place and ask that place to connect them, I think you are putting yourself at great risk for the next 2 or 3 years. You have got a steep learning curve for those people. You may not be able to get the people. I was here when we worked on a counter- terrorism center. Frankly, if I was still on the Intelligence Committee, I would be spending a great deal of time finding out why it did not work better. And I assume you are. Senator Levin. We are. Senator Rudman. That is why it has to be for the immediate future, because they are taking the raw data, as you know, they prioritize it based on sources and methods, they decide on its reliability, they find out between themselves theoretically all the information through joint collection from both the agency and from the Bureau should be coming in there, as it pertains to terrorism. Of course we have to recognize--the public does not understand this--terrorism information is what, 5 or 10 percent of the information that is collected. It comes in in a mass of information. It has to be separated. It ought to go there, and then it ought to go to this new organization that at the beginning will have a fledgling analytical unit to look at this. What you do 2 or 3 years later, I do not know. You know, some would suggest to take the whole CTC and put it over in the new agency. I would not recommend that. It disconnects it from its collection again. So that would be my answer. Senator Hart. I think the only solution to that problem would be if the President were to appoint a kind of mini version of our Commission, half a dozen people, very bright people with experience to go away for 6 months and come back and with the mandate to pretend we have no intelligence services today: What should we have for the 21st Century? And come back with a blueprint for 21st Century intelligence analysis, collection, distribution, and dissemination. The problem we are facing and you are facing is that we are trying to adapt on the run these Cold War institutions, namely CIA and pre-Cold War FBI, to this totally new world. I keep coming back to that same theme. But if you think linearly that the 21st Century is just a continuation of the 20th Century, you are making a very, very big mistake. It is not. With globalization, with the information revolution, with the changing nature and sovereignty of the Nation and State, the changing nature of conflict, we are in a totally new and different world, and we are using old institutions to try to adapt to this world. Finally, I do not think there is ever going to be a central keyhole through which everything passes for a simple reason: Different intelligence is needed for different purposes. We need economic intelligence for diplomacy. We need law enforcement intelligence to catch criminals. We need homeland security intelligence to protect our homeland. The military needs intelligence to conduct operations in Afghanistan. So to force all of that different kind of analysis through a single funnel is probably going to make a big mistake. Senator Levin. I think it was intelligence relative to terrorist activities which was the focus though, not the economic intelligence. Senator Hart. Well, then that is this agency. Senator Levin. Well, what Governor Ridge said is that this agency is a place--and I think I am quoting him here exactly, I tried to--``Where all information about terrorist threats will be available for integration, where it will be aggregated and analyzed.'' I think those were his words this morning. That surely is not what you two have in mind. Senator Rudman. My sense is, from listening to his testimony, from briefly looking at the legislation, which obviously needs to be fleshed out a bit--and that is what this is all about, what you are doing. It is one thing to say that all the raw data is going to be sent to the agency and analyzed, and something quite different to say that they will have access to that, but the basic work will be done where it ought to be done or within the traditional places where people know how to do it, at least for the next several years. Then decide if you want to change it, but you could not possibly take all the information, put it into this new analytical unit and expect them to come up with anything. They will come up with porridge is what they will come up with. Senator Levin. Do we not expect the CTC to do exactly that? Is it not exactly the function of the CTC right now? Senator Rudman. If it does not work, what makes anybody think it will work better if you put it someplace else? Senator Levin. I am not suggesting we put it---- Senator Rudman. I know you are not, and I agree with you. I think the Committee has to bear down on the CTC. That is what we set up years ago. If it is not working, then it is going to have to be made to work, because there is no magic in changing its name or its address. Incidentally, Senator Levin, I think the answer to their question about why the President had the authority to withhold is probably there could be some things involving sources and methods that they did not want to transfer to that department because they want to launch a covert action, it could be all kinds of things. I think that is the genesis of that language. Senator Levin. That would be the exception though. Senator Rudman. That would be the exception, correct. Senator Levin. Thank you. Senator Rudman. I do not know that. I was not in on the legislation, but reading it, it makes sense to me. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Levin. Senator Voinovich. Senator Voinovich. I tried to get across to Governor Ridge this whole issue of allocation of resources. I have sat down and tried to figure out how much it would cost us to really secure the homeland, and I have concluded that the best investment of money would be in intelligence. If we can really get that down pat, then it would eliminate the need for a lot of the investment that we are making in security. I do not know whether my colleagues know this or not, but we are entertaining applications now from local fire departments to buy fire engines to ``secure the homeland.'' We have to look more carefully at where we put our money. Would you agree that foremost should intelligence, including the people and the technology, as the best investment that we can make in terms of securing our homeland? Senator Rudman. Senator Voinovich, it is a great investment. I want to say something. I say it every place I testify and I will say it again here today. In baseball if you bat .500, you are in the hall of fame. In intelligence if you bat .750, you lose. And we are not going to prevent all of these horrible events from happening through intelligence. I wish I thought otherwise. I have just seen it for too long. After all, these terrorist organizations are not governments that you can focus on. We do not know who some of them are. We do not know where their cells are. We do not know what they are up to. And I read in the Washington Post this morning, the headline story, that the NSA picked up information that was translated the day after. What did that information say that would have given anybody any indication of what was going on? Nothing. It said something bad was going to happen. It did not say where, did not say how. So try not to put too much faith in intelligence, I think it is a false god we worship if we really believe that will do everything. Now, I do not disagree we ought to try, and we ought to put a lot of money into it, but it is not going to prevent it from happening. It never has in our history. Senator Voinovich. Well, the next issue is how far do you go to secure the homeland in terms of the dollars that we are allocating? I talked with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, about airport security. They didn't realize how much they got themselves into, and I think they would like to come back to Congress and revisit how expensive airport security is turning out to be. You just get buried in costs. Senator Rudman. It is going to be very expensive. The question is, do you dare not spend it? And that is the question. Senator Stevens raised a very interesting issue. He talked about the Coast Guard. I mean the Coast Guard probably needs recapitalization. We said so in this report. It cannot possibly do what it is supposed to do with the current budget it has, the current equipment it has. It is a first rate service. They do a great job. They cannot do it all without new equipment and more people. To be expected to take on a whole new function in addition to all the functions they have, you cannot expect them to do it within the framework of the people and the equipment they have. That is unrealistic. And that is a decision---- Senator Voinovich. How do we make people in the administration and Congress understand the importance of people? Since 1991, the Federal Pay Comparability Act has never been fully implemented because it is going to cost some money. Pay compression: Roughly 75 percent of our senior career executives receive the same compensation. These are things that we need to face up to. Senator Hart. Well a lot of people scratch their heads when we included in 21st Century National Security the issue of people. And we concluded, 14 of us including seven Democrats, seven Republicans, that it was that the declining caliber and quality of people in public service was a threat to our national security. It was not a good government issue. It was a threat to our national security. And when you begin to hear that after a quarter century of saying the government is the problem and so forth and so on, that is a sea change in thinking in this country. So at least that, I think, the age of the rather anti-government rhetoric may be somewhat over, not always over, but we have got to say to the young people what a President 40 years ago said to my generation. Public service is a noble profession. And that message has not been heard for a long time. Senator Voinovich. Well, one of the good things that is happening, and the Chairman knows about this, is Sam Heyman has endowed the Partnership for Public Service, and it has signed up 350 universities to showcase the opportunities that exist in the Federal Government today. But my concern is that we have a personnel system that is unresponsive to these young people when they come to go to work for us. We say we want you. Then your application is sent to some office, and then they review it and let somebody interview you, and then they send it back to the office, and 4 months later this really bright person that we want has a job? You cannot operate under those conditions. The last thing I want to ask you regards organization. The President's proposal includes the Homeland Security Department with a secretary. It also provides that the Office of Homeland Security in the White House will be led by an advisor, and then they are going to have a Homeland Security Council, both established by Executive Order. Senator Lieberman's proposal would establish the National Office for Combatting Terrorism in the White House, which will be led by a presidentially appointed Senate confirmed director. The director would have budget authority to ensure coordination across agencies and functions that will remain outside the new department, including intelligence agencies and the military. Are you familiar with this recommendation? Senator Rudman. Only recently, but we did recommend that there be remaining in the White House, in our report, there be a function. We did not go so far as to make it a statutory function as Senator Lieberman did in the original bill, but surely as the President needs a National Security Advisor, he believes he ought to have a Homeland Security Advisor, I would not disagree with that. By the way, I do not know whether this legislation contains it. I think it is absolutely essential that this new Cabinet officer be a part of the National Security Council. I mean with all due respect to the Homeland Security Council, I think he would have a seat at the table of the NSC. Evidently that is not contained in there. I would want to know why. Senator Voinovich. Well, if you have a director inside the White House to do the coordination, and you have a chief of staff, and then you have the Director of Office of Management and Management--you have a lot of people's hands involved, and I just wonder whether it is going to stand in the way of getting something done. Senator Rudman. That could well be, and certainly that is not our proposal. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. Before I go to Senator Dayton for the last questions, I want to make the Chairman's journalistic wisdom and stamina award for the day to Mort Kondracke, who is still here in the fifth hour of the hearing, a remarkable accomplishment. Senator Dayton. Senator Dayton. Mr. Chairman, I think you deserve to share that award. You have been here throughout as well. This is a remarkable report. I am looking here at Phase III, dated March 15, 2001, and the beginnings of one of this Commission's most important conclusions, the attacks against American citizens on American soil, possibly causing heavy casualties are likely over the next quarter century. Most commissions that make that kind of prediction have to wait a quarter century to be proven wrong. Senator Rudman. We wish we had. Senator Dayton. Your presence and foresight has been proven correct, unfortunately. I wish we had given you a more positive topic to explore, such as full employment or rising national incomes. However, as I read through this, it is predictive as well as descriptive. The capabilities are really extraordinary. Senator Hart. It was actually delivered to the President January 31, 2001, a month before that date. And, this was a consensus report. It was very extraordinary among such commissions, all 14 commissioners endorsed all 50 recommendations, no dissenting views. So accommodation had to be made. Some of us believed that the attacks would happen sooner rather than later, and I think Warren said so. I know I gave a speech to the, oddly enough, International Air Transportation Association in Montreal, and headlined in the Montreal paper the next day was, ``Hart predicts terrorist attacks on America.'' That was September 6, 2001. Senator Dayton. Senator, you said in your remarks a couple questions before, that using old institutions to respond to this new world are going to be inadequate. Are we creating this approach, a new institution, or is it just a new assemblage of old institutions? Senator Hart. I think the logic of this--and the President followed it beautifully, whomever put this together--that it is the glue that brings this new agency together is the one simple fact, and that is, of all these 22 or more institutions, in the case of every one of them their job fundamentally changed September 11, 2001, whereas it used to be collecting Customs duties, now it is protecting the shore. Whereas it used to be keeping illegals out of our southern borders, now it is protecting our shore. And the list goes one. Whereas it used to be keeping salmonella out of the food supply, now it is keeping botulism out of the food supply. So the one thing that brings all of these entities together is their jobs have fundamentally changed, and what they used to do or something in the case of Customs Service for 200 years is now secondary to this primary issue of protecting 280 million people. So there is the logic I think. Senator Dayton. Senator Rudman. Senator Rudman. I agree totally, and of course there is something else. There is a common thread here. The thing--when we looked at this whole issue of national security--is reported in a fairly respected journal yesterday as the Hart-Rudman Anti-Terrorism Commission. Of course it was not. It was a charge of national security. And the amazing thing was within 18 months we came to the conclusion that we had a terrible problem that no one was paying attention to, and that we had an asymmetric threat to a force that could not respond to it. When we looked at this of course, the thread was if you cannot protect the border, if you cannot keep most of the people and most of the things from coming in here that should not be coming in here, you all better forget about everything else. And that is where this proposal came from, and I agree with Gary totally. Senator Dayton. It is interesting to me, looking through this document, that you talk about the layered approach to protection and prevention being first. In fact, you said preventing a potential attack comes first. Most broadly, the first instrument of prevention is U.S. diplomacy. Meanwhile, verifiable arms control and nonproliferation efforts must remain a top priority. The second instrument of the homeland security consists of U.S. diplomatic intelligence and military presence overseas. I just want to note for the record that while we are focused here properly on this new Department of Homeland Security, it would seem that in your evaluation that we really have prior strategies that are going to be essential. I wonder how you would set it up now to address those levels of protection and prevention, and if you have any recommendations for us and should that be part of this purview at all? Senator Hart. I think the earlier question had to do with intelligence collection. We did have layers, prevention, protection, and response. Intelligence is key to prevention, but to put a finer point on it, the single most important thing we could do to protect this country today is to put whatever it takes in terms of financial and human resources in to reducing former Soviet stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons and chemical and biological weapons. A year or so ago the administration was cutting back on the funding for those programs, Nunn-Lugar and others, that is folly. There are very few cases where money alone will solve the problem, but this is one where money will go a very long way, and just letting that old Soviet stockpile of all those weapons sit there is a prescription for folly. Senator Rudman. I would add to part of your question that, you know, something that is not the purview of this Committee, but certainly the purview of the U.S. Senate, why are we targeted? Why do people hate us so much? What is it that we do that brings the wrath of Islamic fundamentalists against us? Those are important questions. The answers are not easy. A lot of time is devoted in this report and the implementation report that we wrote to go with it, and it is worth somebody looking at, and we hope somebody will. Senator Dayton. I could not agree with you more, Senator, and I think it is not a matter of either/or, it is both and all. You are right, however, this diplomatic front is one last area to explore. I talked earlier with Governor Ridge about the--even if we have the willingness of these different entities and the people to communicate, share information, the ability to do so, we have been informed of the antiquated nature of the computer and software systems at the FBI and CIA. This new agency is going to come in with something hopefully new, state of the art, but incompatible with the others. Did your Commission look at any of those issues. And particularly, Senator Rudman, you made a comment that the private sector is ill equipped to evaluate what the public sector needs to bring these organizations. I am not sure the public sector has ever accomplished a merger of this magnitude with any degree of success. How are we going to accomplish all of this? Senator Rudman. I was referring to a comment by a fairly well known private head of a major corporation about they were going to merge these all together. He did not understand the proposal. That was my point. No, I think that the private sector has a great deal to contribute, particularly in the information technology area, and if you do not rely on them, you are not going to get it done. Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Senator Dayton, thanks for your substantial contribution to the hearing today. Please allow me to ask you one more question, which is this. In your report and in our bill, we created three divisions of this new department, roughly described as prevent, protect, and respond. The President has added a fourth division, which is this Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear Countermeasures Division. And I wanted to ask your reaction to it. I will tell you the question I have, that part of it seems to be response, how do we respond to weapons of mass destruction? So it leads me to wonder why not put it under the response division that we have already created, essentially run by FEMA. The second part seems to be an R&D Science and Technology Development Division for Countermeasures, a very good idea. Actually we have a section on science and technology in our bill to incentivize, even give grants for development of not just in the area of response to weapons of mass destruction, but prevent and protect as well. So how do you react to this fourth division that the President's bill would establish? Senator Rudman. I am not sure, having looked at it, exactly what it is going to do. I think once you know that, you would have a better idea, so I do not really understand. I would have thought it would have fit under one of the provisions you are talking about, that science and technology would be quite separate. But I assume that somebody had a reason for doing that, and I just do not think you have heard that this morning. I daresay you are going to be very busy trying to understand and your staff to understand all of the parameters of this legislation, because--and there is no reason to think that you can't improve it. Chairman Lieberman. Sure. Senator Rudman. And you probably can, because they obviously have been under pressure to get the legislation up here, but I think that there are a lot of important issues that we have discussed here today, that really have to be looked at very closely. And my sense is, from listening to Governor Ridge this morning, that they are anxious to work with the Congress to get something that will work in a bipartisan way, and I hope you do that. Chairman Lieberman. Incidentally, that has been exactly my reaction to the President's attitude and Governor Ridge's attitude since the President made the declaration about 2 weeks ago supporting the creation of a department. I do not find them to be rigid on anything yet. I hope it stays that way. Do you have anything to add to that, Senator Hart, about that? Senator Hart. No, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. You have been great. You have been great in the reports you did. You have been wonderful to be patient. You have been specifically helpful to me and the Committee in the questions that you have responded to. With your permission, we want very much to keep in touch with you as we develop this over the next couple of months. In the meantime, this Committee, and I would say your Nation, is grateful to you. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:53 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0607.142