[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TRANSFORMING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT AMERICA FROM TERRORISM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 11, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-1
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Homeland Security
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
83-171 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
RICHARD K. ARMEY, Texas, Chairman
TOM DeLAY, Texas NANCY PELOSI, California
J. C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma MARTIN FROST, Texas
DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
_____________
Page
Testimony of:
The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense............ 9
The Honorable Collin Powell, Secretary of State................ 15
The Honorable Paul H. O'Neill, Secretary of the Treasury....... 21
The Honorable John Ashcroft, Attorney General.................. 23
Material Submitted for the Record:
Opening Statements of Select Committee Members................. 4
Questions for the Record for Secretary Powell.................. 51
Questions for the Record for Secretary Rumsfeld................ 53
Questions for the Record for Secretary O'Neill................. 55
Questions for the Record for Attorney General Ashcroft......... 57
(iii)
TRANSFORMING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT AMERICA FROM TERRORISM
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 11, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The select committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m.,
in room 345, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Richard K.
Armey, chairman of the select committee, presiding.
Members present: Representatives Armey, DeLay, Watts,
Pryce, Portman, Pelosi, Frost, Menendez, and DeLauro.
Chairman Armey. This meeting of the Select Committee on
Homeland Security will come to order. The Chair will recognize
himself for a unanimous consent request. Without objection and
pursuant to clause 2(h)(ii) of rule 11 of the Rules of the
House, the number of members that constitute a quorum for the
purpose of taking testimony before the Select Committee shall
be not less than two with a member each from both the Majority
and the Minority. Is there any objection?
Ms. Pelosi. No objection.
Chairman Armey. No objection is heard. So ordered. That
ends the business portion of our meeting.
The Select Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on
transforming the Federal Government to protect America from
terrorism. Given the time constraints of our witnesses, the
Chair would ask members, other than myself and Ms. Pelosi, to
forego opening statements at this time so we can hear from our
witnesses and proceed to questions. Without objection, all
members' opening statements will be made a part of the record.
The Chair now recognizes himself for a brief opening
statement. Let me begin by thanking you, Secretary Powell,
Secretary O'Neill, Secretary Rumsfeld, and General Ashcroft for
taking time to be with us today. It is not often that we see
the four most senior Cabinet officials to form such a
distinguished panel. Each has gone beyond the call of duty in
doing what is necessary to be able to speak with us today.
Secretary Rumsfeld, for example, has come despite his need to
recover from his recent surgery. Secretary O'Neill, in
addition, has delayed his departure on a very important Mideast
trip on business for this country. This testifies to the
importance of what we are doing here.
The President asked no less of us than to embark on the
most significant transformation of government in half a
century. Consolidating hundreds of agencies, services and teams
is not a task to be taken lightly. We are being told to take a
road that is long and difficult. It is also one filled with a
number of significant risks. If we are to take this path, it is
essential that we understand why it is necessary to do so. We
must start with the precise understanding of why an enormous
transformation of our government is required.
The world has indeed changed. It is a much different place
than it was in 1947 when the last transformation of government
took place. It is a far different place than it was a mere 10
months ago. Our place on the world stage will never be the
same.
What will it take to defend freedom under such
circumstances? As the greatest, most free nation the world has
ever known, how do we protect our citizens and our culture from
the forces that hate us? Do we lock up the doors and bar the
windows? Are we perhaps in danger of sacrificing our liberty in
the name of security? These are just some of the questions we
will be compelled to address.
But our purpose today is not to answer every question or to
solve every problem. We must begin at the beginning. We must
understand the need for action as well as the price of
inaction. Right now our standing committees are finalizing
their work on the details of the President's proposal. It would
be more appropriate for this committee to address the exact
details of this legislation after they have finished their
work. Next week we will ask other administration officials to
explain why they believe the President's plan is the right plan
for the challenges we face.
So this morning, let us focus on the problem rather than
the solution. We are fortunate today to have a panel that is
better qualified than any others to begin this discussion. They
will tell us the serious threat the American people face today.
They will offer their firsthand knowledge on the face of
terrorism and how the world has changed. They will explain the
challenges the enemies of freedom present to our society, and
they will tell us whether these threats are enduring.
We welcome our distinguished guests to this committee. I
know all of you agree that our strength is in the people and in
the caring we have for one another. Our strength is in our
communities and our ability to pull together. Because we share
such an important mission, let us embody these great American
strengths in our work here today and in the coming weeks.
Thank you.
The Chair now yields back the balance of my time, and I
recognize the gentlelady from California, the Select
Committee's ranking member, for an opening statement that she
might have. Ms. Pelosi.
Ms. Pelosi. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join you
in welcoming our very distinguished panel today, Secretary
Powell, Secretary O'Neill, Secretary Rumsfeld, and Attorney
General Ashcroft. And as you said, their presence here in
aggregate speaks to the enormous responsibility that we all
have as we proceed in helping to make America a safer place. I
join you in welcoming them, and I would like to commend our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this panel for their
leadership on this most critical issue facing our Nation today:
protecting the American people as we protect our Constitution.
On my side are Representatives Frost, Menendez, and
DeLauro, with whom I am honored to serve on the Select
Committee, and have great expertise and experience in national
security matters as well as the mechanics and functioning of
the Federal Government agencies. Congressman Frost has been
ranking member of the Rules Committee. Bob Menendez has chaired
our Homeland Security Task Force, and Congresswoman DeLauro has
served for years on the Appropriations Committee.
As ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on
Intelligence, I am very aware, sadly, of the nature of the
threat we face. We are all united in our determination to win
the war against terrorism. We all agree that this battle will
be won, and that we will succeed by working together.
Ten months ago, we were attacked here at home. We have a
responsibility to the families of the survivors, indeed to
every person in this country, to reduce the risk of future
attacks. That is why when we began the joint inquiry into the
September 11 attacks, we began with a moment of silence. That
was an appropriate beginning for our other inquiries, of which
this is one. I think that moment of silence carries forth to us
today. Families of those affected by 9/11 talk of their
continuing reaction to events that used to not be of great
concern to them. Some feel fear with merely a plane flying
overhead. Imagine how those families felt with the shooting at
Los Angeles Airport last week.
So every time an act of terrorism, whether it is defined
that way or not, a violent act associated with an airport or,
something like that occurs, these families have deepened pain.
And of course we mourn for the families of those affected by
the L.A. tragedy.
Our government's most important responsibility is to
protect and defend our people. Part of that protection, of
course, is the protection of their civil liberties. Any
proposal must be measured against the simple test: Do the
actions we take make the American people safer and do they
maintain our freedom?
The President's proposal to reorganize the government has
stimulated a healthy discussion about how our government should
be organized best to achieve that goal. We need a Department of
Homeland Security, based on a model for the future. I take hope
in our meetings with the President. He has been receptive to
congressional input on his proposal.
I am especially pleased, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Armey, with
your statement that you will be respectful of members' concerns
and that you are not bound chapter and verse to the details of
the President's proposal.
The Department must be streamlined. It must be agile and
able to take advantage of the technological revolution to
improve communications between and among those who have access
to information and those who need it. Rather than creating a
massive new Federal bureaucracy, we must first support our
first responders at the State and local levels with training,
resources, equipment, and information, and the Federal
Department that matches that.
You know, in real estate, they always say the three most
important issues are location, location, location. Well, in
this case, the three most important issues are localities,
localities, localities. For homeland security, helping our
State and municipal governments must be where our emphasis lies
and where our ideas spring from. That is where the threat is,
the need, and the opportunity.
Successful government agencies have several things in
common. They have a clear mission, and they are provided the
tools and a budget sufficient and targeted to meet that
mission.
There are still some unanswered questions about the
President's proposal. We eagerly await the homeland security
strategy that Governor Ridge's office has been working on for
months, and hopefully we will see that before we finish writing
this bill.
Costs. Two days ago, the CBO released its official estimate
of the cost of the proposal. Just moving departments would cost
about $3 billion, and that is without any technological
additions to the move. That $3 billion doesn't, as I said, does
not bring the Department up to date technologically. Without
the new technology, we cannot really succeed.
And the good governance issues are ones that we must take
very seriously. Civil service laws protecting against political
favoritism would be waived, as I read the bill. Whistleblower
protections would be waived. Open and competitive bidding laws
would be waived. Government sunshine laws such as the Freedom
of Information Act would be waived. I hope that is not part of
our final product. Does national security really demand
creating a second-class group of government employees? I don't
think so, and I think that most Members of Congress share that
view.
These questions are only a few of the important ones facing
us as we move forward with creating a new Department of
Homeland Security. We are the greatest country that ever
existed on the face of the Earth. We can and we must do things
in a better way.
Last week, on the Fourth of July, we celebrated, and we
proved to terrorists that they cannot frighten us. You know,
Mr. Chairman, that the main goal of terrorists is to instill
fear, to have countries change the way they live their lives
and how they regard freedom. We are the land of the free and
the home of the brave. The American people demonstrated that
last week when they turned out to celebrate the Fourth of July
en masse. We can and do things in a way that respects our
people, protects our founding principles, and protects and
defends our communities.
I look forward to the testimony of our very distinguished
witnesses today and thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairman Armey. Thank you, Ms. Pelosi.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM DeLAY
We need to move forward by passing a bill that's going to
provide the president the tools he needs to secure our
homeland. Our current domestic security structure is clearly
inadequate to meet the demands of an age in which the primary
threats to the United States have shifted. While the threat of
a conventional clash with a foreign power has diminished, new
threats have surfaced. We now must grapple with asymmetrical
warfare directed by rogue regimes and the related dangers posed
by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
terrorist organizations with global reach.
What America needs today is an overhauled, comprehensive
agency that is engineered to accommodate the serious dangers
unique to our time. We need to move beyond the bifurcated,
scattered and dysfunctional dispersion of domestic security
responsibility. We need to apply our ingenuity and experience
to craft a combined agency whose employees will arrive at work
each morning with a solitary defining mission: Protecting the
people, resources, and institutions of the United States.
To be organized effectively and function efficiently, the
Homeland Security Department must be consolidated, flexible,
and readily accountable to its Secretary. We simply cannot
afford to invest this new department with the ponderous
inefficiency that hobbles much of the federal bureaucracy. The
safety and security of the United States is reason enough to
design a Homeland Security Department that is responsive,
adaptable, innovative, and aggressively focused on a single
defining mission.
For a host of reasons, the process of combining the
respective components of the federal government into a combined
entity will be difficult and contentious. But we can't allow
our security to be sidetracked to preserve political fiefdoms
or compromised by parochial concerns--there's simply too much
at stake. Although this process will be grueling we often find
that our most difficult assignments produce the work from which
we draw the greatest pride and satisfaction. And, if it is
successful in preempting a catastrophic attack, the creation of
this new Department may eventually be seen as the most
important step taken by Congress in many decades.
The Bush administration has introduced a plan that creates
a new Department of Homeland Security that would have over
170,000 employees and would oversee the country's borders,
aviation security and defense against bioterrorism among other
responsibilities. Today is the first hearing of the Select
Committee on Homeland security.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARTIN FROST
Thank you, M. Chairman. Since we have just a limited amount
of time today, and since all of us want to give our witnesses a
full opportunity to testify about the specifics of this
proposed new department, I ask that the rest of this statement
be inserted into the record.
The security of the American people--at home as well as
abroad--is a bipartisan priority for this Congress. Democrats
have been working to make homeland security a cabinet-level
priority since soon after September 11th.
So we are eager to work with the Administration to create
as quickly as possible a new federal Department of Homeland
Security to provide a smarter, leaner and more effective means
of protecting the public. There are a few keys to accomplishing
this goal--good faith, honest collaboration, and, ultimately,
an open, bipartisan process on the House Floor. If we follow
that path, then I am confident we will succeed for the American
people.
Now, I am sure that each of you is quite busy these days so
I don't want to waste your time here today re-ploughing ground
that has already been well covered over the past 9 months.
Everyone--around the country as well as in this room--
understands how radically the world has changed. September
11th--and the death of some 3,000 innocent Americans--taught us
all that in a way Congressional testimony never could have.
In the wake of that terrible attack, a new national unity
emerged. The people of this nation have pulled together to meet
the first great challenge of the 21st century. Across the globe
in Afghanistan, the men and women of the United States Armed
Forces have proved their courage and skill on the battlefield
once again. Here in Washington, Democrats and Republicans have
put aside partisanship to support the war on terrorism.
And now that President Bush and Republican Congressional
leaders have ended their eight months of opposition to the
idea, there is overwhelming support for the idea of making
homeland security a cabinet-level priority.
So now, with nearly universal agreement as to what we need
to do, and a clear understanding of why we need to do it, there
is only one really relevant question at this point: How can it
be done best to ensure the American people that their
government is doing all it can to keep them safe?
The initial work of answering that question--and of
improving the President's bill--is taking place in other
hearing rooms around the Capitol as we speak. And next week,
this Select Committee is scheduled to turn their efforts into a
single bill.
Based on the Speaker's assurances to the Democratic Leader,
we expect that bill be considered under an open rule--allowing
all Members to have amendments fairly considered on the House
Floor. That is how we created the Department of Education in
1979--under an open rule, over four days of amendments--and I
believe it is a critical element to this process. Ultimately,
the new Department of Homeland Security--if it is to be
successful--must be the bipartisan, collaborative product of
the entire House of Representatives.
Therefore, I would invite each of the witness to use this
opportunity to help the House address some of the specific
steps the House can take to ensure the new Department of
Homeland Security is as smart, as lean and as effective as the
people of this great nation deserve.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE J.C. WATTS, JR.
The select committee has begun listening to all parties and
points of view as we discuss the proposed Department of
Homeland Security. The need for a centralized agency is
certainly great. The House will continue to hear from cabinet
secretaries, administration officials, committee chairmen and
ranking members as we prepare to debate legislation authorizing
the president's request.
During my first year serving in the House, the Oklahoma
City bombing occurred in my home state. During my last term in
Congress, the events of September 11th have forever changed the
world. The need for a heightened level of security in America
has never been greater.
Majority Leader Armey is to be commended for his leadership
on homeland security as he chairs this important committee.
Good government means securing all Americans. It is
important to note that a comprehensive, organized plan of
action taken by local governments to prevent and respond to
terrorism will also help them better prepare for emergencies
such as floods, earthquakes and fires.
I hope the example set by the legislative and executive
branches of the federal government will serve as a model for
local communities around the country. Working with the private
sector, all levels of government must make securing the
homeland their number one priority.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT MENENDEZ
America has never been so powerful. The world has never
witnessed a nation so powerful. Our culture, our government,
our commerce, our ideals, our humanity--virtually everything we
do and all that we stand for--has a global reach that is
unprecedented in the history of civilization.
Yet, America has never been so vulnerable as it was on
September 11th. Winston Churchill once said, ``You can always
rely on America to do the right thing. Once it has exhausted
the alternatives.''
Let me suggest to the distinguished cabinet secretaries
before us, and to my colleagues, that the gravity of the
challenges we face in the wake of September 11th impels us to
prove Churchill wrong on his latter sentiment. We must get this
right the first time.
America now faces the awesome responsibility to protect her
people from terrorism.
This hearing and the legislation before the Select
Committee are about how we exercise that responsibility; how we
prevent, prepare for and respond to the threat of terrorism to
our states, urban areas and rural communities; how we organize
ourselves as Federal, State and local governments, along with
the private sector, to protect the American people from
terrorism; how we preserve the rights of the people enshrined
in the Constitution in the process of providing that
protection; how we respect the rights and the dignity of the
legal immigrants and permanent residents who have helped make
this nation what it is; in short, how we secure the homeland
while preserving our most cherished freedoms as Americans.
How we project American power abroad determines our success
as a global power, with all that entails, and defines us in the
eyes of others. How we redefine the way we project American
power domestically is an entirely different matter, and has
profound implications for our culture and our people.
If we are going to get this right the first time, then we
better lay down a firm foundation. If we don't, we cannot
expect to construct a very sturdy structure will be built on
top of that.
Merely moving numerous agencies under a larger department,
as is proposed in this reorganization bill, cannot and will
not, be a policy panacea. It is but an implementation tool--an
implementation tool that would execute a strategy, which in
itself should derive from a threat assessment.
Ten months after 9/11, we have before us a reorganization
bill, but we do not yet have a coherent strategy for homeland
security, and we do not have a comprehensive threat assessment.
The improved coordination and data sharing this bill seeks must
begin with a threat assessment, followed by a strategy and
plans to implement that strategy. That strategy should outline
specific priorities along with a budget that would allocate the
resources necessary to implement it. These are not proposed
embellishments; they are basic requirements.
The new threat warning system, the realignment of FBI agent
duties to fighting terrorism, and establishment of a new
military Northern Command may all prove to be advisable in the
fight against terrorism, but these actions have appeared to be
improvised and disjointed outside the context of an underlying
strategy. I would be interested in learning from our witnesses
where is the strategy Congress was promised would be delivered
in July.
Second, this is about people. It's about protecting our
friends and neighbors, mother and fathers, brothers and sisters
in America's big cities, small towns, and rural communities.
It's about doing right by the civil service professionals that
would comprise the rank-and-file of the new agency. It's about
ensuring that the first responders who are on the front lines
in all of our districts have all the resources and training
they need. The American people are the stakeholders here. They
need to be involved, they need the resources, and they need to
be listened to--and their rights must be protected.
Yes, American life has changed after September 11th--but
American values have not, and must not. We continue to value
liberty and freedom and justice and fairness.
Third, the central and most glaring problem--even crisis,
considering the consequences--with government performance
during 9/11 was a breakdown of coordination and information-
sharing among government agencies. It simply will not do to lay
that entire responsibility at the hands of the Joint
Intelligence panel. Any new Department of Homeland Security
must include mechanisms that ensure the necessary coordination
and information sharing occurs among government agencies,
states, localities and the private sector.
What we do in this Committee and in this Congress is
critical, but what happens after we pass our new laws may be
even more important. Just consider what has happened with our
airline security measures: We keep hearing excuse after excuse
about why we can't get the explosive detection systems we need
in the time-frame the law requires. What we pass here is part
of the job, but we need to demand that the will of the people--
the people's top priority, keeping their families and our
nation safe--is carried out effectively. We need to demand a
can-do attitude in our government, and--yes--in our private
sector. A nation that can put a man on the moon and lead the
information age can surely figure out a way to get the
detection technology we need in our airports. The same goes for
this new agency.
As a Congress, we need to speak with one voice that excuses
and delays will not be tolerated.
I have concerns about moving the TSA over to a new
Department before it has completed even this primary task.
Integration is important; but it must not distract an agency
like the TSA from its mission to protect the people in the
near-term. That is but one example among many.
If it means we have to invest more resources to do so, than
we should do it. If we need more human talent and better
management, we need to get it.
The terrorists may think they've won some sort of victory--
in fact, they have only assured their own destruction because
we will not rest until the evil of terrorism is eliminated the
face of the Earth. The key is how that happens.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DEBORAH PRYCE
Today, exactly 10 months after the tragic events of
September 11, this committee takes the first step in
accomplishing the important task given to us by the President--
to create a Department of Homeland Security. As the committees
of jurisdiction in the House complete their work today on the
President's proposal, we meet to learn from our honored guests
about the nature of the threat facing our nation, and the need
for this fundamental government reorganization.
Our nation faces what, in many ways, is the most unique and
deadly enemy that we have faced in our history. This enemy is
faceless, hiding in shadows and crossing international borders
with ease, even penetrating into our own country. The enemy not
only threatens our security, it steals from the American people
their sense of safety and confidence. Creating this new
Department will go a long way to both ensuring our security and
restoring the faith and confidence of the American people.
Our government was last reorganized on this scale in order
to respond to a changing global environment following World War
II. At that time, the National Security Act resulted in the
foundation for what is our modern Department of Defense. Once
again, we face a new global picture, and the new threat
requires a unique response and a new way of thinking. We must
refocus our government and enable it to match the agility of
our enemy.
In the days following September 11, we, as a nation,
pledged not to let these times be remembered solely for our
sadness and anger. We knew that these times must be marked by
our national resolve. The American people have shown great
resolve in pulling together to overcome this vicious attempt to
break our national spirit.
The government has also shown resolve in going to
extraordinary lengths to respond to the terrorist threat. But
as these efforts reach the limits of their bureaucracies, it is
up to Congress to take up the President's call to rethink our
government structure and bring together the vital preparedness,
intelligence analysis, law enforcement, and emergency response
functions that are currently dispersed among numerous
departments and agencies. As the President pointed out in his
message transmitting his proposal to Congress, our Nation is
stronger and better prepared today than it was on September 11.
Yet, we can do better.
I want to thank President Bush and our distinguished
witnesses for their leadership in fighting the war on
terrorism. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
bipartisan committee as we conduct additional important
hearings next week. We are moving quickly and deliberately to
create the Department of Homeland Security.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROSA DeLAURO
I want to thank Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell,
Secretary O'Neill, and Attorney General Ashcroft for taking the
time to testify before our committee today.
Since the attacks on September 11th, Congress and the
President have come together to ensure our security. Reflecting
our nation's renewed unity, we have committed to do what is
necessary to win the war on terrorism. And now we are prepared
to do what is necessary for our homeland defense. We have no
more solemn responsibility under this Constitution.
In that pursuit, we already enacted legislation to make our
airlines safer, to strengthen law enforcement and intelligence
capabilities, and to strengthen our response to bioterrorist
attacks.
I look forward to building on that record as we create the
new Department of Homeland Security to ensure the safety of our
citizens.
Many of us have been calling for the creation of a Cabinet
level department to oversee these efforts for months, and I am
pleased that the Administration has responded by offering this
proposal. Obviously, we have a lot of work to accomplish in a
short amount of time, but we want to do this right the first
time. I fully support the creation of this department, but
there are a number of issues that I believe we need to address,
including:
How will the new Department take up
responsibilities that are critically important, but do not
relate to homeland security--such as functions of the Coast
Guard, the INS, and FEMA?
How will the Department effectively coordinate 153
agencies, departments, and offices involved with homeland
security? In fact that number will actually increase to 160.
How will we ensure that the Department is able to
prepare for future bioterrorist attacks, without disrupting the
world class research and public health programs already in
existence at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers
for Disease Control?
How will we ensure a smooth transition from the
current organization to the new organization, without
disrupting the ongoing war on terrorism or harming any of the
non-security functions of agencies like the INS?
How do we ensure that this department will operate
effectively and efficiently and not become a bureaucratic
obstacle to homeland security?
I pose these questions precisely because we stand firmly
with the President and the Administration on ensuring security.
We face enemies who leave us no room for error, and we owe the
American people nothing less.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROB PORTMAN
Last September 11, the terrorists who struck our homeland
killed more civilians than did all our previous foreign enemies
combined. The threats facing America today are different from
the ones we faced during the arms build-up of the Cold War. We
must learn how to make government effective in stopping
terrorism before it strikes. This requires agility on our side,
something we have not usually associated with large government
agencies--at least until now.
Last month, President Bush presented Congress with a
visionary plan to create a new Department of Homeland Security.
With over 100 federal agencies currently sharing responsibility
for homeland security, the creation of such a department is
clearly necessary. However, combining these different agencies
and their roles in a way that matches the agility of our
enemies will not be an easy task. It will require extraordinary
cooperation among all those departments and agencies. It will
require cooperation among the various committees in Congress
that oversee these federal agencies. And perhaps most
importantly, it will require cooperation between the
Administration and Congress.
Today's hearing is an example of this cooperation. I
appreciate Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld, Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill and Attorney
General Ashcroft sharing their testimony with the Select
Committee on Homeland Security. Their joint appearance is
historic. Their insights will be incredibly valuable.
This new Department will not make us immune from terrorism,
but it will make us safer. This committee--and this Congress--
face a difficult task in the coming weeks, but our goal
couldn't be more important. Keeping Americans safe from foreign
threats is the most important responsibility of our federal
government, and the creation of this new Department will help
us carry out that responsibility.
Chairman Armey. Gentlemen, without objection, we will put
your written statements in the record and give you an
opportunity to summarize your testimony before us. Also, I
would like to ask the indulgence of all our witnesses so we can
depart slightly from protocol. The Chair would like to
recognize Secretary Rumsfeld first, to allow him to deliver his
statement and return to the very serious business of his
recovery, and the Deputy Secretary would then take his place to
answer members' questions. Secretary Rumsfeld, you are now
recognized for any statements you might wish to make.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE
Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you very, much Mr. Chairman,
members of the committee, good morning. I do appreciate this
opportunity to make a brief statement on President Bush's
proposal to create the Department of Homeland Security.
In announcing the proposal, the President properly
highlighted the need for unified structure. He noted that today
some 100 Federal entities are charged with responsibilities
having to do with homeland security. As he put it, history
teaches us that critical security challenges require clear
lines of responsibilities and the unified effort of the U.S.
Government. Those new challenges, he said, require new
organizational structures.
Interestingly, it was just such a challenge in 1945 that
prompted President Truman to combine another collection of
offices into what became the new Department of Defense.
Meeting the complex challenges of the global war on
terrorism requires a direct response. It means employing all of
the instruments of national power: diplomatic, economic,
military, financial, law enforcement, intelligence--overt as
well as covert--activities. It means also a two-pronged
approach to defending our country.
First, of course, is attempting to combat terrorism abroad.
The President understands that a terrorist can attack at any
time, at any place, using every conceivable technique. And we
all know that it is not possible to defend in every place, at
every time, against every conceivable method of attack. That
being the case, we simply have no choice but to take the effort
to the enemy. We also have to marshal all of the Nation's
capabilities to attack and destroy terrorist organizations with
global reach and to pressure those who harbor them.
Second is the establishment of the Department of Homeland
Security, which we are discussing today, and to coordinate the
efforts of Federal, State, and local agencies to provide for
security at home. Both of those efforts are crucial, the one
abroad as well as at home, and the role of the Department of
Defense in each differs in important ways.
With respect to the war abroad, U.S. Military forces, at
the direction of the President, are charged with engaging enemy
forces and governments that harbor them. In this effort, the
DOD works closely with other government agencies, including the
Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, and the Intelligence
Community. And in these types of operations, the Department of
Defense often takes the lead with other departments and
agencies working in support of those efforts.
With regard to improving security at home, there are three
circumstances under which DOD would be involved in activity
within the United States:
First, under extraordinary circumstances that require the
Department to execute traditional military missions, such as
combat air controls and maritime defense operations, DOD would
take the lead in defending people and the territory of our
country supported by other agencies. And plans for such
contingencies would be coordinated, as appropriate, with the
National Security Council and with the Department of Homeland
Security.
Second is the emergency circumstance of a catastrophic
nature. For example, responding to the consequences of attack,
assisting in response more today, for example, with respect to
forest fires or floods, tornadoes and the like. In these
circumstances, the Department of Defense may be asked to act
quickly to provide and supply capabilities that other agencies
simply don't have.
And, third, our missions or assignments that are limited in
scope, where other agencies have the lead from the outset. An
example of this would be security at a special event like the
recent Olympics where the Department of Defense worked in
support of local authorities.
The recently revised Unified Command Plan makes a number of
important changes to U.S. Military command structure around the
world. Indeed, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General Dick Myers, recently said that in his view this was the
most important and significant set of changes in the Unified
Command Structure for the United States during his entire
military career. The Unified Command Plan established the
Combatant Command for Homeland Defense, the U.S. Northern
Command, or NORTHCOM, which we expect will be up and running by
October 1st. NORTHCOM will be devoted to defending the people
and territory of the United States against external threats and
to coordinating the provision of U.S. Military forces to
support civil authorities. In addition, NORTHCOM will also be
responsible for certain aspects of security, cooperation, and
coordination with Canada and Mexico and will help the
Department of Defense coordinate its military support to
Federal, State and local governments in the event of natural or
other disasters.
Second, we will establish a new office within the Office of
Department of Defense to handle homeland defense matters, to
ensure internal coordination of DOD policy direction, provide
guidance to the Northern Command for its military activities in
support of homeland defense, and lend support to civil
authorities and coordinate with the Department of Homeland
Security and other government agencies.
Third, the administration has offered legislation to
establish a new Under Secretary for Intelligence. The primary
responsibility of this office would be ensuring that the senior
leadership of the Department of Defense and the combatant
commanders receive the warning and actionable intelligence and
counterintelligence support that they need to pursue the
objectives of our new defense strategy. This new office should
improve intelligence-related activities but also provide a
single point of contact for coordination with national and
military intelligence activities.
Finally, I would just like to briefly mention the two
functions identified for transfer in the President's proposal
from the Department of Defense to the Department of Homeland
Security: the National Communications System, or NSC, and the
National Bioweapons Defense Analysis Center.
The NSC is an interagency body of 22 departments and
agencies of the Federal Government. In addition to its strong
government and industry partnership through the President's
National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, the
transfer of the NSC into the Department of Homeland Security
can be accomplished with little impact on DOD.
The National Bioweapons Defense Analysis Center, the
mission of which would be to coordinate countermeasures to
potential attacks by terrorists using weapons of mass
destruction, does not yet exist. The administration's draft
proposal would establish that Center from the proposed $420
million in the DOD chemical, biological, defense program for
biological homeland security efforts, which is included in the
President's fiscal 2003 budget and transfer it in its entirety
to the new Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense welcomes the new
Department of Homeland Security as a partner that can bring
together critical functions in a new and needed way. Working
together with the other agencies charged with U.S. National
security, we will accomplish our common goal of ensuring the
security of the American people, our territory, and our
sovereignty. Thank you very much.
Chairman Armey. Thank you Mr. Secretary. And Mr. Secretary,
depending upon your comfort level, you are welcome to stay, or
if you do need to move on and substitute your Deputy Secretary,
I think we will all understand.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I will excuse myself.
Ms. Pelosi. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PAUL WOLFOWITZ, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good morning. As
always, it is a pleasure to be here. I appreciate this
Committee's focus on homeland security, and I am pleased to
testify on both the Department of Defense's relationship to the
proposed Department of Homeland Security as well as the threats
facing the Nation and the American people in the 21st century.
In announcing his intention to propose a new Cabinet-level
Department, the President clearly pointed out the need for a
single, unified structure, noting that today numerous federal
entities across the government are charged with
responsibilities having to do with homeland security--far too
many for the circumstances in which we find ourselves. As the
President put it, ``History teaches us that critical security
challenges require clear lines of responsibility and the
unified effort of the U.S. government.'' Those ``new
challenges,'' he said, ``require new organizational
structures.'' And he is right. It was just such a challenge in
1945 that prompted President Truman to combine another
collection of offices into a new Department of Defense.
Secretary Rumsfeld put it another way. He said, ``New times
require new priorities'' and ever since the 2001 Quadrennial
Defense Review, defense of the U.S. homeland has been the top
priority of the Department of Defense.
The Department of Defense strongly supports the President's
initiative to create a Department of Homeland Security. One of
the foremost doctrinal principles that informs how the U.S.
military conducts operations is unity of command. Unity of
command refers to people working together, in harmony, towards
the same goal and under the same command. By consolidating a
number of homeland security functions that are, at present,
scattered across the Federal Government, the new Department of
Homeland Security would provide unity of command. From our
point of view, a Department of Homeland Security would:
Provide a single focus, at the federal level, to
facilitate DOD support when directed by the President and the
Secretary of Defense.
By building greater civil capacity at the Federal
level to protect our borders, prevent domestic attacks and
manage the consequences of attacks, a Department of Homeland
Security would expand the President's options in times of
crisis.
Lastly, by reducing our vulnerabilities at home, a
Department of Homeland Security would contribute to our ability
to deter conflicts abroad by reducing any potential advantage
our enemies might gain by attacking us directly in the course
of a conflict abroad.
The changing nature of the threats we face today--
especially the threats posed by terrorist organizations and
outlaw states--makes such a department an urgent priority, and
we look forward to working with the new organization to provide
for the Nation's defense.
As for the threat posed by terrorists and outlaw states,
this is not--as you well know--a new phenomenon. Terrorism has
a long and bloody history. What is new, however, is the level
to which terrorists are willing to take their murderous deeds,
and the weapons they have now, or may soon acquire, to ensure
that the fear and devastation they inflict upon the innocent is
greater than ever.
What is also new, as has been demonstrated in Afghanistan,
is the ability of terrorist organizations to completely
overtake and occupy a country, co-opt a culture, and oppress an
entire people. Left unchecked in a world where the global
nature of finance, communications, and transportation make it
possible for even relatively isolated individuals or
organizations to have global reach, terrorism presents the
potential for destabilization or, as we witnessed on September
11th, destruction on a scale unmatched in previous eras.
Thus, after September 11th, the world was faced with a
challenge that could no longer be denied or ignored: Do we live
in freedom, or do we succumb to fear?
For the United States of America there was only one answer
to that question. And nine months ago, President Bush answered
it. In a bold and courageous act that recognized both its deep
roots and its terrible potential, President Bush declared war--
not just against the perpetrators of the deadly attacks on New
York and Washington--but against terrorists and their
organizations and sponsors worldwide. Indeed, as the President
has made clear, the sources of the threats we face are not
limited to Afghanistan or the Middle East. They stretch across
the globe.
As September 11th so dramatically demonstrated, we are
vulnerable to many forms of attack. Who would have imagined,
only a year ago, that commercial airliners would be turned into
missiles that would attack the Pentagon and World Trade Towers,
killing thousands? But it happened. In the years ahead, we will
undoubtedly be surprised again by enemies who will attack in
new and unexpected ways--perhaps with weapons vastly more
deadly than those used on September 11th.
Our enemies know we are an open society. They suspect that
the space assets and information networks critical to our
security and economy are vulnerable. They know we have no
defense against ballistic missiles, which only gives them
further incentive to develop weapons of mass destruction and
the means to deliver them. Our job is not only to close off as
many of avenues of potential attack as possible but to prepare
for others--whether from terrorist organizations or from the
outlaw states who cooperate with them and each other, intent on
America's destruction.
September 11th was also a call for the military to do more
with regard to homeland defense. The United States remains
vulnerable to missile attack--which is why we are working to
develop and deploy defenses against the most likely forms of
ballistic and cruise missile attacks. But September 11 taught
us, to our regret, that our people and our country are
vulnerable to internal as well as external attack--from hostile
forces who live among us, who enter our country easily, who
remain anonymously, and who use the freedom America affords to
plan and execute their violent deeds.
Thus, the threat facing the United States today is multi-
faceted and multi-dimensional. Not a single adversary, as we
faced in the Cold War, but a syndicate of enemies characterized
by highly complex and surreptitious interactions between global
terrorist organizations and outlaw states. Compounding the
danger is the fact that these organizations and states are
aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction.
Meeting these complex threats requires an equally complex
response. It means employing all the instruments of American
power--military, economic, diplomatic, financial, law
enforcement, and intelligence--and all the offensive and
defensive tools of our government. It means overt as well as
covert military operations. It means a two-pronged approach to
defending the nation.
The first is combating terrorism abroad. The President
understands that a terrorist can attack at any time, at any
place, using any conceivable technique. Because it is
physically impossible to defend against every conceivable
threat, in every place at every time, we must take the war to
the enemy. We must also marshal all of the nation's
capabilities to attack and destroy any terrorist organizations
with global reach, and to pressure those who harbor them.
In an era in which attacks on our homeland can result in
tens of thousands of deaths, we cannot wait until we are
attacked before we choose to act ourselves. Our highest
priority must be preventing attacks from occurring by
disrupting enemy operations, denying them sanctuary, and when
necessary, using force preemptively.
The second key task in our two-pronged war on terrorism is
to secure the homeland. Immediately after last fall's attack,
the President took decisive steps to protect America. On
October 8, 2001, the President established the White House
Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council
to coordinate the federal government's efforts. On June 6th of
this year, the President proposed the creation of a new
Department of Homeland Security, the most significant
transformation of the U.S. government in over a half-century
and one more key step in the President's strategy for homeland
security. Both efforts--prosecuting the war on terrorism abroad
and securing the homeland--are crucial, and the role of the
Department of Defense in each differs in important ways.
With respect to the war abroad, U.S. military forces, at
the direction of the President, are charged with engaging enemy
forces and the governments or other entities that harbor them.
In this effort, the Department of Defense works closely with
other government agencies, including the Departments of State,
Treasury, Justice and the intelligence community. In these
types of operations, the Department of Defense takes the lead,
with other departments and agencies working in support of our
efforts.
With regard to improving security at home, DOD may employ
U.S. military forces as follows:
1) Extraordinary Circumstances
First, under extraordinary circumstances that require the
department to execute its traditional military missions to
deter, dissuade or defeat an attack from external entities, DOD
and the Secretary of Defense would take the lead. Plans for
such contingencies would be coordinated as appropriate and, to
the extent possible, would be coordinated, as appropriate, with
the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council,
the Department of Homeland Security and other affected
Departments and agencies.
As an example, in the case of combat air patrols, the FAA,
a civilian agency, would provide data to assist the efforts of
Air Force fighter pilots in the Guard and Reserve in
identifying and, if necessary, intercepting suspicious or
hostile aircraft.
Also included in the category of extraordinary
circumstances are cases in which the President, exercising his
Constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief and Chief
Executive, authorizes military action. This inherent
Constitutional authority may be used in cases, such as a
terrorist attack, where normal measures are insufficient to
carry out federal functions.
2) Catastrophic Emergency Circumstances
Second, in emergency circumstances of a catastrophic
nature--for example, responding to the consequences of an
attack, or assisting in response to forest fires or floods,
hurricanes, tornadoes and so on. The President's legislative
proposal envisions the Department of Homeland Security will be
the lead federal agency for domestic contingencies of national
significance.
In these instances, the Department of Defense may be asked
to act quickly to provide or to supply capabilities that other
agencies simply do not have.
3) Limited Support to Other Federal Agencies
Third, missions or assignments that are limited in scope or
duration, where other federal agencies take the lead from the
outset. An example of this would be security at a special
event, like the Olympics, where there were literally more men
and women in uniform in Salt Lake City than there were in
Afghanistan at the same time.
The first of those three categories--extraordinary
circumstances in which DOD, at the direction of the President,
conducts military missions to defend the people or territory of
the United States--falls under the heading of homeland defense.
In these cases, the Department is prepared to take the lead.
The second and third categories are activities which are
emergency or temporary in nature, and for which other federal
agencies take the lead and DOD lends support. Under the
President's proposal, the Department of Homeland Security will
have the responsibility for coordinating the response of
federal agencies and, as appropriate, the interaction of those
federal agencies with State and local entities. DOD will take
an active role in this inter-agency process.
In the event of multiple requests for Department of Defense
assets, the President would be the one to make the decision on
the allocation of these assets. The coordination mechanism of
the National Security Council (NSC) and the Homeland Security
Council (HSC) exists to support just such a decision. The DOD
is represented on both the NSC and HSC.
In sum, the Department of Defense has two roles to play in
providing for the security of the American people where they
live and work. The first is to provide the forces necessary to
conduct traditional military missions under extraordinary
conditions, such as the act of defense of the Nation's airspace
and its maritime approaches. The second is to support the
broader efforts of the DHS and federal domestic departments and
agencies, and indeed state and local governments.
Before I describe the various transformation efforts of the
Department of Defense with regard to homeland defense, I'd like
to mention briefly the role of the National Guard.
The National Guard supports homeland defense and provides
support to civil authorities in several ways.
First, in state service under the direction of State
Governors. An example of this would be the way in which the
National Guard in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut
responded so heroically to the attacks on the World Trade
Center towers on September 11th.
Second, in state service but performing duties of federal
interest, the so-called Title 32 status.
Third, in federal service, or Title 10 status. For example,
when the National Guard is mobilized to serve under the
direction of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
These arrangements have worked well in the past. The
challenge today is to ensure that these arrangements remain
relevant in the new security environment. There are many
proposals for doing so, and the Department will continue to
work with the Congress, the Governors, the Office of Homeland
Security and the proposed Department of Homeland Security to
make certain that we have an approach that meets the nation's
needs.
As for how the Department is organized to support these
missions, a fundamental transformation has been underway to
address the threats the Nation will face in the 21st century.
The new Unified Command Plan makes a number of important
changes to the U.S. military command structure around the
world. Indeed, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General Myers, has described it as the most important set of
changes in his military career.
The UCP established a combatant command for homeland
defense, U.S. Northern Command, which we expect will be up and
running on October 1st. NORTHCOM will be devoted to defending
the people and territory of the United States against external
threats and to coordinating the provision of U.S. military
forces to support civil authorities.
In addition, NORTHCOM will also be responsible for certain
aspects of security, cooperation, and coordination with Canada
and with Mexico, and it will help DOD coordinate its military
support to federal, state and local governments in the event of
natural or other disasters.
Second, we will establish a new office, within the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, to handle homeland defense matters
to ensure internal coordination of DOD policy direction,
provide guidance to Northern Command for its military
activities in support of homeland defense, coordinate
appropriate DOD support to civil authorities, and coordinate
with the Office of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland
Security, and other government agencies.
Third, the Administration has offered legislation to
establish a new Undersecretary for Intelligence. The primary
responsibility of this office would be ensuring the senior
leadership of the department and the combatant commanders
receive the warning, actionable intelligence, and
counterintelligence support they need to pursue the objectives
of our new defense strategy. This new office will not only
enhance intelligence-related activities but provide a single
point of contact for coordination of the Secretary of Defense's
intelligence responsibilities.
Finally, we support the President's proposal to transfer
two items from DOD to the Department of Homeland Security: the
National Communications System (NCS), for which DOD is the
executive agent, and a yet-to-be-established National Bio-
Weapons Defense Analysis Center.
The NCS is an interagency body of 22 Departments and
Agencies of the Federal Government, in addition to its strong
government/industry partnership through the President's
National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee
(NSTAC).
The National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis Center's mission
would be to develop countermeasures to potential attacks by
terrorists using weapons of mass destruction. The
Administration's draft bill would establish the Center from the
proposed $420 million in the DOD Chemical Biological Defense
Program for Biological Homeland Security efforts, which is
included in the President's Fiscal Year 2003 Budget, and
transfer the Center to the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Chairman, September 11th was a stark reminder that
mortal threats to national security did not end with the Cold
War, or with the passing of the last century but, on the
contrary, remain, and indeed, continue to multiply. It is
important that we recognize and respond to that fact.
I remember well that Secretary Rumsfeld made this very
observation in his first official remarks as Secretary of
Defense. He said, ``We enjoy peace amid paradox. Yes, we're
safer now from the threat of massive nuclear war than at any
point since the dawn of the atomic age, and yet we're more
vulnerable now to suitcase bombs, the cyber-terrorist, and the
raw and random violence of the outlaw regime.
``Make no mistake: keeping America safe in such a world is
a challenge that's well within our reach, provided we work now
and we work together to shape budgets, programs, strategies and
force structure to meet threats we face and those that are
emerging, and also to meet the opportunities we're offered to
contribute to peace, stability and freedom * * *
``But,'' he said, ``we need to get about the business of
making these changes now in order to remain strong, not just in
this decade, but in decades to come.''
Mr. Chairman, the Department of the Defense welcomes the
new Department of Homeland Security as a partner that will
bring together critical functions in a new and needed way.
Working together with the other agencies charged with U.S.
national security, we will accomplish our common goal of
ensuring the security of American citizens, territory, and
sovereignty.
I thank the Chair and the Committee and look forward to
your questions.
Chairman Armey. Secretary Powell, we are very pleased to
see that you could make it today and are anxious to hear your
testimony. So please proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE COLLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE
Secretary Powell. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ms. Pelosi, and
members of the committee. It is a great pleasure for me to be
here this morning with my colleagues. I would like to ask the
committee's indulgence for a moment to introduce two guests
that I have brought with me. As I think most of the committee
members will remember from my previous incarnation, I was
chairman of America's Promise: The Alliance for Youth. And one
of the programs that came out of that is an exchange program
between the United States Department of State and the United
Kingdom's Foreign and Commonwealth Office. So, today two young
Americans are in the United Kingdom traveling around with the
Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, Mr. Jack Straw. He has
taken them to Bratislava in Europe to attend meetings with him.
And in exchange, I have two young British--a young lady and a
young gentlemen who are from Surrey, England. I would like to
ask them to stand and be recognized. Ms. Mei Lai Lu and Mr. Tom
Minor. I couldn't bring them or take them to Bratislava or
anything approaching that, so I brought them here, Mr.
Chairman. They were at a Britney Spears concert last night.
They have been to a basketball game, and this is their day with
the State Department to see what a Secretary of State does, and
I think they are having a pretty good time in the United
States.
Chairman Armey. If I might just say, Mr. Secretary, we look
forward to showing you that there can be something better than
Britney Spears.
Secretary Powell. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
it is a great pleasure to testify before you on this very
important subject, and I congratulate you on this new committee
and the work that you will be doing. It is vital work with
respect to the security of our Nation. And I am pleased to
appear with my colleagues to indicate my total support and the
total support of the Department to the new Homeland Security
Department and to President Bush's proposal.
We are prepared to cooperate fully with the new Department.
In fact, we are eager to do so. As President Bush said in
announcing the creation of this new Department, we are a
different Nation today. The tragic events of September 11th and
all those events have conveyed to us--have made us a new Nation
and have given us a new situation that we really have to deal
with.
And I think you, Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Pelosi, have spoken
to this already, because the fight of international terrorism
is different than any other war we fought in our history,
different than any other war that I tried to prepare myself for
as a soldier, or that I fought in as a soldier over the last 40
years. It is a war that will not be won principally through
military might. It will be won through all of the elements of
our national power that Don Rumsfeld spoke to a moment ago:
military might, diplomatic prowess, political efforts, and our
intelligence efforts, and going after financial institutions.
And as the President has said so often, we are in this
fight to win, and we will not weaken, we will not lose our
resolve, we will not run out of patience. We will stick with it
until those enemies that come at us in this new and different
and asymmetrical way are defeated. We will fight terrorist
networks, and all those who support these efforts to spread
fear and mayhem around the world, and we will use every
instrument of our national power and we will not be made
fearful.
As Mrs. Pelosi said, we all gathered last July 4th,
notwithstanding all of the threats that were out there and the
suggestions that something terrible would happen. We all came
out of our homes and went to our public places to show that we
are not a fearful Nation. We are a Nation with a spine of steel
and a heart that is full of courage, and we will not be made
fearful by terrorists. Progress in this campaign against
terrorism will come through the patient accumulation of
successes, some seen, some unseen, and we will remain ever
vigilant against new terrorist threats.
Our goal will be reached when Americans and our friends
around the world can lead their lives free from terrorist
attacks. We cannot, we will not, let the need to fight this war
make us that different a society. We have to protect ourselves,
but we must not put up tall fences, sprinkle broken glass at
the tops, put a guard at the gate, and seal ourselves off from
the rest of the world. We must not become gated America, or
they will have won. We can't let that happen.
So it will require sacrifice, dedication, energy, and a
great deal of wisdom to maintain this precious balance between
our way of life, our openness, that which makes us America to
the rest of the world, our freedom and the security measures
needed to protect our citizens to the maximum extent possible.
We must fight the terrorists and protect the lives of our
citizens, but we must not relinquish the very values that make
us who we are, that have made us the greatest Nation on this
Earth.
In this regard, President Bush's proposal for a Department
of Homeland Security shows the way ahead as America does
everything within its power to protect its citizens at home and
abroad. The President has also proposed that this new
Department assume responsibility for the policy guidance and
the regulation that is required with respect to visa issuance.
As you know, our first line of defense in protecting ourselves
from those who would come to our shores are our diplomats at
our consulates, and other locations around the world, where we
issue visas to people to come to America. The United States is
ready to make sure that our visa system is a strong one, a
secure one, but at the same time, one that encourages people to
come to the United States. Once we have made sure that they are
the right kinds of people to come into our Nation, they are not
coming in to conduct any kind of activity which would be
injurious to any American. Under the new proposal, the
Secretary of Homeland Security will determine what those
policies should be.
The Secretary of State, the Department of State, is
willing, anxious, to give all of the authority that we
currently have with respect to visa issuance, the regulations,
to the Secretary of Homeland Security. That is where it
resides. He will have access to all of the intelligence
information, law enforcement information, and he will make
those policy judgments with respect to who should be authorized
to receive a visa at our many visa-issuing facilities around
the world. We will have some foreign policy input into those
judgments, but I yield all of that authority willingly to the
Secretary of Homeland Security.
I consider it absolutely essential, however, that the
actual issuance of the visas remain with the Department of
State. We have the experience, the training, the language
skills, and the dedicated people to perform this mission. The
State Department represents the United States at more than 200
posts around the world, where it carries out its
responsibilities for conducting foreign policy, promoting
trade, cooperating with foreign law enforcement authorities,
and providing consulate services to Americans aboard. Our
consular officers are also responsible for the issuance of
visas to foreign nationals, but they have many other
responsibilities, and it is difficult to shred out the visa-
issuing responsibility from these other consular activities
that take place at our various facilities.
Most visa applicants want to come here for legitimate
purposes: business, tourism, education. We want them to come to
our schools. We want them to come to the United States and
visit our wonderful tourist attractions. We want them to
participate in health care activities and come use our
hospitals and other facilities.
However, some seek visas for criminal and other unlawful
purposes, including terrorist acts. So we have been working
hard to be sure that only those who mean us no ill come to this
country. There is no entitlement to a visa. The judgment is
that you are not entitled to a visa, unless you can establish
you are coming here for a legitimate purpose.
Since September 11th, we have done a lot to tighten up our
system. The most important thing we have done, really, is to
increase the size of the database available to our consular
officers around the world. We have worked closely with our
intelligence agencies, and especially with the Justice
Department and the FBI, to double the size of the database so
that when a young consular officer overseas puts the name of an
applicant into that database, it comes back here and it gets
the widest dissemination, so it is bounced against all the
databases.
We can do an even better job of that. And I am very pleased
at the level of cooperation that has existed between the State
Department, the Justice Department, the CIA, and all of the
other relevant agencies to make sure that we give the broadest
screening to this name before that consular officer then makes
a judgment as to whether or not an interview is required or
whether or not it should just be shut down out of hand--we
don't want this person here.
So I can assure you we are doing everything possible to
tighten our procedures. We have put in place a new visa called
a Lincoln visa, which I just have a sample here. Using the
latest technology, the finest experts we have in our government
have tried to modify this and alter it to see if they could get
through this system, and they have failed. Doing the same thing
with our passports, all using digitized data--this is my
passport, and I can assure you I have one of the newest and the
best--to make sure that we are protecting ourselves.
Our consular officers do a great job. Do we have problems
from time to time? Have our efforts been defeated from time to
time? From time to time do we have someone who does not live up
to their responsibilities? Yes, that has occurred. But when we
find it, we go after it, as we are doing in the current case at
Doha. But do we also have officers who do a brilliant job of
spotting someone who is trying to defeat the system? Yes, we
do. The gentleman who was arrested recently, Mr. Padilla, was
spotted by a consular officer, who found something unusual
about this particular applicant and reported it to the regional
security officer. That person, being vigilant, reported it back
here. We then contacted the CIA, the FBI, and others, and found
enough about Mr. Padilla so that when he arrived in the United
States, we were waiting for him and he was arrested and taken
into custody.
These are dedicated young men and women around the world.
They have a career path and track. They have the language
skills. They know all of the other consular activities that
take place, that have to take place, in our embassies. In 2001
alone, we adjudicated 10 million nonimmigrant visa applications
and allowed 7.5 million visas to be issued, allowing these
people to come into our country. I want to assure the members
of this committee that we take our responsibilities at the
State Department and our consular responsibilities with utmost
seriousness. And we are seeing what else we need to do, within
the consular service, within the Consular Affairs Office at the
State Department, to make sure that we are doing everything to
guard our Nation, to guard our people, but at the same time to
make sure we remain a Nation of openness, a welcoming Nation,
the America we all love and the world respects.
And we look forward to working with the Secretary of
Homeland Security and all the elements of the Department of
Homeland Security, just as we are now working more closely with
all of my colleagues at the table and the other organizations
within the United States Government, to make sure that we are
doing these two things: protecting ourselves, while remaining
an open society.
And I look forward to your questions, Mr. Chairman, and
members of the committee.
Chairman Armey. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and let me just
say that your statement is very reassuring to me on several
points.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE COLLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY OF
STATE
Mr. Chairman, members of the Select Committee, I am pleased
to testify before your committee.
The Department of State supports President's Bush's
proposal to create a Department of Homeland Security. We are
prepared to cooperate fully with that department. In fact, we
are eager to do so.
As President Bush said in announcing the creation of this
new department, ``* * *we are a different nation today.'' The
tragic events of September 11 and all that those events convey,
have made us so.
The fight against international terrorism is different from
any other war in our history. We will not win this war solely
or even primarily through military might. We will fight
terrorist networks, and all those who support their efforts to
spread fear and mayhem around the world, using every instrument
of national power-diplomatic, economic, law enforcement,
financial, informational, intelligence, and military. Progress
will come through the patient accumulation of successes-some
seen, some unseen. And we will remain forever vigilant against
new terrorist threats. Our goal will be reached when Americans
and their friends around the world can lead their lives free of
fear from terrorist attacks.
We cannot--we will not--let the need to fight this war make
us a different society. We will not put up tall fences,
sprinkle broken glass on the tops, put a guard at the gate and
seal ourselves off from the rest of the world. We will not
become ``gated America.''
It will require sacrifice, dedication, energy and a great
deal of wisdom to maintain this precious balance between our
way of life, our openness, and our freedom, and the security
measures needed to protect our citizens to the maximum extent
possible.
We must fight the terrorists, we must protect the lives of
our citizens, and we must not relinquish the very values that
make us who we are, that have made us the greatest nation on
earth.
In this regard, President Bush's proposal for a Department
of Homeland Security shows the way ahead as America does
everything within its power to protect its citizens at home and
abroad.
The President has also proposed that this new Department
assume responsibility for the policy guidance and regulation
governing visa issuance, and I fully support that proposal.
The Secretary for Homeland Security will determine who can
and who cannot enter the United States. He will pass that
guidance along to the State Department and we will faithfully
execute it.
I will continue to exercise authority with respect to entry
or denial of entry where there are foreign policy
considerations; but for all others, the new Secretary will make
the rules.
I consider it absolutely imperative that the actual
issuance of visas remain within the Department of State. We
have the experience, the training, the language skills, and the
dedicated people to perform this mission.
The State Department represents the United States at more
than 200 different posts around the world where it carries out
its responsibilities for conducting foreign policy, promoting
trade, cooperating with foreign law enforcement authorities and
providing consular services to Americans abroad. Our consular
officers are also responsible for the issuance of visas to
foreign nationals seeking to come to America. Most visa
applicants want to come here for legitimate purposes--business,
tourism, education. Some, however, seek visas for criminal and
other heinous purposes, including terrorist acts against our
people.
Since the September 11 attacks on America, the Department
has taken steps to better integrate the visa issuance process
into the Federal Government's overall border security efforts.
We have, for example, improved access to intelligence data for
visa issuance and forged new relationships among departments
and agencies to share real-time information impacting on
homeland security.
We have also imposed a mandatory 20-day hold on visa
issuances to certain nationalities and demographic groups, to
permit a more thoroughgoing interagency review of these
applications.
We have provided access to our databases so that an
Immigration Officer sitting in the port of Baltimore, for
example, now has access to the same information we do. This
includes photographs of visa applicants.
Our consular officers who do this visa work on a daily
basis must speak more than 50 different languages and have
tremendous drive because the amount of work on our visa lines
around the world is staggering. In FY 2001 alone, we
adjudicated over 10 million non-immigrant visa applications--
and out of this total we issued around 7.5 million visas, or
about 70 per cent.
Nearly three-quarters of our overseas consular officers are
devoted to this visa process, either as those providing direct
interview services or as managers of this function. Where do we
get such people?
Foreign Service Officers and Civil Service employees of the
State Department come from the best talent of America. More
Americans than ever are taking the Foreign Service Exam--over
8,000 in September of 2000, 13,000 in September of 2001, and
14,000 in April of this year. Our men and women are motivated
by patriotism, a desire to serve, and a yearning to see the
world and to meet different peoples. These are some of the best
and the brightest America has to offer.
These men and women learn multiple foreign languages, will
live and work in some of the most inhospitable places in the
world, and will face grave dangers like the recent bombings in
Karachi and Islamabad and the deadly attacks on our embassies
in Nairobi and Dar as Salam--all in order to protect and serve
Americans abroad. Every day I am reminded of their willingness
to sacrifice for their country by the plaque in the lobby of
the Department which records the names of those who have given
their lives. Recently, I had a tragic reminder of the dangers
to their families as well, as the church bombing in Islamabad
took the lives of Barbara Green and her daughter.
Given the dimensions of their task, our consular officers
do exceptional work. Let me give you some recent examples:
One of our consular officers at a Latin American post
noticed an upswing in applications for ship crewmans' visas by
people who did not seem to have any connection to the seafaring
life. But they all had ``certifications'' from a mariner's
school. They also presented what appeared to be a credential
issued by the host government. The consular officers checked
with the local government, and learned that the supposed
credential was false. An investigation showed the mariner's
school was conducting sham training, sending unqualified seaman
onto cruise ships and potentially threatening the safety of
passengers. Eventually, consular officers in three different
countries found links to the mariner school. As a result, local
authorities closed down the school and charged the proprietors
with fraud.
Another of our consular officers, this time in Central
America, noticed that several people had submitted visa
applications which appeared to be filled out using the same
typewriter. None of the people claimed to know each other. An
investigation revealed that a visa fixer was operating a school
to train low-income applicants to fool consular officers during
the visa interview. The school had a psychologist on hand to
boost applicant's confidence, a fashion expert to help them
pick out clothes to give an impression of prosperity, and a
coach to help them through mock interviews. The school also
helped middle class applicants to pose as simple farm folk in
order to qualify for seasonal worker visas. Local police were
able to make several arrests.
Just from these two examples it is clear that we need good,
experienced, language-proficient people on the visa lines. And
we have them and we are getting more of them.
These people and all the people of the Department of State,
stand ready to work closely and in full cooperation with the
new Department of Homeland Security.
I will stop here and take your questions.
Chairman Armey. Secretary O'Neill, we know that you have
your passport in order--let me correct myself--for your trip to
Central Asia. And may I remind members of the panel, the
Secretary needs to get off on that trip by 11 o'clock. At this
time, Mr. Secretary, thank you for your being here and let me
just turn it over to you for your statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PAUL H. O'NEILL, SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY
Secretary O'Neill. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of
the committee, it is a pleasure to be here today, and because
of the shortness of time, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I
am going to submit my statement for the record and let you
proceed with the Attorney General so that we can have some
opportunity for interaction before I really must go at 11
o'clock.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PAUL H. O'NEILL, SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address the
Select Committee today. I am pleased to address the Committee
on behalf of the President's proposal to establish a new
Department of Homeland Security and to offer my wholehearted
support for transforming our government in order to fight
terrorism more effectively and protect our nation.
During my tenure at Alcoa, we constantly sought to rethink
the way we did business. Throughout the company, we tried to
adjust our methods and models to changing circumstances.
Companies that survive, decade after decade, do so through
constant adaptation. In a sense, they exemplify a deep-rooted
corporate tradition-and, truly, a deep-rooted American
tradition-of questioning every tradition.
Change, of course, is often difficult, whether in a
business or in government. Some people worry that change will
require too much from them, or that it will deprive them of too
much clout. President Truman faced such forces in 1947 when he
set out to reorganize the military. The entrenched interests
argued that the American military had just defeated the Axis;
why change what worked? But President Truman recognized that
the nature of warfare was changing. The intense and relatively
brief fighting of World War II was giving way to the Cold War,
which entailed decades of surrogate warfare, positioning for
global supremacy, and the constant possibility of total war.
Not all of this was apparent in 1947, but President Truman
recognized enough of it to realize that things had to change:
It was time for a joint or unified command. He was right.
Now, the nature of warfare has changed once again. The
enemy is no longer necessarily a state. Instead, we face
individuals and small groups, sometimes aided by a state, but
not necessarily clad in its uniform or following its flag.
Indeed, that is the great challenge of the new form of warfare-
knowing who our enemies are. As the investigation into the
attacks of September 11 has demonstrated, they walk among us.
Only their violent and misguided ideology distinguishes them
from our fellow citizens, and, not surprisingly, they keep that
ideology to themselves. Their weaponry, too, is different.
Before September 11, passenger jetliners had never been weapons
of war.
But our weapons have also changed. Technology is giving us
tools for tracking the possible terrorists among us. Flight
manifest and passenger information, once recorded manually, now
is automated through APIS, the Advanced Passenger Information
System. This provides a system for tracking individuals
entering our country. Technology also gives us the ability to
integrate our databases and rapidly communicate our
information. Thanks to new powers that Congress provided under
the USA Patriot Act, Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network can blast-fax information about suspected terrorists to
hundreds of financial institutions, which in turn can provide
any pertinent information back to us. An investigation that
might have taken weeks a few decades ago now takes hours.
September 11 has forced on us the sort of creative thinking
that President Truman did in 1947. We have had to ask ourselves
how this could have happened, what might happen next, and how
we can prevent any further attacks. And the conclusion is
clear: We cannot fight this war using structures designed for
the Cold War, at the military level, and the varieties of
indigenous and foreign crimes, at the law-enforcement level.
Now, as then, new threats require new structures and new
responses.
Today, responsibility for homeland security is scattered
across the government. Lines of communication are not always
open; lines of authority are not always sharply defined; and
redundancies and inefficiencies are built in. One law-
enforcement agency sometimes launches an operation and then
must step aside-not because it finds no evidence of
criminality, but rather because it finds evidence of the wrong
sort of criminality. Last week, for example, the Customs
Service stopped a suspicious boat and searched it for illegal
drugs and other contraband. However, the Customs agents found
illegal aliens. Customs transferred the aliens to the Coast
Guard--currently part of the Department of Transportation. The
Coast Guard, upon reaching land, then turned over the aliens to
the Immigration and Naturalization Service--currently part of
the Department of Justice. Under the President's reorganization
proposal, a single entity would be responsible for all border
issues.
The new Department will have homeland security as its
primary mission. It will bring together within one Department
the key entities to fight the war on terrorism, and ensure that
we have a unified, coherent plan for protecting our citizens
and our borders against the new breed of threats. And,
crucially, it will be accountable. Citizens and public servants
will know where the responsibility lies.
All the parts must work together at the same time and under
the same direction to get things done. We cannot respond to the
terrorist threats simply by pledging more cooperation or by
making marginal changes. We must be willing to make a dramatic
transformation in light of the dramatic threats we face.
Indeed, this Select Committee provides a good example. Although
many committees have jurisdiction over the issues covered by
the proposed new Department, you realized that responsibility
could not be parceled out as before. This Select Committee
centralizes authority. We must engage in this type of fresh
thinking in order to respond to the new threats.
Yes, the challenge is great. To defend our freedom in this
new era, we must work together as never before. We must put
aside notions of turf and tradition and the-way-we've-always-
done-it, and work collectively for the common security. In some
cases, we must say goodbye to valued colleagues. I have deeply
enjoyed my time working alongside the fine public servants in
the Customs Service and the Secret Service, for example, two
Treasury agencies that, under the President's proposal, will be
part of the new Department. But by and large, these hard-
working people recognize the wisdom in centralizing
responsibility for homeland security. They are excited over the
prospect of helping start the new Department.
We know that you in the Congress are faced with a
exceedingly difficult task. We at the Treasury Department
pledge to do all we can to help, in accordance with our common
commitment to combat these new terrorist threats. During the
past few weeks, we have worked closely with several of the
House Committees in drafting legislation to create a new
Department of Homeland Security. We have shared our concerns
and provided our comments. We will continue to provide our
input to ensure that the final bill:
leverages the strengths of the many component
parts,
provides clear and workable lines of authority,
and
creates the most efficient possible structure.
The importance of our work demands nothing less.
Thank you for your commitment to this fight, Mr. Chairman
and members of this Select Committee, and thank you for the
opportunity to address you.
Chairman Armey. Mr. Attorney General, let us move on to
you.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Attorney General Ashcroft. Thank you, Chairman Armey, and
thank you, my colleague, Secretary O'Neill, Congresswoman
Pelosi, and members of the committee. I want to thank you for
convening this hearing on President Bush's plan to make America
safer through enhancement of our homeland security.
On behalf of the Department of Justice, I welcome this
opportunity to express our unqualified support for the
President's vision of homeland security that is rooted in
cooperation, nurtured by coordination, and focused on the
prevention of terrorist attacks.
A number of Department of Justice entities will be a part
of this new Department, most notably the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, but also the Office for Domestic
Preparedness, the analysis and training functions of the FBI's
National Infrastructure Protection Center, and the National
Domestic Preparedness Office. The Department of Justice
supports the prompt and effective implementation of these
transfers, and they are critical to the Department of Homeland
Security's success.
I commend the Congress for its commitment to act on these
measures prior to the first anniversary of the September 11
attacks. Ten months ago to this day, our Nation came under
attack by an enemy that continues to threaten the United
States, our citizens, and the values for which we stand. Today
the United States is at war with the terrorist network
operating within our borders. Al Qaeda maintains a hidden but
active presence in the United States, waiting to strike again.
Terrorists posing as tourists, businessmen, or students seek
also to penetrate our borders. Every year, the United States
welcomes 35 million visitors to our country. More than 700,000
of these visitors come from countries in which al Qaeda has
been active. As a result, we have tightened controls at our
borders and issued new regulations to strengthen enforcement of
our immigration laws.
In June, we announced the National Security Entry-Exit
Registration System. That is the precursor to a comprehensive
entry-exit system that Congress has mandated be in place by
2005. This system reflects the fundamental fact on the war on
terrorism. The fact is that information is the best friend and
most valuable resource of law enforcement. The National
Security Entry Exit Registration System will attract up to
200,000 visitors in the first year, stopping suspected
terrorists prior to entry, and verifying the activities of
visitors and their whereabouts while they are in the country.
For 10 months we have conducted a campaign to identify,
disrupt, and dismantle the terrorist threat. Years ago, the
Justice Department of Robert F. Kennedy said it would arrest a
mobster for spitting on the sidewalk in the fight against
organized crime. On the war on terror, it has been the policy
of this Department of Justice to be similarly aggressive. We
have conducted the largest criminal investigation in history;
129 individuals have been charged, 86 have been found guilty,
417 have been deported for violations. Hundreds more who are in
violation of the law are in the process of being deported in
connection with the investigation.
For 10 months we have been successful in protecting the
United States from another massive terrorist attack, using
every appropriate legal weapon in our arsenal. But we are not
under any illusions. There remain sleeper terrorists and their
supporters in the United States who have not yet been
identified in a way that will allow us to take preemptive
action against them. And as we limit the access of foreign
terrorists to our country, we recognize the terrorists'
response will be to try and recruit U.S. Citizens and permanent
residents to carry out their attacks, individuals like Abdualla
al Muhajir, born Jose Padilla, who is now being detained by the
Department of Defense as an enemy combatant. Al Muhajir, a U.S.
Citizen with ties to the al Qaeda network, was apprehended in
May of this year after we learned he was planning to explode a
dirty bomb on U.S. soil.
But as terrorists have learned to adapt to the changing
tactics of law enforcement, so too have we learned to adapt to
the changing needs of America's domestic security. And among
the chief lessons we have learned in the past 10 months is that
our ability to protect the homeland today has been undermined
by restrictions of the decades of the past. In the late
seventies, reforms were enacted in our judicial system
reflecting a cultural myth, a myth that we could draw an
artificial line at the border to differentiate between the
threats that we face. In accordance with this myth, officials
charged with detecting and deterring those seeking to harm
Americans were divided into separate and isolated camps.
Government created a culture of compartmentalization that
artificially segregated intelligence gathering from law
enforcement. This barred coordination of our Nation's security
between these groups. Barriers to information sharing were
erected between government agencies, and cooperation faltered.
FBI agents were forced to blind themselves to information
readily available to the general public, including those who
seek to harm us. Information restrictions hindered our
intelligence gathering capabilities, and terrorists gained a
competitive technological advantage over law enforcement.
September 11 made clear in the most painful of terms that
there were costs associated with the myth that we could
separate the threat internationally from the threat
domestically. We know now that al Qaeda fragmented its own
operation to prevent the United States from grasping the
magnitude of its threat. The September 11 events were planned
or trained for in Afghanistan, planned in Europe, financed
through the Middle East, and executed in the United States. Al
Qaeda planned carefully and deliberately to exploit the seams
in our security, the seam between the international agencies
and the domestic agencies.
In the months and years preceding September 11, our
weaknesses were among the terrorists' greatest strengths. It is
now our obligation and our necessity to correct these
deficiencies of the past. America's law enforcement and justice
institutions, as well as the culture that supports them, must
change. In the wake of September 11, America's security
requires a new approach, one nurtured by cooperation,
coordination, and collaboration, not compartmentalization; one
focused on a single overarching goal, the prevention of
terrorist attacks.
The first crucial steps towards building this new culture
of cooperation have already been taken. They are the steps that
could be taken by regulation and some by legislation. The
United States Congress is to be commended for acting swiftly to
enact the USA PATRIOT Act which made significant strides toward
both fostering information sharing and updating our badly
outmoded information gathering tools. Intelligence agents now
have greater flexibility to coordinate their antiterrorism
efforts with our law enforcement agencies. And the PATRIOT Act
made clear that surveillance authorities created in an era of
rotary telephones, well, those authorities needed to be able to
apply to cell phones and the Internet and the digital
technology as well.
In addition, the recently announced reorganization of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation has refocused the FBI on
prevention, taking a proactive approach. Instead of being bound
by outmoded organizational charts, the FBI work force
management and organizational culture will be flexible enough
to launch new terrorism investigations to counter threats as
they emerge. Five hundred agents will be shifted permanently to
counterterrorism. Agents in the field have been given the new
flexibility to use expanded investigative techniques. Special
agents in charge of FBI field offices are empowered to make
more decisions based on their specific knowledge of the
terrorist threat.
Finally, the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security will be the institutionalization of the culture of
cooperation and coordination that is essential to our Nation's
security. Part of our reorganization is the enhancement of the
FBI's analytical capacity and the coordination of its
activities more closely with the CIA. The results of this
enhanced analysis and cooperation will be shared fully with the
Department of Homeland Security.
For the first time, America will have under one roof the
capacity for government to work together to identify and assess
threats to our homeland, to match these threats to our
vulnerabilities, and to ensure our safety and security. In
accordance with the President's vision, creation of the
Department of Homeland Security will begin a new era of
cooperation and coordination in defending America's homeland.
Mr. Chairman, history has called us to a new challenge to
protect America's homeland, but history has also provided us
with the lessons we would do well to heed. We must build a new
culture of justice, in which necessary information is readily
available to law enforcement. We must foster a new ethic of
cooperation and coordination in government. We must make our
institutions accountable not just to their antiterrorism
mission but to the American people they serve. We must always
do this while respecting our Constitution and the rights which
America is uniquely aware of and which America uniquely
protects.
I thank you for your leadership and this opportunity to
testify.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Good morning. Chairman Armey, Congresswoman Pelosi, members
of the committee. Thank you for convening this hearing on
President Bush's plan to make America safer through the
enhancement of our homeland security. On behalf of the
Department of Justice, I welcome this opportunity to express
our unqualified support for the President's vision of homeland
security rooted in cooperation, nurtured by coordination, and
focused on the prevention of terrorist attacks.
A number of Department of Justice entities will be a part
of this new department, most notably the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, but also the Office for Domestic
Preparedness grant programs, the FBI's National Infrastructure
Protection Center and the National Domestic Preparedness
Office. The Department of Justice supports the prompt and
effective implementation of these transfers, which are critical
to the Department of Homeland Security's success. I commend
Congress for its commitment to act on these measures prior to
the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
Ten months ago to this day, our nation came under attack by
an enemy that continues to threaten the United States, our
citizens, and the values for which we stand. Today, the United
States is at war with a terrorist network operating within our
borders. Al Qaeda maintains a hidden but active presence in the
United States, waiting to strike again.
Terrorists, posing as tourists, businessmen or students,
seek also to penetrate our borders. Every year, the United
States welcomes 35 million visitors to our country. More than
700,000 of these visitors come from countries in which al Qaeda
has been active.
As a result, we have tightened controls at our borders,
issuing new regulations to strengthen enforcement of to our
immigration laws. In June, we announced the National Security
Entry-Exit Registration System, the precursor to a
comprehensive entry-exist system that Congress has mandated be
in place by 2005. This system reflects a fundamental fact of
the war on terrorism: that information is the best friend and
most valuable resource of law enforcement. The National
Security Entry-Exit Registration System will track up to
200,000 visitors in its first year, stopping suspected
terrorists prior to entry and verifying visitors' activities
and whereabouts while in the country.
For ten months, we have conducted a campaign to identify,
disrupt and dismantle the terrorist threat. The Justice
Department of Robert F. Kennedy, it was said, would arrest a
mobster for spitting on the sidewalk if it would help in the
fight against organized crime. In the war on terror, it has
been the policy of this Department of Justice to be equally
aggressive. We have conducted the largest criminal
investigation in history. 129 individuals have been charged. 86
have been found guilty. 417 individuals have been deported for
violations of our laws. Hundreds more are in the process of
being deported.
For ten months, we have protected the United States from
another massive terrorist attack using every appropriate legal
weapon in our arsenal. But we are under no illusions. There
remain sleeper terrorists and their supporters in the United
States who have not yet been identified in a way that will
allow us to take preemptive action against them. And as we
limit the access of foreign terrorists to our country, we
recognize that the terrorists' response will be to recruit
United States citizens and permanent residents to carry out
their attacks individuals like Abdullah al Muhajir, born Jose
Padilla, who is now being detained by the Department of Defense
as an enemy combatant. Al Muhajir, a U.S. citizen with ties to
the al Qaeda network, was apprehended in May of this year after
we learned that he was exploring a plan to explode a ``dirty
bomb'' on U.S. soil.
But as terrorists have learned to adapt to the changing
tactics of law enforcement, so too have we learned to adapt to
the changing needs of America's domestic security. And among
the chief lessons we have learned in the past ten months is
that our ability to protect the homeland today has been
undermined by the restrictions of decades past.
In the late 1970s, reforms were enacted in our judicial
system reflecting a cultural myth that we could draw an
artificial line at the border to differentiate between the
threats we faced. In accordance with this myth, officials
charged with detecting and deterring those seeking to harm
Americans were divided into separate and isolated camps.
Government created a culture of compartmentalization that
artificially segregated intelligence gathering from law
enforcement, barring coordination in the nation's security.
Barriers to information sharing were erected
between and within government agencies, and cooperation
faltered.
FBI agents were forced to blind themselves to
information readily available to the general public, including
those who seek to harm us.
Information restrictions hindered our intelligence
gathering capabilities and terrorists gained a competitive
technological advantage over law enforcement.
September 11 made clear in the most painful terms the costs
of these myths and the culture they produced. We know now that
al Qaeda fragmented its operations to prevent the United States
from grasping the magnitude of the threat. The terrorists
trained in Afghanistan, planned their operation in Europe,
financed their activities from the Middle East, and executed
their attacks in the United States. Al Qaeda planned carefully
and deliberately to exploit the seams in our homeland security.
In the months and years preceding September 11, our weaknesses
were among the terrorists' greatest strengths.
It is now our obligation and our necessity to correct the
deficiencies of the past. America's law enforcement and justice
institutions as well as the culture that supports them must
change. In the wake of September 11th, America's security
requires a new approach, one nurtured by cooperation, built on
coordination, and focused on a single, overarching goal: the
prevention of terrorist attacks.
The first crucial steps toward building this new culture of
cooperation and prevention have already been taken.
Congress's passage of the USA-PATRIOT Act made significant
strides toward both fostering information sharing and updating
our badly outmoded information-gathering tools. Intelligence
agents now have greater flexibility to coordinate their anti-
terrorism efforts with our law enforcement agencies. And the
PATRIOT Act made clear that surveillance authorities created in
an era of rotary phones apply to cell phones and the internet
as well.
In addition, the recently announced reorganization of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation has refocused the FBI on
prevention, taking a proactive approach. Instead of being bound
by outmoded organizational charts, the FBI workforce,
management and operational culture will be flexible enough to
launch new terrorism investigations to counter threats as they
emerge. 500 agents will be shifted permanently to counter-
terrorism. Agents in the field have been given new flexibility
to use all expanded investigative techniques. Special Agents in
Charge of FBI field offices are empowered to make more
decisions based on their specific knowledge of the terrorist
threat.
Finally, the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security will be the culmination of the process of restoring
cooperation and coordination to our nation's security. Part of
our reorganization is the enhancement of the FBI's analytical
capability and the coordination of its activities more closely
with the Central Intelligence Agency. The results of this
enhanced analysis and cooperation will be shared fully with the
Department of Homeland Security. For the first time, America
will have under one roof the capacity for government to work
together to identify and assess threats to our homeland, match
these threats to our vulnerabilities, and act to insure our
safety and security. In accordance with the President's vision,
the creation of the Department of Homeland Security begin a new
era of cooperation and coordination in the nation's homeland
security.
Mr. Chairman, history has called us to a new challenge: to
protect America's homeland. But history has also provided us
with lessons we would do well to heed. We must build a new
culture of justice in which necessary information is readily
available to law enforcement. We must foster a new ethic of
cooperation and coordination in government. We must make our
institutions accountable, not just to their new anti-terrorism
mission, but to the American people they serve.
Thank you for your leadership and thank you for this
opportunity to testify.
Chairman Armey. Thank you and let me thank all our
panelists.
We are now going to proceed to questions under the 5-minute
rule, and I might advise the committee that I will try to stick
as strictly as possible to that. Also, I want to exercise the
prerogative of the chairman and reserve the right for me to ask
my questions at the end of the process so that we can involve
our other committee members.
So at this time, with the indulgence of the committee, I
would defer to my friend and colleague, Mr. DeLay, to open
questions on our side of the aisle.
Mr. DeLay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the
House of Representatives. What a distinguished panel. Since the
Chairman is going to adhere to the 5-minute rule, I want to
jump into questions. And I know your time is short, Mr.
Secretary O'Neill, so I start with you. Can you talk about the
impact that terrorism concerns have had on our financial
markets and what might be done to lessen that impact?
Secretary O'Neill. Yes, indeed. I think what we have seen
in our financial markets is in effect an increase in the risk
premium that investors attach to investments, so that the
uncertainty that is created by the reality of the attacks of
September 11 and the heightened probability that future acts
can occur has in effect been discounted into the marketplace,
so that people are requiring higher rates of return than they
did before September 11. I think as we go through time, most
hopefully without any new events, the risk premium will shrink;
but it won't ever go away completely, I think, because it is a
new reality of our world that we have to anticipate and know
that these terrible kinds of things could be repeated.
But there are some things that we can do--and the House of
Representatives has already acted on one of those things--such
as passing so-called terrorist risk insurance. By taking the
action that you did, hopefully soon to be followed by a
complete action of the Senate and by conference committee, I
think we can take the exorbitant costs that are associated with
trying to buy terrorist risk insurance in the private sector
and appropriately move it above the consideration and concern
of the private marketplace, so that if there is another
terrorist event we will have to pay the costs, but it won't be
baked into every single transaction that takes place in the
private sector.
So I think we are beginning to--we haven't quite completed
that activity, but, again, I think only time will heal this. I
don't think time will ever completely heal the sense that we
have and the risk premium that will now be inevitably baked
into our future market considerations.
Mr. DeLay. Thank you.
Mr. Attorney General, as I travel around the country the
question that is asked most often about the Department of
Homeland Security is if we are creating this Department in
order to protect the homeland, why is not the FBI and the CIA
within the Department of Homeland Security? Maybe you could
answer that question.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, one of the important
things about the FBI is to understand the breadth of its
responsibility, and its responsibility was substantial before
we had the elevated awareness that has been part of the
national understanding since September 11. It is involved in
general law enforcement investigation and in the provision of
the information and evidence necessary for prosecutions. It is
important to note that frequently those involved in terrorist
activities, though, have other connections to criminal
activities. So an integrated approach is appropriate so that
the FBI can both develop information regarding terrorism, but
also provide a basis for prosecuting individuals, including
suspected terrorists, on things like document fraud, credit
card fraud, and the other kinds of criminal activities in which
we found that many of these individuals who are associated with
the population of terrorists have been engaged. Those
activities can go forward.
It is with that in mind that we think that a coordinated,
integrated effort in the FBI remains a part of the Justice
community. After all, terrorism is criminal activity, and
frequently those associated with terrorism are involved in
other criminal activities as well.
Mr. DeLay. Mr. Secretary Powell, could you talk about the
threat from State-sponsored terrorism and maybe identify our
Nation's greatest concern today?
Secretary Powell. That is one of our greatest concerns, Mr.
DeLay. There are those States that have not come to the
realization that the way to provide for your people in the 21st
century is through democratic practices, get rid of
totalitarian forms of government. There are those states that
continue to believe that they can get an advantage by
developing weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass
destruction that they might consider using. And some of these
states have used these weapons against their own people or
perhaps these weapons of mass destruction can be used by non-
state terrorists.
And that is why the President has taken a very strong
position on this. He has identified what we call the ``axis of
evil,'' several specific states, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq,
that clearly fit this category, and why we are remaining
especially vigilant and looking constantly at what our policies
should be with respect to such states. And we should be--we
should be concerned, more than concerned. We should be very,
very concerned about these states, and we conveyed to our
friends and allies around the world why they should be
concerned.
When you look at a state such as Iraq, the first target for
these types of weapons is not the United States, but more
likely their own neighbors. And they have demonstrated
previously they will use it on their neighbors and they will
use it on their own people. So we should have no illusions
about the nature of these states and why they are developing
these weapons.
There are other states that are not so identified on the
``axis of evil'' which are also concerns to us, for example
Libya, Syria. And we are constantly looking for this kind of
activity and taking all of the action appropriate to make sure
that we can counter, deter, and, if necessary, find ways to
defeat these kinds of threats.
Chairman Armey. The gentleman's time has expired.
Secretary O'Neill, I promised you and made a commitment
that we would be able to release you to begin your travel by 11
o'clock. Your time has come for this departure, and I want to
thank you again for the effort that you have made to come to
this hearing, and excuse you at this time.
Secretary O'Neill. Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to
amend my plans to have left last night at 9:30 in order to be
here. If I may, and if the gentlelady doesn't mind, may I say
just a couple of things that may be a useful contribution to
your thought process before I leave?
Chairman Armey. That would be great.
Ms. Pelosi. We welcome it.
Secretary O'Neill. I would make this plea. As you all do
your important work in considering the proposal from the
President. Beginning with this idea, I think it is critically
important that as this new Department is formed, that while the
principles be clearly established of what its mission will be
and what the expectations will be, that the new Secretary--that
you give the new Secretary a substantial grant of authority for
flexibility.
And the reason I make this plea to you is this: I think
simply collecting the organizations that have been named under
one new title is not what we need to do. We need to deploy the
resources that are going to be made available in a way that is
consistent with the mission that needs to be performed, and I
would submit to you it is not simply a continuation of the
missions as they have been performed in the past.
And then I would offer you from my experience in assembling
an organization, a growing organization from a little over
40,000 to 140,000 people, it is really true that it doesn't
need to be more expensive to have a bigger organization than a
smaller organization. And even though it is not a direct
analogy, I would suggest this thought process to you. As I
bought operations all over the world in Hungary, Italy, Spain,
China, and all over Latin America, I have to tell you, I never
spent any money except the amount of money required to hire
sign painters to put our name over the door, in order to
integrate them into what is by all accounts the best
organization of its kind in the world. And in fact, in the
process of assembling those organizations, it was possible to
achieve very substantial cost improvements not at the expense
of the human beings; because we were mindful of the need to
recognize the contributions that people had made in their
previous incarnation and previous organizational structure.
But I do not believe that it takes substantial amounts of
money, because I think, for example, the notion of co-locating
160,000 people is, frankly, crazy, because most of the people,
in fact--particularly those that are associated with the
Customs Service and the Secret Service that I know about--they
are appropriately deployed today in a geographic sense for the
most part. A change into a new organization will not require
huge redeployments.
So I would urge you to be skeptical of the idea that this
new formulation requires huge amounts of resources. Rather, it
requires for the new Secretary substantial flexibility to
organize in order to work at the critical mission.
And then I would offer you one example of this that we
already moved forward with in the Customs Service. Customs
Service is a great organization. It began in 1789. The
traditions are strong. The people are so dedicated and loyal to
the mission that they have, and I know that they will carry
that with them to the new Department of Homeland Security. But
I want to tell you this little story. For more than 200 years,
these people have been doing their work. And I think everyone
felt they did it with distinction to the day of September 10.
On September 11, everyone in the society recognized that we had
a new set of forces that we had to deal with. And as the
Customs Service looked at the proposition of dealing with
traffic coming across the borders, they had a new thought
process that was really important, and I was fortunate enough
to go to Detroit a few months ago to witness the introduction
of a new process for how Customs deals with goods coming across
the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, which is a bridge that
transports millions of trucks every year, largely for the
automobile industry.
We thought we were doing a good job in the Customs Service
before September 11th. But what we thought is we have got to do
a better job now of making sure that weapons of mass
destruction, in pieces or parts or in totality, don't come
across our borders. So we have to do a better job of
inspection. But the thought process changed after September
11th to say, let us think about this in a more holistic way and
let us not think about it as a government thing. Let us think
about it as a process of goods coming across our border. And so
the Customs Service people worked with the automobile industry
in Canada, and agreed that the manufacturer of the goods which,
in effect, do security work at the plant site where the goods
are loaded and then when the goods were completely loaded and
inspected, they would be, in effect, electronically bonded so
that no one could open the container without setting off an
alarm.
And as a consequence of this rethinking of the process,
what used to be an average 54-minute waiting time as trucks
came across the Ambassador Bridge now happens like this: The
goods are inspected, they are electronically bonded at the
plant, the driver drives them to the border. When he gets close
to the border there is an electronic transmission of all of the
bill of lading information, where it came from, where it is
going, and when the driver approaches the Customs station, they
hand their driver's license to the official, who looks at the
driver's license, makes sure it is the person that it says, and
the time now has gone from 54 minutes for this important
traffic to come across the border to 17 seconds.
What I said when I had the pleasure to represent my great
people at the Ambassador Bridge the day we opened this service
was, ``In your face, terrorists,'' because we have figured out
a way with existing technology to improve the economics of
commerce across our border while significantly improving the
security we provide. And for me, that is the test of this new
department, not to have added cost because of terrorism but to
demonstrate to the world we can use our technology and our
brain power, and we will both be safer and more economically
powerful than we have ever been.
Mr. Chairman, with that--.
Ms. Pelosi. Mr. Chairman, if I may, since the distinguished
Secretary has raised a couple of questions in his comments I
think it would be only fair if we were able to have a question
from our side of the aisle to the Secretary if you have just
another moment.
Chairman Armey. May I ask the Secretary if I may prevail on
you for one question from the Democrat side of the aisle. I
yield to you, and I take it you yield to Mr. Frost.
Mr. Frost. Mr. Secretary, you talked of course about the
cost of this new department. The Congressional Budget Office
has just released a study indicating that in their judgment the
cost of the new department would include 3 billion in
additional cost, in additional amounts over the next--between
now and 2007. My question is do you agree with the study just
released by the Congressional Budget Office and, if so, where
are we going to find that additional $3 billion in light of
your comments?
Secretary O'Neill. I really do wish I could stay longer but
I do want to answer your question, and let me say I have not
seen their study but I would say as a matter of experience I
think it is--it is unbelievable to me that anyone thinks this
should cost $3 billion over the next 4 or 5 years. But in order
for it not to cost $3 billion you can't simply take as a given
everything as it is and then have a conception that you are
going to freeze everything as is and then you are going to
assemble people into new space with new titles. You know, for
the people who are in the Customs Service now who are in the
Treasury building, there is no reason I can't be their
landlord. I mean, why do they have to move anywhere? They don't
have to move anywhere. But I tell you a mindset, and this is
really important. This is not just about homeland security,
this is about getting value for public service.
When I came to the Treasury Department I said to our
people, how long does it take us to close the books at the
Treasury Department? And to put this in context you should know
Alcoa closes its books in 2\1/2\ days. They close their books
faster than anybody else in the world. And they don't do it
because they have more people. In fact, they have fewer people.
It is because they have a brilliantly designed collection
process that gets data from 350 locations that never has to be
changed or amended. All the other people spend lots of time
doing what I call repair work because they don't understand how
essential it is to get things right so that data collection
systems are friendly to the people who are supposed to do the
work. And there is a high value placed on getting it right the
first time.
So in the context of 2\1/2\ or 3 days to do the books for
Alcoa at 350 locations around the world, I came to Treasury and
said how long does it take to close the books? And they said 5
months. And I said why bother? And then I said, I know that it
doesn't have to take 5 months and it doesn't take more people
to do it right, it takes a new concept of how to do it fast.
And I want the Treasury Department to demonstrate that public
service can be as good as the private service. The last 3
months the Treasury Department people have closed our books in
3 days.
Now, if we don't bring that mentality and let the Secretary
of Homeland Security have the ability to challenge the
government to work at benchmark level processes, it will
probably cost more than the $3 billion the Congressional Budget
Office is talking about. If you let the Secretary have the
flexibility to work to develop a benchmark organization, public
service or private service, it will not cost more money. And
the value created by these people will be staggeringly greater
than what we have been able to do with the current collection.
Mr. Frost. I appreciate the Secretary for his response.
This is something that Congress will pay a great deal of
attention to.
Secretary O'Neill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
members of the committee.
Mr. Frost. Mr. Chairman, I do have another question for
another witness if I may.
Chairman Armey. You may.
Mr. Frost. And I want to a direct this to Secretary
Wolfowitz. The President on July 4th announced a new program by
Executive Order that I am sure you are very familiar with, to
provide citizenship for people who are in this country legally
and who join the military services. My question to you is
rather specific about this, and I have an interest in this
because I have introduced legislation on this subject. I have
introduced it several months ago, which has bipartisan support.
It is unclear to me under the program that the President
announced how we would guard against someone who is in this
country legally but who may be a terrorist and who decides that
he or she wants to join the military to immediately become a
citizen.
Now, my question to you is have you given any thought to
how this program would be administered? Would the person who
joins the military be required to complete basic training and
advanced individual training which could stretch over a period
of a year before he or she actually begins his duty assignment
in the military? Do you have any concern that some people who
may want to do harm to the country would try and use this
program to immediately gain citizenship?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Congressman Frost, let me get you a detailed
answer for the record. We are still developing procedures here.
You raise very important questions.
It is also the case as I think you are acknowledging in the
substance of the questions that we have a great resource here
in our immigrant communities. It is a resource of enormous
value in fighting terrorists. We have people who are loyal
Americans or who would like to be loyal Americans who know the
languages that we need to know to fight these people, who
understand the cultures that we need to fight them. So at the
end of the day there is some balancing of risks here, but it is
not all risk on one side. If we don't take advantage of that
national resource we are running a risk as well.
I will try to get back to you as soon as possible with how
we propose procedures that will deal with that problem. It is a
real one and you are right to raise it.
[The information follows:]
With respect to gaining citizenship immediately, the
Department of Defense does not become involved in the
citizenship process, does not sponsor individuals for
citizenship, and does not support applications for citizenship
or entry into the United States. That process remains and
individual responsibility, under the purview of the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
The Executive Order (EO) announced by President Bush on
July 4, 2002, concerned military service and eligibility of
active duty members to immediately apply for U.S. citizenship.
Prior to that announcement, members of the military were
eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship after 3 years. Legally
admitted, non-citizen civilians still must wait 5 years before
they are eligible to apply for citizenship. The INS establishes
these waiting periods.
The EO does not alter military enlistment standards or
training requirements. Non-citizen applicants for military
service must still be lawfully admitted to the United States
for permanent residence. In addition, an INS files check is
conducted for resident aliens. All recruits, regardless of
citizenship status, must successfully complete basic and
advance individual training before being sent to their first
duty assignment. This period of time varies, depending on the
length of training, but could take a year or so.
Just as military service does not guarantee U.S.
citizenship, U.S. citizenship does not automatically earn a
security clearance. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Security and Information Operations is responsible for
processes determining security clearance eligibility among
military service members.
While the Executive Order permits faster citizenship
eligibility for military members, it did not lower or remove
standards of eligibility for enlistment or security clearance.
Therefore, we do not anticipate an increased vulnerability to
harm.
Mr. Frost. I appreciate it because it is a laudable
objective and, as I said, in fact I and others on both sides of
the aisle have introduced legislation to facilitate this and
make this happen.
Chairman Armey. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr.
Watts, who has been involved with these matters of concern for
some time.
Mr. Watts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank our
panel for being with us this morning. And Secretary Powell, I
want to say to you how proud I have been as an American citizen
to see you perform on the international stage with great
patience and great composure, as you have been dealing with
some very difficult circumstances and some very challenging
times, as has the Department of Defense and the Attorney
General's Office, the Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury,
all of our government. All of our citizens as well have been
dealt some challenging blows, and it is always good to know you
have got a steady hand at the wheel over at the State
Department.
I would like for you and all of our witnesses this morning
to respond to the question I am about to ask. And as the
chairman said, I have been working on this issue now for some
time, probably over the last 3, 4 years, because of what I saw
in Oklahoma City in April of 1995, and there have been numerous
studies of blue ribbon panels that have looked into issues of
terrorism and the future threats to our security. Over 3 years
ago one of those bipartisan panels, the United States
Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, known as
the Hart-Rudman Commission, accurately predicted that,
``Attacks on American citizens on American soil possibly
causing heavy casualties are likely over the next quarter
century because both the technological means for such attacks
and the array of actors who might use such means are
proliferating.''
Can each of you speak to the changes in threat that you
have seen in your respective department and the steps that you
are taking to address these threats or those changes?
Secretary Powell. Well, I think the members of that
commission were absolutely right and we have seen their
predictions come to fruition, regretfully. And, I think, in the
Department of State we recognize that we have to do much more
to identify these threats long before they get anywhere near
the United States. We have to identify the bad actors who are
out there, we have to do a better job of identifying those
state and non-state actors who would use this kind of
indiscriminate terror and violence to hurt our people.
And that is why, I think, in all of our missions around the
world, all of our diplomatic missions around the world, we are
working more closely with representatives who are there from
the Department of Justice, from other agencies of government,
residents in our missions, to essentially put out this front
line of defense.
And as I have increasingly called it within the State
Department, front line of offense, as Secretary Rumsfeld said,
it begins far away from our shores. Do a better job of
identifying those who would try to hurt us, to go after them
early, to take it up with the governments concerned. When we
see terrorist organizations out there who mean us great harm,
start now to discuss it with those governments.
And I think in another session, if it was a closed session,
I think Paul Wolfowitz and I could describe some of the actions
we have ongoing to go after terrorists in other nations who we
know are resident. Now, a few years ago, we would have just
sort of known they were there and not done much about it. But
now we are aggressively going to the leaders of those countries
and saying ``We don't want to wait until they surface in a way
that will hurt us or hurt you and we want to work with you now
so that you can go after them. We will give you the
intelligence, we will give you the information we have, we will
give you the resources. We will help train your people.''
An example of what Secretary Wolfowitz can talk about is
what we have been doing in the Philippines. So we are being far
more aggressive using our diplomatic, political, intelligence
and law enforcement means to identify these threats and to work
with the countries where these threats reside and, frankly, put
a great deal of pressure on them to do something about them
now, before they become real and present dangers to the United
States a few months or year or so later.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Congressman Watts, I would say even before
September 11th we were addressing terrorism as a major concern
of the Department of Defense in two respects, I suppose one
could say defensively and offensively, particularly with the
attack on the Cole. But going back to Khobar and even to
Beirut, we have put more and more resources into force
protection. We had become aware long before September 11th that
our force is a potential target of terrorists.
But also last summer, when we did the Quadrennial Defense
Review, we took heed of some of the advice that you just gave
us from the Hart-Rudman Commission and other sources and
intelligence sources and identified homeland security as the
top priority for DOD transformation. That development was
accelerated enormously, as you might imagine, by the events of
September 11th. And among major things that I would say we have
done first of all is creating the Northern Command, which we
will be coming with a detailed planning on October 1st.
General Meyers, the Chairman of Joint Chiefs, has said this
is the most significant change in the command structure in the
Defense Department during his career as an officer. It will
greatly improve our capability to do those things that are
unique military roles in the defense of the country. But also
we increasingly recognize that terrorists are both a potential
target of the U.S. military and that we are a potential target
of terrorists.
Let me start with that second piece. When we are at war,
and we are at war with them now, one of the most important
things on their agenda is going to be not only how to kill
American soldiers in barracks or in bases, but also how to
attack the key capabilities. Especially things like cyber
terrorism become a major concern for us at the Defense
Department but, secondly, from the offensive point of view,
that we need to have a very broad and flexible range of
capabilities. This is a shift we began last summer, also.
The terrorists do not present the kind of definable
predictable threat that the old Soviet Union did. They hide,
they come from unpredictable directions. When you flush them
out of Afghanistan, they try to work from somewhere else. It
means we have to have a military that is correspondingly
flexible and agile, and that is what we are working toward.
But a final point that I would make, which I sense most
dramatically, we have always depended on intelligence.
Intelligence and the military have always been close partners.
But in the fight against terrorism it is impossible to
exaggerate the importance of that partnership. We can't do our
job without extraordinarily good intelligence, and they also
can't do their job without the kinds of capabilities we
provide. We have seen synergisms of that kind coming out of
Afghanistan. It was our military operation that drove Abu
Zubaydah out of Afghanistan, but that by itself would not have
accomplished what it did had it not been for the work of the
CIA and the Justice Department and the cooperation with foreign
governments and State Department to capture that man. He in
turn led us to Mr. Padilla, whom the Attorney General referred
to earlier. There are many examples of this kind, and it is why
we have to integrate these different elements of national power
to be successful.
Chairman Armey. I am going to have to call time so we can
get on to Mr. Menendez from New Jersey.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our
distinguished panelists for their testimony. Winston Churchill
once said you can always depend upon America to do the right
thing after they have exhausted all the other alternatives. And
in the spirit of trying to disprove him, make him wrong in this
context, we need to get this done right the first time. And in
that spirit let me ask the following questions.
Mr. Attorney General, if could you answer this particular
question with just a simple yes or no. Do we need to reform the
INS?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Yes.
Mr. Menendez. And I agree with you. And in that context
then an unreformed INS being transferred into theDepartment of
Homeland Security is as poorly functioning as it might be under
the existing circumstances at the attorney general's Office?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, the need to reform the INS
is something that is being addressed too. The administration
did present a program for reforming the INS. It is under way
administratively. And as a matter of fact the administration
urged the passage of a reform measure by the House of
Representatives in anticipation of the Senate working to do the
same. So we believe that the reform and improvement of INS is
an ongoing process that should not be discontinued.
Mr. Menendez. So we ultimately need to reform the INS to
make it efficient whether it continues to be in the Attorney
General's Office or the Department of Homeland Security?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Absolutely.
Mr. Menendez. In that context let me ask you, how do we
ensure that the rights of American citizens to claim their
mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters
is preserved in a Department of Homeland Security whose focus
is security and not necessarily the service side of what is
being proposed to be transferred in its entirety, which is the
entire INS to Homeland Security?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, obviously the policy as
developed in the Congress of the United States and portrayed in
the laws of the United States will be carried forward in the
new department like it would in any other department, and these
are important considerations. And I believe that the Department
of Homeland Security will have the capacity to provide that the
intent of the Congress and the policy expressed in the law will
be carried forward.
Mr. Menendez. Couldn't you achieve, still providing the
security we need, keeping INS at the Attorney General's Office
or could you not do that?
Attorney General Ashcroft. I believe that it is best to
integrate these agencies in the Department of Homeland Security
so that we have the kind of focused effort that relates to our
borders, that relates to preventing terrorism, that assesses
the threat, that integrates the assessed threat with the
assessed vulnerabilities and the hardening of various assets
around the country in order to prevent an attack from being
successful and to sustain the protection, the safety of the
people. And I believe the optimal approach is the one
recommended by the administration and proposed in the
President's plan.
Mr. Menendez. So you would not support the determination of
the Judiciary Committee yesterday that divided the INS, sent
the enforcement department to the new Department of Homeland
Security and kept the service aspect of it in your department.
Attorney General Ashcroft. The President has clearly stated
that he believes that we should have separate capacities within
the INS, one for enforcement and one for service, so that we
have a culture that is service oriented and a culture that is
enforcement oriented. But I believe that it is very important
that they be connected because there are frequently overlaps,
and to have them in different departments might make very
difficult the kind of coordination that is necessary.
I will give you an example. In the service area we want to
serve people well, but when someone comes and presents false
documents in the service area or makes a fraudulent claim for
citizenship or indicates that they have a legitimate document
which was falsely obtained, perhaps like something that was
illegally provided, it is important to be able to coordinate
from that service responsibility the need to enforce the law.
Mr. Menendez. But that coordination needs to go on whether
it is in one department or another?
Attorney General Ashcroft. That is exactly right. It does
need to go on.
Mr. Menendez. The real issue is coordination and
information sharing.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Absolutely. It is an issue, and
I believe that is best undertaken if you don't have these two
functions in different cabinet agencies, but that they remain
in a single cabinet agency although they have this separate
capacity to operate, so that you have a culture of service in
one and a culture of enforcement in the other.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you.
Chairman Armey. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Pryce from Ohio.
Ms. Pryce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, for
joining us today. This is one of the greatest endeavors that
our country has undertaken. It is a very difficult one and your
cooperation in being here to help us get started is extremely
important, and I am very grateful that you are here today.
Terrorists represent, in my mind anyway, a very mobile and
agile enemy. It is clear that there has to be international
cooperation and coordination to successfully track them and
defeat them. What obstacles are we encountering with our
efforts with our allies and others, to what extent must we
depend on cooperation from others, and have you sensed any
changes in the attitudes of other nations and states across the
globe as we address terrorism from our country's perspective
and from their own?
And I guess any of you who care to--Secretary Powell, it is
probably--.
Secretary Powell. I would be delighted to start, Ms. Price.
Every ally that we have has come to the realization that
terrorism does not respect boundaries, cultures, or any of the
other normal elements of statehood that keep us separate. So we
have found a high level of cooperation with our friends and
allies. We passed U.N. Resolution 1373 that dealt with
financial transactions of terrorism. And more and more we find
nations willing to cooperate with us to share information.
It is going to take quite a bit of time to get it exactly
where we want it because of individual laws and other problems
that have to be resolved within individual countries. But there
is a spirit of cooperation. We are not the only ones who have
seen a terrorist incident in the last year. The Russians, so
many other nations, have been exposed to this kind of horrible
activity that I think there is a new spirit of cooperation.
We are very pleased at the level of cooperation we see from
our allies around the world, some of course more so than
others. And where we still have obstacles to overcome we are
working with those nations. But generally, I sense and see and
work within a new spirit of collaboration and cooperation with
respect to diplomatic exchanges, political exchanges, law
enforcement exchanges, and intelligence exchanges, and I am
pleased with that level of cooperation, but we are pressing for
even more.
Ms. Pryce. Thank you. And Attorney General Ashcroft,
perhaps you could expound upon my question in that we have seen
just lately in the incident of Jose Padilla our own citizens
becoming enemy combatants. And do you still feel that our
government is limited in dealing with this type of enemy combat
and/or were the changes made through the PATRIOT Act sufficient
to deal with it, meet these needs? Do you feel equipped enough
at this point?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Obviously there are differing
considerations when we deal with U.S. citizens and the way we
deal with U.S. citizens here. There are different frames of
protections afforded by our Constitution that do not extend to
the way our government would deal with persons on a
battlefield. But let me just indicate that the general
constitutional provisions that relate to court proceedings and
the judicial system don't necessarily apply to battlefield
circumstances and the exercise of the President's war powers.
And I believe that the President has sufficient power under the
Constitution to act against enemy combatants to curtail their
activities against the United States.
The terrorist community has, I believe, stated its
intention to try and recruit individuals in the United States,
and we know that it has in some measure been successful in
doing so, and we will work very hard to make sure that we take
every step necessary to disrupt activities that are designed to
destabilize the United States or disrupt our safety even when
those activities would be taken by someone who is legally
resident here or a United States citizen.
Ms. Pryce. Thank you. One final question. It is not the
mission of the select committee nor is it our intention to
reorganize the structure of this Congress, we are here in our
mission to reorganize the structure of the agencies that deal
with terrorism. And so the authorizing and the appropriating
and the oversight responsibilities may not coincide with what
we will do here.
Do you have any advice for us as we go through this and
make these changes, and that may be a question for another day,
but--I know my time has expired but if anybody has something
right off the top of their head.
Secretary Powell. No thoughts off the top of my head, but
the one simple observation that follows something Secretary
O'Neill said earlier, we have to make sure that the new
Secretary of Homeland Security is given sufficient flexibility,
both in terms of law and in terms of the degree of oversight
that he is exposed to that does not constrain him. He is going
to have a very difficult job, or she, is going to have a very
difficult job as they try to put these pieces together. Not
just making a wedding cake out of it, but making a new entity
out of it, with a new culture. And I hope the Congress will be
sensitive to that need for flexibility as you organize yourself
to oversee this new department.
Ms. Pryce. Thank you very much.
Chairman Armey. I thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady, Ms.
DeLauro.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up my
colleague Ms. Pryce, will we be able to submit questions that
we don't get a chance to answer today?
Chairman Armey. Maybe this would be an appropriate time for
me to take care of this item of business. We won't take this
out of your time.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Armey. Without objection, the hearing record will
remain open for 30 days to allow members to submit questions to
our witnesses and receive their responses.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much. Let me just welcome this
distinguished panel. I thank you for your time and for your
thoughtfulness in the process. I want to address the question
and ask that any or all the Secretaries to respond. So it is a
general question.
We currently have 153 agencies, departments, offices that
are involved with homeland security. After the creation of this
new department that number is going to increase to 160. One
critical issue is how is information going to be shared not
only within the new Homeland Security Department, but among the
various agencies and departments? No matter what kind of
organization is developed, failure to address this issue is
going to result in a failure in the war on terrorism.
So in that regard, in that context let me just pose three
questions. There could be more but let me first just deal with
these three. How do you recommend that the new department
ensure that its needs and priorities for intelligence
collection are reflected by the various intelligence providers?
Secretary Wolfowitz talked about the issue of intelligence
being key to whatever we do in the future.
Secondly, while reorganization is a start, that does not
guarantee that we have the capability to combat terrorism.
Example, 10 months after the anthrax attacks which hit the
Wallingford Post Office in my district, forensic analysis still
has not revealed the source either of powder, mailer, no agency
has a database to solve this crime. How does the Federal
Government intend to address the issue of building a shared
database? And my understanding is, and correct me if I am
wrong, that there is nothing to prevent the sharing of those
databases today.
For instance, Treasury could combine Customs databases with
a Federal law enforcement with the FBI database. That is okay.
We could do that now if we wanted to, and we have not done
that, I guess.
The President's proposal exempts the new department from
complying fully with the Freedom of Information Act. If non-
Federal entities like private corporations provide information
voluntarily to the new department, that information is not
subject to FOIA. Are there existing measures to prevent
companies from hiding information they do not want public in
such submissions and how do you plan to prevent this kind of
effort from happening?
Let me just throw those questions out.
Secretary Powell. Let me take the first swing at it, Ms.
DeLauro. I think your questions are of such a nature that they
should be presented to the Office of Homeland Security, the
director of that office, as he brings forward the
reorganization proposal. But let me say since September 11th,
we have been doing a better job of sharing these databases. I
can say to you something today that I probably would not have
been able to say last summer, is that when somebody, for
example, applies for a visa now at one of our consular offices,
the database that it is bounced against is two, three times
larger than the database it would have been bounced against
last year. Now that should have been fixed last year and it
wasn't, but it is fixed now.
The information that our consular officer has in that
application that comes to him or to her and the results of that
interview and the photo of the visa applicant is now available
to every one of the INS inspectors who are waiting at Dulles
Airport to see this person come through.
So, I think a lot has happened. I think it can happen in a
more effective way in the future and we can do an even better
job as these different pieces are brought under the Secretary
of Homeland Security. So, we haven't just been waiting for the
new department to come along. I think there has been a great
deal of progress in the last 10 months. But I think progress
will be even greater in the future with a Cabinet officer, with
this as a sole responsibility, to make sure that he can put all
of these organizations together, and with the authority that
the Secretary of Homeland Security will have over the policies,
under which I will operate with respect to the consular
officers, I think will be a much more effective arrangement
than what frankly was an ad hoc arrangement. These had to be
handshake deals between myself and John Ashcroft and a lot of
us over the last 10 months that we should have fixed much
earlier and they are now being fixed. And I think there will be
a more effective fix when there is a Cabinet officer who has
sole responsibilities for these kinds of activities.
Attorney General Ashcroft. May I make a few comments? I
note that time is waning quickly. But the FBI has undergone a
major revision of its approach to information. The FBI had a
culture of being able to reassemble an event that happened in
the past, serving sort of like a forensic dentist who could
tell you what happened to a crime victim by virtue of
reassembling sort of the fragments of the skull. We need for
the FBI to evolve from that prosecution function exclusively
which it had into the area of prevention, being able to
anticipate things. And we need in that event to be able to
coordinate our information, which the Secretary has indicated
is the best friend to prevention, and it is with entities like
the CIA.
Let me give you an idea of some of the reforms at the FBI
that are already well under way that would help us do that. An
Office of Intelligence has been established there. And in order
to get oriented to the future like the CIA, which has been more
of a forecasting organization, anticipating events, than the
FBI, which has been reconstructing events for purposes of going
to trial and prosecuting, the new Office of Intelligence is
headed by a CIA person. Twenty-five CIA individuals are there
to help us develop that culture of anticipation and
preventative information. The reporting and information flow in
the FBI is now under consideration for reformatting so that the
format of reports would be compatible with the format of
reports in intelligence agencies so that the kinds of
information could be exchanged easily.
Similarly, the upgrades in the computer programs which you
all have authorized and have been funding, Director Mueller is
making sure that the computers would be able to be conversant
with other intelligence agencies so that when we have the
databases that are available that they can speak to each other
and they can be integrated.
Much has happened since September the 11th. We now have a
combined or joint threat matrix. It used to be the FBI would
develop a sense of what it thought might happen and the CIA
developed an independent sense. And this was in part because
the CIA and FBI were to address this mythological sort of
context of different threats, one overseas and one at home. But
we now have a cooperating joint threat matrix. We have shared
databases.
I have recently authorized the FBI to use some commercial
databases that are available to the public that had previously
been off limits for the FBI just as it had been off limits for
the FBI to seek information that is available to the public on
the Internet. These kinds of things are precursors to the kinds
of coordination that can happen at the direction of the new
Secretary running the Department of Homeland Security, and I
believe they are all steps in the right direction. The
completion of those steps and the institutionalization of this
culture of collaboration, cooperation and coordination should
have happen most effectively in the new department.
Ms. DeLauro. Can anyone address the FOIA question?
Chairman Armey. I have to pull the gavel on the gentlelady
from Connecticut. The time has expired. The gentleman from
Ohio.
Mr. Portman. I thank the chairman. I thank the very
distinguished panel for being with us here this morning, now
this afternoon. Thank you for your insights. There is no higher
calling for any of us on this side of the dais--or that side--
than protecting our citizens, and that is what we are all about
here. I do have a couple of general questions, first just on
the concept.
Each of you represents men and women who are on the front
lines against international terrorism today. And Attorney
General, you have people who are out there collecting
information, tracking down suspicions, which is homeland
security. Secretary Wolfowitz, you have people out there
tracking down terrorists literally overseas, finding them.
Secretary Powell, of course you are working closely with our
neighbors to the south and north and around the globe, much of
which is homeland security. And many of your functions and many
of those personnel who are doing a great job and working
overtime to protect us will not be part of the new Department
of Homeland Security. At least it is not proposed in the
President's proposal nor any of the drafts that we are working
on here in Congress.
One concern that has been expressed now is that there will
be a new department where there would be one person, as you
say, who would be responsible for homeland security. Does this
mean that you and your people would ease up on your vigilance
and on the hard work you are doing here in the States and
around the world with regard to homeland security? I wonder if
you could address that concern.
Secretary Powell. In my case, I think it is quite the
contrary. The fact that I will now be getting policy direction
from the Secretary of Homeland Security for me to execute
through my existing consular affairs system makes me a part of
the homeland security function in a more important way than
might have been the case if someone had taken or if someone--
still some people believe this is the right way to go. But if
you were to take this function and this activity and these
people away from all of our embassies out there and give it
over to the Department of Homeland Security, then I obviously
have less to do with it. And I would feel myself somewhat
removed from this activity and this function and very important
mission.
The President's proposal, I think, is structured in a way
that is balanced and appropriate. Using the resources of the
department and the very talented people we have there who are
coming up with all kinds of new ways to protect ourselves, and
giving proper policy authority to the Secretary of Homeland
Security seems to me to be a way of taking advantage of the
strengths of both departments, the Secretary of State and his
department and, of course, the new Department of Homeland
Security.
Dr. Wolfowitz. The answer is absolutely not. We have, as
Secretary Rumsfeld outlined, been undertaking major changes
within our department, particularly the creation of a Northern
Command, and those efforts will continue.
But I would like to emphasize how much we welcome the
creation of a Department of Homeland Security that gives us one
department where we can go to address what our responsibilities
are instead of 153 different agencies. I think it is not
inappropriate to think about the analogy that was referred
early to the post-Cold War organization and the 1947 National
Security Act. It is not difficult--it has vastly, I think,
improved the ability of State Department to work with the
military branches to support national security abroad.
I mean, I don't know, Collin, how you would possibly deal
if you had to deal with an Air Force, an Army and a Navy
Department that included the Marine Corps. Instead there is a
Department of Defense. There are enormous issues that Secretary
Powell and Secretary Rumsfeld coordinate every single day. To
be able to do it between two Cabinet officers instead of the
State Department and multiple ones. And I think the same
analogy applies here on the homeland security side. And I
believe we are going to work through this.
There have been huge changes in the Department of Defense,
including the Goldwater-Nickles Act, which was another landmark
piece of legislation. I don't think we have got the final
answer here and it is going to take a long time. But I think
this is a very important step that will allow our department to
play its role in homeland security in a way that we have not
been able to before.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Congressman Portman, the
Department of Justice obviously as the home of the FBI is very
involved in the development of the kind of information that
will help us secure America more profoundly and protect America
better, and we look forward to the kind of coordinating and
integrating involvement that this new department will have in
terms of intelligence generally. So that while we are improving
our ability to communicate with the Central Intelligence Agency
and other intelligence agencies, whether they be in the
Department of Defense or in other aspects in the culture,
having an analysis center that relates the intelligence we get
to the vulnerabilities we have so that you have a threat
assessment with a vulnerability assessment and then the ability
to move that in a coordinated way into the culture to have,
say, hardening of our assets so that we are less vulnerable, we
welcome that, and we see the Department of Homeland Security as
taking this information, as helping organize it, and as helping
move it effectively into the public domain where necessary for
private citizens and concerns to be effective in using the
information to secure safety, and we see ourselves as a major
supplier of information, among others, in a coordinated way in
the new department.
We think this is a formula for a much improved service.
Chairman Armey. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Pelosi.
Ms. Pelosi. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again I
thank our distinguished witnesses for being here today and
their testimony, which I have found to be very helpful. I had a
few specific questions, but first I will quickly make a couple
of observations.
In the beginning of the hearing I mentioned that I hoped
that at the end of the day we would come out with a Department
of Homeland Security that was lean, that was agile, that
relied, exploited, shall we say, telecommunications, sharing of
databases, et cetera, that has been discussed here. And what I
hear you saying is something that would be consistent with a
leaner model than with a more old-fashioned model of--a big
model--of agencies under one heading.
I was encouraged by what Secretary O'Neill said when he
said it wouldn't have to cost so much money because there was
no need for him to--why couldn't he be the landlord for the
Customs Service? And Mr. Chairman, I will have a number of
questions for the record for the distinguished Secretary of the
Treasury regarding the Customs Service and why ATF isn't moving
as well--judging from their responsibilities domestically. So I
am hoping that with the wisdom of the Secretaries and the
wisdom of the committee chairmen who will be submitting their
proposals to this select committee, that at the end of the day
we can reduce risk to the American people in a more modern way.
I had a specific question for you, Mr. Secretary of State.
I guess I have to be specific here with all the Secretaries. I
listened very attentively to what you said about the visas, and
you seem to be satisfied with the arrangement that is in the
new Homeland Security Department. I wondered if would you
comment on the proposal made in the International Relations
Committee yesterday, I don't know if you are fully aware of it,
as to what you think of their refinement on the visa issue.
Secretary Powell. The refinement is acceptable, if you are
referring to the proposal that the Homeland Security Department
might have some presence in our regions and in our embassies to
make sure that what we are doing is consistent with the
policies promulgated by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Ms. Pelosi. It is the Hyde amendment.
Secretary Powell. Yes, we are supportive.
Ms. Pelosi. You would be supportive of that? So when our
committee takes up that suggestion it is something that you
would support. I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Secretary Wolfowitz, I was very interested in your
response to Mr. Portman. Certainly force protection is
something that we will never relax on. I know in your
department that is for sure and I am sure the Secretary of
State agrees with that. So as the ranking on Intelligence I
know that at the end of the day with all of this, not only
would there not be less activity on your part, but a
synergistic impact on force protection.
Dr. Wolfowitz. That is right.
Ms. Pelosi. Attorney General, I guess I call you General,
General Ashcroft, I was pleased that in the--.
Secretary Powell. What am I, chopped liver?
Ms. Pelosi. The Secretary--can't say General. Everyone
responds.
Senator, Governor, Secretary, General, I was pleased in the
Department of Homeland Security that it did not include an MI-5
type of new agency separate from the FBI which would spy on the
American people. There have been some who have advocated such
an independent agency. Would you in the short amount of time we
have take a moment to comment on that?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, let me just refer to some
of the remarks I made earlier about the fact that the FBI is a
broad criminal investigative agency, and its association with
the prosecution community and the Department of Justice is very
important for an efficient prosecution of our laws.
Secondly, there is a balance in the Department of Justice
that relates to an awareness of and a sensitivity to and a keen
affection for the rights of American citizens, and the
Department of Justice has a very aggressive Civil Rights
Division that enforces civil rights and prosecutes those who
infringe them. And to have that sensitivity to civil rights
there in the same department where you have the responsibility
for developing information and conducting investigations is a
healthy thing.
Ms. Pelosi. So you would oppose such an MI-5?
Attorney General Ashcroft. I really believe it is most
effective to leave the FBI in the Department of Justice where
we have that sensitivity and responsibility to protecting the
rights of individuals.
Ms. Pelosi. I appreciate your direct response, General,
Governor, Senator, all of the above.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record the
questions that I have for the Secretary of Treasury, but I
wanted to say what they are--why is the ATF, as I mentioned,
not a part of Homeland Security when the Customs Service is?
How are the ATF, the FBI and CIA going to communicate with the
Department of Homeland Security?
Yesterday, the Ways and Means Committee reported out a bill
that protects the pay benefits of only a select group of
Customs employees, revenue experts, attorneys, et cetera. These
employees represent 25 percent of Customs workers, but these
select Customs employees whose benefits are protected still do
not enjoy assurances that they have Title V rights and
protections, the right to bargain collectively, whistleblower
protections, anti-discriminations, pensions, et cetera, will
continue. Further, the remaining 75 percent of the Customs
employees do not have any assurances that the benefits, rights
and protections that they currently enjoy will remain.
That is a question directly to the Secretary in that
regard. I don't know, I think that these, although they are
addressed to Customs, really apply across the board to any of
the employees who will come under the new Homeland Security
Department.
And I would--if any of the Secretaries here have any
observations--oh, I see my time has expired. I would be happy
to receive them for the record. But as we all know, many of our
first responders were public employees and if we want to have
mission success we have to respect the President's mission, we
have to respect the work of the committees of Congress, we have
to respect the people who will execute the plan. And I don't
see that yet in the proposal that is being made.
So if have you any observations on that I would be happy to
receive them. I will please yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Armey. I want to thank the gentlelady for that.
Let me assure the gentlelady we will work with you in getting
those questions to the Secretaries and encouraging a prompt
response because, as you know, our work goes on. Also I might
suggest to the gentlelady from California I will recommend a
Harvard solution to our dilemma and just say ``gentlemen'' .
It has been for me a pleasure to have you here today. I
have listened with great interest and considerable
encouragement to your testimony. I have long felt that the
single thing that most sets America aside from all the nations
in the history of the world is our love of liberty in America.
In fact, I have made the observation that all too many times
our American heroes have spent their life and their limb in the
defense of liberty of people other than ourselves. No nation I
know has been willing to make such a sacrifice for the love of
liberty. That is why when we first heard of the Department of
Homeland Security I had some pause.
Secretary Powell, you spoke with great eloquence about our
commitment to the liberties of the citizens of this great
Nation. I have now heard you, General Ashcroft, reaffirm that.
But I guess my question is whether you can give me a sense of
how we strike the balance between our Nation's need--indeed our
requirement--for safety and security on one hand and personal
liberties on the other?
For I fear a free nation will always be a nation that is at
some risk, and it would be to me so tragic that we would create
a Department of Homeland Security with such rigorous
investigative abilities or protocols that we would trespass
against our liberties.
Can you help me to see where I might search for that
balance as we move forward with that committee, any chapter and
verse or general observations you could give me. And maybe at
this time we will reverse the process, Secretary, and start
with General Ashcroft.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I think these are very important
concerns. I agree with you completely that liberty is the
chemistry that provides the basis for America's uniqueness. It
allowed Emma Lazarus in her poem on the base of the Statue of
Liberty to say ``Give me your tired, your poor.'' She didn't
ask for the top 10 percent. She knew that liberty was so
powerful a catalyst that anybody could come here and this would
be a place for opportunity.
It is the thing we must safeguard. And for those that say
we have got to make a choice between liberty and security, I
always want to say liberty is what we are securing. If we are
not securing liberty we have got our eyes on the wrong
objective.
So in the aftermath of September the 11th, when I convened
people in the Justice Department, I put it this way: We have
got to think outside the box. We can't do the things the way we
have always done them because we must change in order to be
able to better protect. But while we think outside the box we
can never think outside the Constitution. And I think that is
important here. The Constitution is the enshrinement of the
civil liberties of the American people, and we must always
respect that and must never be infringed. And frankly, the new
department can't infringe the Constitution. It is not within
the power even of the Congress of the United States or the
President of the United States to change the Constitution. We
are sensitive to those rights.
I have indicated that I think maintaining the FBI in the
Justice Department where the rights are protected as well as
the investigations conducted is the right place for balance.
But the Constitution--this may sound rather fundamental, it is
to me--the Constitution is the guarantor and this does not
adjust those rights.
Chairman Armey. Thank you, General.
Secretary Powell. What I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that
we will never be without risk totally. We should recognize that
we are living in a new world that has risk, but let's not be
terrified by that risk. Let's not say don't come to our shores,
we are not issuing a visa to anybody else, we are not willing
to take a risk, everybody stay where you are, you are not
coming to the United States.
What a crime that would be! What a tragedy that would be!
What would that be saying to the rest of the world? How many of
our forefathers might not have gotten to this country? Would my
parents have been able to come into the Port of Philadelphia
and the Port of New York in the 1920s if that attitude
prevailed?
So what we have to do is make sure the rest of the world
understands that America remains an open society, we want you
to come to this country, we want you to immigrate here, we want
to take in refugees as we have in the past. We want people to
come here and enjoy themselves, see the beauty of this land,
see the beauty of our value system, and take it back with you
across the oceans to your homes.
We are enriched by people coming to this Nation to visit
and to become American citizens. At the same time we have to
make sure that we are doing everything to protect ourselves,
but not to the point of zero defect, zero fault, we cannot
accept any risk whatsoever. And we can do a better job than we
have done in the past.
We are hard at work on that at the department now by some
of the little things I have shown you today and some of the new
training we will be giving to our people who are out there
doing such a great job. And when we find fraud, we find people
are not living up to the responsibilities, we will take action.
So we can do a better job. But in doing that better job,
let's not shut down America. Then they will have won. We can't
let them win.
Chairman Armey. Thank you. I don't think I could have said
it better. Let me suggest to the committee that we have I think
a generous willingness on the part of our witnesses today to
receive our written questions and respond to us in a timely
fashion. And in lieu of that, let me just suggest to the
members of this panel if you have a burning desire for a quick
follow-up question, I would certainly want to honor that. Other
than something that is pressing for you, I think we might be
inclined to thank our panelists and excuse them.
The gentlelady from California indicates that--.
Ms. Pelosi. Mr. Chairman, I think that is perfectly fine. I
do want to just say one thing, and that is Secretary O'Neill,
when he was here, in one of his comments he said we are an
example to the world. I think he was referencing how we
proceed, and I think that is something that we all should
remember as we proceed and certainly the testimony that we have
here today supports, I think, a great example to the world.
Chairman Armey. I see the gentleman from New Jersey seeking
recognition.
Mr. Menendez. Mr. Chairman, if I may just very briefly
direct a question to Secretary Powell, because of the unique
ability that he will have to give us an answer, I think would
serve us well in our deliberations if I may.
Mr. Secretary, drawing upon your past experiences as the
Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as the head of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, when you would look at the world in that
role and look at America's military challenges abroad in terms
of its defense, you would do a threat assessment and decide how
you would recommend to the Commander in Chief, the President,
how to respond to that. Is that correct?
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Menendez. And then you would seek to marshal your
forces and everything that you have to be responsive to that
threat assessment, is that correct?
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Menendez. Does it not seem to you odd then with that
experience that what we are doing here is before we have a
national threat assessment in place deciding that the creation
of this department and the movement of all of these different
agencies is the appropriate response to a threat assessment
that we have not determined yet?
Secretary Powell. I think the threat is relatively clear.
The threat is more than a threat. It is reality. We saw it at
Khobar Towers, we saw it at the Cole incident that my colleague
Paul Wolfowitz mentioned, and we certainly saw it in Washington
and New York and in Pennsylvania last September 11th. It is
clear to me that we do need a reorganization.
When I think back, as you say, to when I was Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my threat was the Soviet Union, my
threat was wondering where China might be going, my threat was
12,000 strategic nuclear weapons pointed at the United States.
But during my tenure as Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, most
of those threats went away with the Cold War.
We have been examining new threats, and there is no threat
that has come along that it seems to me is as real, as
impressive, as the threat of asymmetrical terrorism.
Mr. Menendez. Clearly we can agree that the United States
has a threat in terms of terrorism. Nobody would dispute that.
But the nature of the extent of that threat, the quality of
that threat, the diversity of that threat and in the context of
a threat assessment whether or not the biological and chemical
weapons are among our highest concern is--or whether a
different form of a terrorist attack is among our highest
concern or whether or not, as we already discussed here, the
greatest way to achieve protecting against any of that is the
greatest integration and provisions of intelligence information
and sharing that truly would come from a threat assessment, and
then would you respond to that? And so that is the context in
which I am asking the question.
And my second and final point is what will--I sit on the
International Relations Committee. So I certainly have been
looking at this whole question of consular visas.
I heard you say in response to Mr. Portman that you are
looking forward to the policy direction, but you did not need
policy direction as a Secretary of State to pursue the question
of providing security as part of the consideration of issuing
visas to come to the United States. You obviously had that as
part of your own provisions.
What is it that the Department of Homeland Security is
going to do differently than what you did and previous
Secretaries of State did in ensuring that consular offices
issuing visas abroad ensure the security of the United States?
I fail to see what is the difference, and if you could share
with that in the context of a threat assessment, it might be
very helpful to this committee.
Secretary Powell. I think what will be different and what
will be important is that the person now establishing the
specific policy as to who will be allowed into, or not allowed
into, the United States by means of a visa will have available
to him not just the foreign policy perspective. That will be
there because I will give it--I will help the Secretary of
Homeland Security with that.
But he will also have a domestic perspective to it. He will
have access to all the agencies that are now within the
Department of Homeland Security and will be within the
Department of Homeland Security, and I think will have a much
better way of integrating all of the things we have been
talking about during the course of this hearing. So that the
policy direction that will be coming down, I think, will be
more holistic, more integrated, and will not just have solely
the sort of foreign policy considerations that exist when it is
the Secretary of State and the Attorney General solely who are
putting together the policy with respect to who should be
allowed into the country. So I think it will be a much more
holistic, integrated--.
Mr. Menendez. But that new secretary will still have to
pursue the law, and the law instructs us as to how one can seek
to come to this country, whether it is through family
reunification of a United States citizen. So I still fail to
understand, and maybe you will be able to submit it for the
record, is what is going to be the difference? If you are
pursuing the law and the law says here are the circumstances
under which you can legally come to the United States, how are
we differentiating it?
Chairman Armey. I have to encourage the gentleman to follow
up with correspondence. The Chair has been signaled by Mr.
Watts, Ms. DeLauro and Mr. Frost that they would have a final
observation or comment and I would recognize you then, Mr.
Watts, at this time.
Mr. Watts. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I would just
echo what Secretary Powell said and add one thing to that. We
can also throw in the Oklahoma City, April 19 of 1995. I mean,
what we are dealing with is reality, and I proposed this very
structure about two years ago to say that we have got over 140
Federal agencies, departments that have some jurisdiction in
homeland security. We needed one agency whose sole function
would be to protect, defend our homeland, and I think that is
what the President has done. I think it is long overdue. In my
closing remarks, I say thank you very much for coming to be
with us this morning.
Chairman Armey. Ms. DeLauro.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to go
back a second, if I might, and under the context of just
generally, the legislation does include really broad exemptions
to good government laws, government sunshine laws, if you will.
And in that context, I talked about the Freedom of Information
Act. There are other issues that have been brought up with
regard to civil service employees. But with regard to the
Freedom of Information Act, how in fact are we going to--
because there is an exemption from fully complying with these
laws--how are we going to--how in your view are we going to
prevent the agency from not being forthcoming with information
and hiding information that they don't want to make public?
Secretary Powell. I think there will be a presumption on
the part of the Secretary of Homeland Security that it is his
or her responsibility to make information public not only for
purposes of congressional oversight, but because it is a
responsibility to let the public know what we are doing in the
public's name. With respect to specific laws, the Freedom of
Information Act and similar acts, I really must yield to the
director of the Office of Homeland Security, who can give you
the rationale for why they have proposed the authorities that
they have proposed, or not have proposed, for the new
department.
Dr. Wolfowitz. We do know very well from all of our foreign
experience that in the business of collecting information on
people like terrorists in order to be able to collect it you
have to be able to protect it, you have to be able to protect
the sources of it. You won't get a lot of information that is
extremely important in catching terrorists if everything is
deemed to be at risk of public exposure.
Like Secretary Powell I can't give you the details of how--
I mean obviously, there are--we deal with plenty of classified
information with the Freedom of Information Act. You need a
lawyer to explain the differences. But the basic thing to be
balanced is the need to protect sources of information in order
to collect it, and at the same time guarantee the public's
right to know. And sometimes the mechanism for achieving that
balance is through the oversight of congressional committees
that have access to everything.
Ms. DeLauro. Would you not concur that it would be useful
to have that thought out in some way before we embark and not
just put it off for another day, but to think it through? I am
not suggesting that that be done here, but that there be some
thought and reflection as to the--we spend a lot of time and a
lot of effort in looking at government and the sunshine laws
and private business and sunshine laws, and we are looking at a
whole lot of things that have happened in corporate America
over the last several years that no one has known about and has
had some very devastating effects, particularly on our economy.
And now wouldn't we want to not be engaged in prevention of
difficulty before we just kind of go off the edge of the cliff
in this area? I just leave that with you and--.
Secretary Powell. I am sure that is what the Select
Committee will want to do.
Chairman Armey. I thank the panel, and I thank Ms. DeLauro
on this point. I can assure you that this committee is, in
fact, deeply interested in this and we will be pursuing it. I
have, right now, Mr. Portman is seeking an opportunity for a
final short word. And I am sure if he returns in time, we will
recognize Mr. Frost. The chairman will reserve the right for
the last word. But may I ask the audience at the conclusion of
our hearing would you please hold your seats long enough for
our distinguished panelists to exit the room. It is not right
to leave until Elvis has left the building. So, Mr. Portman.
Mr. Portman. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank
the panelists for their responses and to my colleague and
friend from Connecticut. If you look at section 204 on the FOIA
part, I think it is very narrowly drawn and it is drawn exactly
to what Secretary Powell and General Ashcroft talked about,
which is matching the risks out there, domestically with what
the threat is and on the risk side, of course, you want the
private sector to provide us what those risks are, including
infrastructure risks, and what the private sector needs, of
course, is some protection that they are not going to provide
this kind of information and have it subject to FOIA. Look at
section 204. I think it is very narrowly drawn. I think it is
consistent with what we are hearing here.
What I am struck by, Mr. Chairman, today, is that everybody
is focusing on the same thing, which is flexibility and
agility. And Mrs. Pelosi talked about it early on and followed
on it with her question. And Secretary Wolfowitz talked about
it in terms of the terrorist threat globally, that this threat
is literally moving from country to country and agility is the
key to your response.
Secretary Powell talked about it in terms of dealing with
the threat from a diplomatic point of view, and General
Ashcroft talked about it in terms of our domestic threat, and
then of course, Secretary O'Neill talked about it in terms of
management. But it really is more than just putting the pieces
together, which Ms. Pelosi talked about. It is also what the
terrorist threat is here. It is just as agile here if not more
so than it is globally.
And so I would hope that we can balance what our legitimate
concerns raised by the gentleman from Connecticut and others
with regard to FOIA, with regard to personnel issues and so on.
By the way, whistleblowers are protected in the statute, at
least the proposal as I read it. But we need to balance that
against the need to provide this agility. To give the agility
of this department to be able to not just organize and
implement, but then respond to the threat. And with that, I
thank you for a very constructive hearing.
Chairman Armey. I am sorry Mr. Frost did not make it back,
but let us seize the moment and thank you, this fine panel. We
so deeply appreciate your willingness to be here this morning
and appreciate again your testimony. Without objection, the
Select Committee stands adjourned, and again, let me remind you
to make room for our distinguished guests to leave.
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Collin L. Powell,
Secretary of State, by the Honorable J.C. Watts, Jr.
Question. I think it is vital for the government to use all
tools in our arsenal, diplomatic, military, or informational,
to stop terrorism. What type of diplomatic action have we
undertaken with our friends in the Arab world since 9/11 to
prevent future acts of terrorism in America and what
impediments have you encountered?
Answer. Diplomatic cooperation with our friends and allies
in the Middle East and North Africa to prevent future acts of
terrorism in America and elsewhere has been extensive since 9/
11. Regional nations have worked with the USG to implement the
counterterrorism initiatives of multilateral fora, like UNSCRs
1267, 1390 and 1373. We have worked closely with Middle Eastern
governments to freeze assets and designate individuals and
organizations with financial links to terrorists. Bilaterally,
we have engaged regional governments to move forward on
fighting terrorism and have offered technical assistance to
bolster their ability to do so.
Steps taken by regional governments, often in concert with
us, and ongoing counterterrorism relationships with regional
countries have had a direct and positive impact on the security
of the continental United States and our interests overseas.
For example, the Bahrain Monetary Authority, in compliance with
UNSCR 1373, took quick action in 2001 to freeze terrorists'
financial assets--money that could have funded attacks against
the United States or elsewhere. Saudi Arabia has moved to
freeze the assets of the terror-linked Somali and Bosnian
branches of the Al Haramain charity. Likewise, enhanced
diplomatic engagement with Algeria has produced a mutually
beneficial counterterrorism relationship between our two
countries. Persistent, focused diplomacy has enabled us to
maintain and enhance assistance from Gulf countries in the war
on terrorism.
The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian violence, and popular
negative reaction to it in the region, has made our
counterterrorism efforts more challenging, especially with
regard to the ongoing terrorist activities of HAMAS and
Hizballah.
Question. As Afghanistan was an incubator for terrorists
and their organizations what gaps are there in the way America
addresses other third world countries. For example, do you
think that there can be better coordination between U.S. Trade
policy and U.S. Aid policy? It has been my experience that the
trade people and aid people do not communicate. Plain and
simple, it is the political instability of the third world that
provides the incubators for terrorists.
Answer. Although terrorists can exist in any society, they
are especially adept at exploiting conditions of poverty,
political instability, and ethnic and religious conflict.
Deprivation and despair make it easier for terrorists to
manipulate target audiences, draw in fresh recruits, and build
a support network for extremist activities. Ongoing U.S.
programs to promote social, political, and economic development
in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia and Latin
America play a key part in the global campaign to fight
terrorism. In promoting development, the rule of law, and good
governance, the United States, along with its friends and
allies, is helping to diminish the appeal of terrorists and
other violent extremists who challenge national security
interests. Addressing the problem of failed and failing states
is a particularly important challenge. As was demonstrated in
the case of Afghanistan, such states have all too often served
as terrorist sanctuaries. Thus, efforts to identify and
ameliorate conditions that contribute to state failure are an
important part of U.S. foreign policy. The United States is
committed to fighting terrorism with a long-term and
comprehensive strategy that integrates all the tools of
statecraft--not just economic, but also law enforcement,
intelligence, military, and diplomatic.
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Collin L. Powell,
Secretary of State, by the Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Question. You will be losing extraordinarily talented and
dedicated Federal workers as they transfer over to the new
department. Don't those employees deserve the same civil
service protections in the new department as they now currently
enjoy?
Answer. No State Department employees would be transferred
to the Department of Homeland Security under the President's
proposal.
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Collin Powell,
Secretary of State, by the Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro
Question. This legislation gives you the power to refuse a
visa if you deem it ``necessary or advisable in the interests
of the United States.'' How will the State Department
coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security to look
over visa applications to determine whether one should be
refused? Who determines if an application will be bumped to
State for review, or will they all go to your department? Who
will resolve the conflict if the Secretary of Homeland Security
disagrees with your recommendation, or do you have final veto
power?
Answer. [A response was not received in time for the
printing of the hearing. The response, when received, will be
retained in the Select Committee files.]
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld,
Secretary of Defense, by the Honorable J.C. Watts
Question. Five to ten years from now, how do you envision
the military acting as a supporting Federal agency to
mitigating or helping America recover from another act of
catastrophic terrorism?
Answer. We expect that the Department of Defense will
continue to support of a lead Federal agency in mitigating or
recovering from acts of terrorism within the United States.
The National Strategy for Homeland Security outlines a plan
for increasing the capabilities of other Federal, State, and
local entities. If the goals laid out by the plan are met, we
expect that the requirements for military support will
decrease. The Department will continue to stand ready to
support where and when it is needed.
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld,
Secretary of Defense, by the Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Question. Please describe how you envision the relationship
between NORTHCOM and the new Department. How will the chain of
command work? Will NORTHCOM have staff detailed to the
Department? Will the Department have staff based at NORTHCOM?
Answer. As is the case for all other combatant commands,
there will be no direct link between Northern Command and the
Office of Homeland Security or the proposed Department of
Homeland Security for operational tasking on national policy-
related issues, unless directed by the Secretary of Defense.
Once policy has been established or specific support has
been authorized by the Secretary of Defense, coordination
between USNORTHCOM and subordinate agencies or bureaus of the
Office of Homeland Security or the proposed Department of
Homeland Security authorized to meet on specific operational/
tactical issues or on planning, training, or exercise
requirements.
NORTHCOM will not have staff detailed to the proposed
Department of Homeland Security. Liaisons may be shared between
NORTHCOM and the proposed Department of Homeland Security, as
appropriate, for the purpose of coordinating authorized
planning or operational/tactical issues.
Question. You will be losing extraordinarily talented and
dedicated Federal workers as they transfer over to the new
Department. Don't these employees deserve the same civil
service protections in the new Department as they currently
enjoy?
Answer. The Department of Defense is losing no personnel to
the proposed Department of Homeland Security. The transfer of
the National Communication System and the programs that would
constitute the proposed ``National Bio-Weapon Defense Analysis
Center'' entail the transfer of funds, not personnel.
Additionally, in the case of the former, executive agency would
transfer from the Department of Defense to the proposed
Department of Homeland Security. Consequently, the Department
has no concerns about its employees maintaining their civil
service protections.
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld,
Secretary of Defense, by the Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro
Question. Regarding the Department of Defense's role in
Homeland Security, there remain critical questions about how
the Pentagon--responsible for fighting terrorism abroad--will
work with the new Department--responsible for fighting
terrorism at home. Perhaps most crucial to resolve is the issue
of how will the two departments handle their competing demands
for the services of the Coast Guard and the National Guard. Has
this issue been discussed? Is there a process for coordination?
Has any thought been given to whether the two Guard services
will have the necessary capabilities to meet both department's
demands?
Answer. When the President signs into law the Homeland
Security Bill, the Transition Planning Office, established by
Executive Order on June 20, 2002, will begin planning the
formation of the new Department of Homeland Security. The
Department of Defense will participate in this planning and
attempt to address and resolve many issues of mutual concern
with the Department of Homeland Security--including the
National Guard and the Coast Guard.
Regarding competing demands for the National Guard, Title
10 clearly establishes the relationship with the Department of
Defense: the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard of
the United States are reserve components of the armed forces
(10 U.S.C. 10101). When in the service of the United States,
the Army National Guard of the United States is a component of
the Army (10 U.S.C. 10106), and the Air National Guard of the
United States is a component of the Air Force (10 U.S.C.
10111). The Administration's proposal for a Department of
Homeland Security does not establish a direct relationship
between the Department of Homeland Security and the National
Guard.
The U.S. Constitution establishes a direct relationship
between the National Guard and State governors. State
governors, through their respective adjutants general, have a
direct relationship with the National Guard forces posted in
their respective states. Governors may call upon their National
Guard forces to serve the State during local or statewide
emergencies, natural or man-made.
There exists a well-established, well-exercised process for
Federal departments and agency heads, which would include the
proposed Department of Homeland Security, to request DOD
support through the Secretary of Defense. These requests
include those for the National Guard in the service of the
United States. Most recently, for example, the Secretary of the
Treasury and the Attorney General used this process to secure
DOD support at the borders for the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the Customs Service, and the Border
Patrol.
The current process is intentionally deliberate, and
factors such as the impact on military readiness are weighed
before deciding to support any Federal agency request for
National Guard support in Federal status. As a result, requests
for support are approved exclusively for exceptional needs when
support rendered does not affect adversely National Guard
readiness to preform its warfighting responsibilities.
Regarding the Coast Guard, the Administration's proposal
maintains the traditional direct relationship with the
Secretary of the Navy, as defined in title 14, United States
Code. Historically, the Department of Transportation and the
Department of Defense have balanced successfully the Coast
Guard's dual peacetime and wartime responsibilities. We
anticipate a similar relationship would continue between DOD
and the proposed Department of Homeland Security.
Question. The Pentagon remains largely outside this
historic merger of agencies. However, the President's plan does
include the creation of a new chemical and biological weapons
defense analysis center. How would this new center improve
Americans homeland security? What would this new center do that
the Pentagon is not already doing?
Answer. According to the President's plan, the mission of
the proposed National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis Center
(NBWDAC) would be to ``develop countermeasures to potential
attacks by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction.'' The
actual basis for the NBWDAC is an element of the President's
FY03 Budget Request for the DOD Chemical and Biological Defense
Program (CBDP) to fund two key initiatives: (1) Biological
Counterterrorism Research Program, and (2) Biological Defense
Homeland Security Program. These two programs would further
enhance homeland security through the establishment of a Center
specifically focused on countering biological terrorism and by
initiating a comprehensive program to create and deploy a
national, multi-component, multi-organization defensive
capability targeted to urban areas, other high-value assets,
and special events--a National Biological Defense System.
These two new programs--to be executed by DOD in
partnership with the Office of Homeland Security--target two
critical needs for the United States: countering biological
terrorism and biological homeland security. The first program,
targeting research, will support national security, law
enforcement, and medical communities by improving understanding
of biological agent pathogenesis and how potential pathogens
may be weaponized and disseminated for the purpose of improving
our ability to assess the threat, analyze and attribute, and
develop effective countermeasures. The goal is to establish an
interagency research program and analysis capability that
focuses on science-based bioterrorism/biological weapons
defense threat assessments and microbial forensics. The second
program aims to create and deploy a national, multi-component,
multi-organization defense capability targeted to urban areas,
other high-value assets, and special events. This program seeks
to provide an integrated homeland security capability to
detect, mitigate, and respond to biological-related incidents.
These homeland security capabilities would include: enhanced
biological detection capabilities and the fusion of medical
surveillance systems, wide-area environmental sensors, access
control points and information systems; and deployed systems to
exploit existing technology supplemented with new capabilities
resulting from accelerated development. Representatives from
DOD are working closely with representatives in the Office of
Homeland Security to ensure the development of an appropriate
detection system. Under the Administration's proposal, no
personnel would transfer from DOD to the proposed Department of
Homeland Security.
Question. I commend you and the Bush Administration for the
leadership and commitment you have shown to preventing
terrorism since September 11th. But before that attack, I
understand that you reportedly threatened a presidential veto
if funding for counterterrorism was increased at the expense of
national missile defense. Do you still have these concerns? How
have funding priorities changed since September 11th?
Answer. I strongly support full funding of the President's
budget for missile defense and continue to be concerned about
any proposals that would restrict development of DOD missile
defense programs.
After the September 11th attacks, the war on terrorism
obviously emphasized the importance of proper funding
priorities. Specifically, the attacks reinforced the importance
of the funding priorities already established: taking good care
of our military men and women and their families, the readiness
of our fighting forces, and transforming America's defense
posture to enable us to counter 21st century threats, such as
terrorism, more effectively.
``Counterterrorism'' and ``national missile defense'' are
two of many mission areas that are critical--and
complimentary--to the Department's overall ability to defend
our Nation and its interests. To increase any one mission area
at the expense of another jeopardizes this ability.
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Paul H. O'Neill,
Secretary of the Treasury, by the Honorable J.C. Watts, Jr.
Question. Your efforts in Operation Greenquest are
laudable, but as terrorist find new ways to hide their
financing, what can your Department and other federal agencies
do to drain the terrorists' funding pool?
Answer. Since September 11th, Treasury Enforcement,
including its component bureaus, has launched a number of new
initiatives to identify, disrupt, and dismantle terrorist
financial networks both domestically and abroad. I am pleased
to report that Treasury has named 213 individuals and entities
as financiers of terrorism pursuant to the President's
September 23rd Executive Order, and has blocked over $34.3
million in assets. Our coalition partners have blocked another
$77.9 million. A portion of that amount has since been
unblocked for the new Afghan Interim Authority to assist in its
critical period of rebuilding. Perhaps more importantly, we
believe our actions are disrupting flows of funds and deterring
potential supporters of terrorist groups from providing
financial support.
We have come to appreciate that terrorism has been
nourished by ample funding channeled from and through a
plethora of sources, including banks, charities, hawalas,*
narcotics traffickers, and money launderers. We are attacking
these means and methods of raising and moving money with all
our authorities. In this effort, the Treasury Department and
component bureaus are working closely with the National
Security Council, the Office of Homeland Security, the Federal
Reserve, the State Department, the CIA, the NSA, the Justice
Department, and the FBI. Also, Treasury has been working with
International diplomatic and law enforcement organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Hawala is a type of alternative remittance system that is common
in many parts of the world, including the Middle East and Far East.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Paul H. O'Neill,
Secretary of the Treasury, by the Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Question: Why is ATF (also part of the Treasury Department)
not part of Homeland Security when the Customs Service is?
Didn't WACO illustrate that threats often come from within the
country? Wasn't ATF a central agency in that conflict? It seems
like the new department is more oriented toward border
protection. Is that true?
Answer. As you indicated, the President's proposal does not
include moving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
(ATF) to the new Department of Homeland Security. While a
number of options were considered, the President's proposal is
designed to cover the changes that need to be made immediately
to accomplish the priority goal of securing the homeland as
quickly as possible.
Question: Yesterday, the Ways and Means Committee reported
out a bill that protected the pay and benefits of only a select
group of Customs employees (revenue experts, attorneys etc * *
*). These employees represent only about 25 percent of Customs
workers. But these select Customs employees whose benefits are
protected still do not enjoy assurances that their Title 5
rights and protections (the right to collectively bargain,
whistleblower protection, anti discriminations, pensions etc *
* *) will continue. Further, the remaining 75 percent of
Customs employees do not have any assurances that their pay,
benefits, rights and protections that they currently enjoy will
remain with them. Do you agree that this is a fair thing to do?
Answer. Under the President's legislative proposal, when
Customs becomes part of the new Department of Homeland
Security, employees will transfer with existing pay and
benefits intact. Employees can expect to enjoy the same
benefits--health, retirement, life insurance and the new long-
term care insurance plan--that are available to them today.
When the Department is established, employees represented by
unions will continue to be represented because their bargaining
units will move with them to the Department.
The Office of Personnel Management has committed to work
with the Committee on specific personnel issues such as the one
you raise during Congressional consideration of the homeland
security legislation.
Question: Do you think that the new department will be able
to retain and recruit quality personnel by removing these types
of work rights, protections, pay and benefits?
Answer. The President's legislation provides the Department
of Homeland Security with the ability to attract and retain
quality personnel, to offer incentives for exceptional
contributions, to get the right people to the right jobs in
time to make a difference. The legislation allows the Secretary
of Homeland Security, working in conjunction with the Director
of the Office of Personnel Management, to develop a new, agile
personnel system which will reflect and support the
Department's overriding security mission. To retain and recruit
the quality personnel you mention, the new Secretary of
Homeland Security will have the ability to reward outstanding
employees and bring in new talent quickly to fill vacancies in
critical positions whether created by retirements or changing
missions.
Question. Many Members of Congress are concerned that the
non-homeland security activities and functions of the Customs
Department may be shortchanged when they are forced to compete
for resources in the Department of Homeland Security. Apart
from the money needed to move the Customs Service to the new
Department, what additional resources do you think will be
necessary to ensure that the non-homeland defense functions are
adequately funded?
Answer. The Administration fully expects that the Customs
Service will continue to discharge its trade and revenue
function upon its transfer to the new Department, and this
function will be adequately funded. In fact, Customs performing
its trade and revenue collection function in the new Department
is critical to improving border security.
Question. How are ATF, the FBI, the CIA, and other agencies
going to communicate with DHS? Considering the difficulty that
just two agencies (FBI and CIA) have with communicating with
each other, will adding an additional department help?
Answer. The FBI and CIA have already taken important steps
to improve the way they collect, share, analyze, and
disseminate information to protect America. The new Department
of Homeland Security will benefit from these reforms as a user
of analysis and information provided by the CIA and the FBI.
The Department will analyze the information it receives from
all sources, including ATF and other agencies, and will develop
its own assessment of the current and future terrorist threats
against the United States.
It is important to note that the new Department will not
have any new intelligence collection responsibilities or
authorities beyond those traditionally conducted by the
component services which will join it, such as the Customs
Service. As for analysis, the new Department will have a
different strategic focus, and will fulfill an important
responsibility that did not clearly rest with any executive
department or agency prior to September 11. The new Department
will integrate its own and others' threat analysis with its
comprehensive vulnerability assessment for the purpose of
identifying protective priorities and promoting protective
steps to be taken by all Federal, state, and local agencies and
the private sector.
Question. You will be losing extraordinarily talented and
dedicated federal workers as they transfer over to the new
Department. Don't those employees deserve the same civil
service protections in the new Department as they now currently
enjoy?
Answer. The Treasury employees who may be moving over to
the new Department are indeed extraordinarily talented and
dedicated. In fact, on May 7, 2002, Secretary O'Neill
recognized the hard-working Treasury employees at a
Departmental Offices awards ceremony during Public Service
Recognition Week.
As noted above, under the President's legislative proposal,
when Customs and the Secret Service become part of the new
Department of Homeland Security, employees will transfer with
existing pay and benefits intact. Employees can expect to enjoy
the same benefits--health, retirement, life insurance and the
new long-term care insurance plan--that are available to them
today. The President's legislation also provides the Secretary
of Homeland Security with the ability to attract and retain
quality personnel, and to offer incentives for exceptional
contributions.
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Paul H. O'Neill,
Secretary of the Treasury, by the Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro
Question. Focusing on terrorists' financial networks is yet
another way to eventually disrupt, degrade, and take down
terrorists networks. As you know, tracking these funds is very
difficult, because money is raised in a variety of forms,
through charitable donations, through direct solicitations,
through legal businesses, and criminal enterprises. This money
is then moved through cash smuggling, regular banking systems,
other money-laundering havens, and through underground banking
systems. A disturbing trend we witnessed in the past was
agencies intentionally hiding their activities in this
dangerous field from each other. How do you recommend the
Homeland Security coordinate with local law enforcement, the
FBI, and the State Department in eliminating this problem?
Answer. [A response was not received in time for the
printing of the hearing. The response, when received, will be
retained in the Select Committee files.]
Question. The security of our nation's ports is a critical
piece of homeland security. In my home town of New Haven, the
Harbor is a critical entry point for oil, sand, sheet metal and
other products and while the City is working to coordinate
security, the local government needs back-up from federal law
enforcement. Currently, Customs is only able to screen 2 to 3
percent of the large cargo containers that enter the United
States. That leaves us highly vulnerable to the importation of
any number of threats from abroad. How will moving Customs into
the new department improve performance? Does the President's
proposal include adequate funding to inspect all Customs-
related products?
Answer. [A response was not received in time for the
printing of the hearing. The response, when received, will be
retained in the Select Committee files.]
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable John Ashcroft,
Attorney General, by the Honorable J.C. Watts, Jr.
Question. Knowing that all terrorism is local, how do you
plan to work more closely with state and local law enforcement
officials in the future to better coordinate the nation's
efforts to address terrorism?
Answer. While we do not agree that all terrorism is local--
either in terms of its organization, location of operatives and
resources, or its manifestations--we do agree that working more
closely with State and local law enforcement officials is a key
aspect of our counter-terrorism efforts. In September 2001, the
Attorney General announced an initiative creating Anti-
Terrorism Task Forces (ATTFs) under the leadership of each of
the 94 U.S. Attorneys across the country. Each ATTF brings
together the Federal, State and local officials in each
jurisdiction to pool their resources and their expertise in a
coordinated approach to fight terrorism as it impacts the
particular locale. These ATTFs are working together
successfully, sharing information and pursuing operational
goals in conjunction with their Joint Terrorism Task Forces
(JTTFs) under the direction of the FBI. Through these
mechanisms, Federal officials work effectively with the
associated JTTF's, State and local partners.
Question. Are there law enforcement lessons we can learn
from other countries regarding how they address the threat of
terrorism on their shores?
Answer.: We regularly exchange information and expertise on
terrorism issues with our allies at various international fora.
These exchanges include meetings at the ministerial level as
well as meetings of experts of the G-8, the European Union, the
Organization of the American States, and the Financial Action
Task Force. Through such discussions, we can draw upon the
experiences of our allies in addressing the threat of
terrorism. In addition, bilateral meetings and joint training
sessions with other countries afford the opportunity to
exchange law enforcement information for our mutual benefit. In
addition, the FBI's Legal Attaches, as well as attorneys from
the Department's Criminal Division Terrorism and Violent Crimes
Section and Office of International Affairs, interact on an
ongoing basis with their counterparts abroad to coordinate
anti-terrorism efforts and learn about how other countries are
addressing the terrorist threat.
Question. As terrorists become more innovative in their
attack profiles, how do you view the threat of cyber terrorism
against America's people, critical infrastructure, and
financial markets? What are we doing to mitigate that threat?
Answer. Exposure. As our economy and infrastructure become
more dependent on computers, our potential vulnerability to
terrorist attacks against our cyber systems grows. The United
Statesrelies increasingly upon information technologies and the
Internet to conduct business, manage industrial and
governmental activities, engage in personal communications, and
perform scientific research. These technologies have resulted
in enormous gains in efficiency, productivity, and
communications and have spurred tremendous growth in the U.S.
economy. They have also become essential to our society's
ability to function. Although terrorist organizations may have
the desire to conduct a cyber attack, it is unclear whether
such organizations possess the resources or skill to
successfully mount a cyber attack. Almost any computer is
capable of causing a serious cyber incident, especially since
tools used to conduct cyber attacks are all too available
online, but the ability to stage an effective cyber attack
requires up-to-date intelligence about the target network and
its architecture that would likely require stealthy intrusions
conducted over a time. While nation states are likely to invest
in such intelligence-gathering, most terrorist organizations
are not. However, this situation could change.
Notwithstanding the debate over the probability of a cyber
attack, we must prepare for the possibility of such an attack.
In the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, it
would be difficult, and irresponsible, to ignore the risk posed
by a cyber attack on the critical infrastructure. Since the
potential consequences of a cyber attack are too serious to
ignore, Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) efforts that
began in the mid-1990'shave recently culminated into a large
government-wide effort to create a coherent and effective CIP
policy.
Protection Efforts. The U.S. cyber security effort depends
upon the collaboration of multiple Federal departments and
agencies who contribute resources, skills, and disciplines to
the protection information systems. Federal law enforcement
investigates and prosecutes violations of Federal computer
crime statutes that protect the confidentiality, integrity, and
accessibility of information networks.
Furthermore, a broad array of Federal agencies and public
organizations provide training and resources to help secure and
protect U.S. networks. Most of these protection efforts come
under our efforts to protect our critical infrastructure (which
includes the banking and financial sector).
The government has focused on the issue of ensuring the
uninterrupted operation of certain key infrastructures since at
least 1996, when a presidentially-appointed commission began to
study the issue of CIP. The commission formulated CIP policy
that the previous administration adopted as Presidential
Decision Directive 63 (PDD-63). PDD-63 supplied a framework for
initial U.S. CIP efforts. It assigned overall responsibility
for policy development and coordination for critical
infrastructure assurance to the National Coordinator for
Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-Terrorism at
the National Security Council. It also created the National
Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) at the FBI that united
representatives from FBI, DOD, USSS, Energy, Transportation,
the Intelligence Community, and the private sector in an
unprecedented attempt at information sharing among agencies in
collaboration with the private sector. Furthermore, PDD-63
established the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (known
as CIAO) as an interagency office located at the Department of
Commerce to support the National Coordinator in carrying out
these policy development and coordination functions.
In October 2001, President George W. Bush signed Executive
Order 13231 establishing a new entity to further U.S. CIP
efforts and initiatives and amending some of the structures
created by PDD-63. The Order established the President's
Critical Infrastructure Protection Board (``PCIPB'') as a part
of the White House's Office of Homeland Security and the
National Security Council. The Board has responsibilities for
Federal programs involving cooperation with, and protection of,
private sector infrastructure, State and local governments'
critical infrastructure, and Federal departments and agencies
critical assets and information systems. The Special Advisor to
the President for Cyberspace Security chairs the Board.
Since most departments and agencies in the Federal
government contribute to the objective of critical
infrastructure assurance, the PCIPB consists of more than 20
senior executive branch leaders including deputy secretaries,
White House advisers, as well as other senior government
leaders. The heads of executive departments and agencies are
responsible and accountable for providing and maintaining
appropriate levels of information systems security, emergency
preparedness, continuity of operations, and continuity of
government for programs under their control.
The President's proposed Department of Homeland Security
would unify the responsibility for coordinating cyber and
physical infrastructure protection efforts. Currently, the
Federal government divides responsibility for cyber and
physical infrastructure, and key cyber security activities are
scattered in multiple departments. While securing cyberspace
poses unique challenges and issues, requiring unique tools and
solutions, our physical and cyber infrastructures are
interconnected. The devices that control our physical systems,
including our electrical distribution system,
transportationsystems, dams, financial markets, and other
important infrastructure, are increasingly connected to the
Internet. Thus, the consequences of an attack on our cyber
infrastructure can cascade across many sectors. Moreover, the
number, virulence, and maliciousness of cyber attacks have
increased dramatically in recent years. Accordingly, under
thePresident's proposal, the Department of Homeland Security
will place an especially high priority on protecting our cyber
infrastructure by working with the Federal departments and
agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector
to develop and coordinate the implementation of flexible
protective measures that can rapidly adjusted to the threat.
Similarly, the PCIPB is currently developing the National
Strategy to Secure Cyberspace. The Strategy is an implementing
strategy of the broader Homeland Security Strategy and provides
a framework for securing the information technology networks
that are necessary for the nation's economy, defense, and
critical services to run. A network of networks directly
supports the operation of all sectors of our economy-energy
(electric power, oil, gas), transportation (rail, air, merchant
marine), finance and banking, information and
telecommunications, public health, emergency services, water,
chemical, defense industrial base, food, agriculture, and
postal and shipping. The Strategy will provide a roadmap to
empower all Americans to secure the part of cyberspace they
control, including a variety of new proposals aimed at five
levels: the home user and small business; large enterprises;
sectors of the economy; national issues; and globalissues.
In addition, the Justice Department continues to expand its
ability to investigate and prosecute computer crime, including
cyber attacks. These efforts include the formation of CHIP
(``Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property'') units in
eleven U.S. Attorney'sOffices. The Department will also work
with Congress to ensure that laws protecting our computers and
networks are adequate.
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Paul H. O'Neill,
Secretary of the Treasury, by the Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Question. The FBI's NIPC and the NDPQ are to be transferred
to the new Department. Will you have to replace or replicate
these functions at DOJ after the transfer?
Answer. The FBI will not need to replace or replicate the
functions of the National Domestic Preparedness Office.
However, the FBI will need to continue to have a training
program for its own personnel, and that training is currently
handled by personnel identified for transfer. Within the
interagency National Infrastructure Protection Center(NIPC), 91
FBI positions in the Training Outreach and Strategy Section and
the Analysis and Warning Section, have been identified for
transfer to the Department of Homeland Security. The FBI
support this transfer, however, of these positions, 33 (5
agents, 28 support) provide important collateral training to
both the NIPC and to the FBI. This support includes providing
computer intrusion investigative training to FBI personnel and
reviewing and analyzing related investigative data. To minimize
the potential impact on important FBI training, the FBI would
plan to assign new personnel to perform this training function.
Question. Will you need to replace the FBI employees who
are being transferred to the new Department?
Answer. Please see answer to the first question above.
Question. How are the ATF, the FBI, the CIA, and other
agencies going to communicate with Department of Homeland
Security? Considering the difficulty that just two agencies
(FBI and CIA) have with communicating with each other, will
adding an additional department help?
Answer. Intelligence support for the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) will be provided through the new FBI Office of
Intelligence and will include support from the Foreign
Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF) and from 56 Joint
Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) around the country. Among the
full-time Federal participants on JTTFs are the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), the Marshal's Service (USMS), the Secret
Service, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the
Customs Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
(ATF), the State Department, the Postal Inspection Service, the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the U.S. Park Police.
Representatives from the DHS will be included as soon as
possible. The JTTFs constitute a national counterterrorism
effort and have created a very real force multiplier effect.
They provide for very effective, real time information sharing
among the participants, fundamental to effective intelligence
support.
The Information and Requirements Group in the Office of
Intelligence will serve as the central information
clearinghouse, or hub, for all information between the
Counterterrorism Division and FBI field offices, Legal
Attaches, and between the Counterterrorism Division (CTD) and
other agencies. The group will serve as the singlefocal point
through which other FBI entities and external agencies
communicate with CTD. All incoming FBI communications from
field offices, JTTFs, and Legal Attaches on terrorism cases, as
well as cables, reports, and other intelligence products from
external agencies will flow into the hub. Communications will
be reviewed by a duty officer and his staff, logged, parsed,
and routed to appropriate units. An administrative tickler
system will affix accountability and ensure that taskings are
completed on schedule.
Question. You will be losing extraordinarily talented and
dedicated federal workers as they transfer over to the new
Department. Don't those employees deserve the same civil
service protections in the new Department as they now currently
enjoy?
Answer. The Justice Department employees who would be
transferred to the new Department are highly skilled and
exceptionally dedicated public servants. The President's
legislation is designed to enable the new Department to attract
and retain employees of this caliber, and to offer incentives
for especially significant contributions. It enables the
Secretary of Homeland Security, working with the Director of
the Office of Personnel Management, to develop a new and
flexible personnel system that will support the Department's
central security mission. To attract and retain high-quality
personnel, the Secretary will have the ability both to reward
outstanding employees and to bring in new talent quickly to
fill vacancies in critical positions.
Moreover, employees will transfer with their existing pay
intact, and can expect to enjoy the same benefits--health, life
insurance, retirement, and the new long-term care insurance
plan--that they have available to them today. When the new
Department is established, employees represented by unions will
continue to be represented because their bargaining units will
move with them to the Department.
The Office of Personnel Management has committed to work
with the Committee on specific personnel issues during
Congressional consideration of the homeland security
legislation.
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable John Ashcroft,
Attorney General, by the Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro
Question. As we construct this new Department, it is vital
that every effort be made to maintain the civil rights and
privacy of hard working families who play by the rules. While
not included in the President's proposal, one proposal is to
create an Office of Civil Rights, Immigration, and Privacy in
the Department of Homeland Security--similar to the office in
place at the Department of Justice. Would you comment on this
proposal? What recommendations do you have for protecting
Americans' civil rights and privacy?
Answer. [A response was not received in time for the
printing of this hearing. The response, when received, will
retained in the Select Committee's files.]
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
-