[Senate Hearing 107-212] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] S. Hrg. 107-212 LEGISLATIVE OPTIONS TO STRENGTHEN HOMELAND DEFENSE ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ OCTOBER 12, 2001 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs 76-806 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman CARL LEVIN, Michigan FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio MAX CLELAND, Georgia PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah MARK DAYTON, Minnesota JIM BUNNING, Kentucky Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Staff Director and Counsel Holly A. Idelson, Counsel Michael L. Alexander, Professional Staff Member Hannah S. Sistare, Minority Staff Director and Counsel Robert J. Shea, Minority Counsel Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statements: Page Senator Lieberman............................................ 1 Senator Thompson............................................. 3 Senator Bennett.............................................. 5 Senator Akaka................................................ 6 Senator Voinovich............................................ 7 Senator Durbin............................................... 8 Senator Collins.............................................. 9 Senator Levin................................................ 33 Prepared opening statements: Senator Carnahan............................................. 55 Senator Bunning.............................................. 55 WITNESSES Friday, October 12, 2001 Hon. Bob Graham, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida........ 9 Hon. Arlen Specter, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania 12 Hon. Bob Smith, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire... 14 Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest, a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland.............................................. 16 Hon. Jane Harman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California..................................................... 17 Hon. Mac Thornberry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas....................................................... 20 Hon. Lee H. Hamilton, Director, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars............................................ 22 General (Ret.) Barry R. McCaffrey, President, B.R. McCaffrey Associates, Inc................................................ 25 General Charles G. Boyd, USAF (Ret.), former Executive Director of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century and Current Director of the Washington Office of the Council on Foreign Relations.............................................. 28 Stephen E. Flynn, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, National Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations.......................... 30 Thomas H. Stanton, Chair, Standing Panel on Executive Organization and Management, National Academy of Public Administration................................................. 35 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Boyd, General Charles G., USAF (Ret.): Testimony.................................................... 28 Prepared statement........................................... 109 Flynn, Stephen E., Ph.D.: Testimony.................................................... 30 Prepared statement........................................... 113 Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T.: Testimony.................................................... 16 Prepared statement........................................... 72 Graham, Hon. Bob: Testimony.................................................... 9 Hamilton, Hon. Lee H.: Testimony.................................................... 22 Prepared statement........................................... 87 Harman, Hon. Jane: Testimony.................................................... 17 Prepared statement........................................... 79 McCaffrey, General Barry R., (Ret.): Testimony.................................................... 25 Prepared statement........................................... 92 Smith, Hon. Bob: Testimony.................................................... 14 Prepared statement........................................... 66 Specter, Hon. Arlen: Testimony.................................................... 12 Prepared statement........................................... 57 Stanton, Thomas H.: Testimony.................................................... 35 Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 118 Thornberry, Hon. Mac: Testimony.................................................... 20 Prepared statement........................................... 82 Appendix Comptroller General of the U.S. General Accounting Office, August 6, 2001, prepared statement (submitted by Senator Graham)...... 129 Hon. Dianne Feinstein, a U.S. Senator from the State of California, prepared statement................................. 130 Hon. Jim Gibbons, a Representative in the Congress from the State of Nevada, prepared statement (submitted by Ms. Harman)........ 133 Hon. Steven C. LaTourette, Chairman of the U.S. House of Representative's Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, prepared statement......... 134 Ivo H. Daalder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and I.M. Destler, a Professor at the School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland, prepared statement..................... 138 LEGISLATIVE OPTIONS TO STRENGTHEN HOMELAND DEFENSE ---------- FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2001 U.S. Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Durbin, Dayton, Thompson, Collins, Voinovich, and Bennett. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN Chairman Lieberman. Good morning and thank you so much for being here at this hearing. Today the Governmental Affairs Committee will consider various legislative proposals to strengthen homeland security. This is a follow-up to our hearing 3 weeks ago that explored the question of whether government is adequately organized to meet threats to the American homeland. The tragic events of September 11 were a shocking and painful wake-up call for all Americans, including those of us who are privileged to be in public service. The senseless deaths of thousands of our fellow citizens at the hands of terrorist hijackers hurt and angered our Nation, but I think they also forged in us an iron resolve to bring to justice those who aided and abetted the terrorists. The attacks also underscored our vulnerability to those who would do us ill and the failure of the government and the private sector--in this case, particularly, the airlines who were responsible for security--to prevent those attacks. In the weeks that have followed, many reasons have been given for this failure. The one which concerns the Governmental Affairs Committee, because it is at the heart of our jurisdiction, is that our government lacks the appropriate structures and mechanisms to adequately carry out the responsibility of homeland protection. We, of course, have military intelligence, law-enforcement and emergency response assets, but they are inadequately organized to guard against the kinds of attacks we witnessed last month, and I would say also inadequately directed and driven to prevent further attacks of that kind. So this morning this Committee will consider two--at least two, and to a certain extent, three major reorganization proposals that have been introduced in Congress to better achieve homeland security and protection from terrorism. S. 1449, introduced by Senator Graham and others, would establish a national office for combating terrorism. This proposal would create a statutory White House office with a Senate-confirmed director responsible for coordinating government-wide terrorism policy. A House bill, sponsored by Representatives Gibbons and Harman, would also create a White House office with strong budget authority to coordinate programs to defend against terrorism and other homeland threats. The second bill we will look at is S. 1534, a proposal introduced yesterday by Senator Specter and myself, that would establish a Department of National Homeland Security. Briefly, our bill would bring under a single administrative umbrella the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, the Coast Guard and other offices responsible for critical infrastructure protection. These agencies would be organized into three functional directorates for prevention, protection and preparation to respond. The head of the department would be a cabinet secretary who would be subject to Senate confirmation and thus, accountable to Congress and the American people. Like other agency chiefs, he would enjoy executive control over personnel and programs, and he would have all-important budget authority over his department's spending priorities. In short, S. 1534 is meant to structure homeland defense in a way that makes sense operationally, but also in terms of maximizing funding priorities, interagency cooperation, and just plain bureaucratic clout. S. 1534 is modeled on the recommendation of the so-called Hart-Rudman Commission. A nearly identical House bill has been sponsored by Representatives Thornberry and Tauscher. I should point out that Congressman Thornberry, who is with us today, had the foresight to introduce his bill well before the September 11 attacks. These bills stress different aspects of anti-terrorism and reorganization and each in its own way, in my opinion, if enacted, would have a positive effect on the administration's efforts to fight terrorism and protect our citizens, which, of course, we all support. Governor Tom Ridge, I think, is a terrific choice to head the new Office of Homeland Security, but, in my opinion, as constituted now, his office does not give him the power he needs to ensure that he will get the job of homeland security done. His office is not authorized by law. He is not confirmed by the Senate. He lacks sufficient budget authority over the agencies he will be overseeing and coordinating to make sure his priorities, and I would say ours, are their priorities, and that his sense of urgency about the job he has, and I would add ours, is also a sense of urgency shared by those who will be under him. I think we need to create a robust cabinet-level agency led by a strong director that has the clout and resources to make the homeland security mission work, and that is what the legislation Senator Specter and I have introduced would do. The Committee will also hear from Senator Smith about legislation he has offered to create a Domestic Terrorism Preparedness Council that would be charged with developing and implementing a terrorism preparedness plan. Representative Gilchrist has a similar measure pending in the House. So we have got a very distinguished set of witnesses on both panels today. I want to thank them in advance for taking time to be with us this morning to share their experience and their counsel, as we together, certainly across party lines, try to fashion the best structure through which we can get done what is now probably the most urgent responsibility our Federal Government has, which is to protect the American people from attack here on the American homeland. Now let me turn to my colleague and friend, the Ranking Member of this Committee, Senator Fred Thompson. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMPSON Senator Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly cannot think of a more timely hearing than this one. There have been a lot of excellent proposals put on the table. Yours is one of them. We ought to consider them seriously. I want to apologize to my staff for an excellent statement that they drafted here. I would like to make it a part of the record. It just occurred to me a few minutes before we had this hearing, that perhaps it would be more beneficial by stating an alternative notion or two that focuses on the nature of the problem. It seems to me that although we certainly do need to look at the organizational structure of our effort here, that is really not the basis of our problem. I think the real problem has been that, for some time now in this town, we have not taken this problem seriously. Although we have had many good hearings and many excellent admonitions and suggestions over the years, the Congress has never really followed up and done much about it. We have not had much leadership from the White House over the last several years, in taking this problem seriously. It is not for lack of organization, it seems to me, that we are in the trouble that we are in right now. It is lack of leadership. It does not matter what kind of organization we have if we do not have the right kind of leadership. Without leadership, we are not going to be able to address the problem. So, if it is also the case, as it appears to me, that this is, by its very nature, a decentralized problem, then our tendency will be to centralize the problem and the effort and create a new, concise entity. We have 40 agencies with responsibility, and maybe 40 agencies need responsibility. Maybe the problem is so diverse and covers so many different areas that we need all of these people involved. If that is the case, if leadership is the problem, then what is the solution? One of the things we need to seriously consider, as, of course, we will, is whether or not we should simply vest the authority in the Executive Branch, perhaps reinstitute the Reorganization Act, which was used for many, many years to reorganize the Federal Government. With this authority, the President could reorganize as he saw fit. Authority could be given to the Congress on an expedited basis, to say yea or nay. This authority would give the President the opportunity to look across the spectrum at what all of these agencies are doing with all these Congressional committees having all this jurisdiction. It might be best to take some time to see how this thing really ought to be reorganized before we impose upon the new President and his new team some kind of a new organizational plan that would involve the changing and perhaps even disrupting thousands and thousands of government employees. So I would merely suggest that this certainly be in the back of our minds, at least, as we look at all of these organizational plans. Clearly, September 11 has gotten our attention. I think we are all encouraged that we are now fulfilling our responsibilities and taking this matter very, very seriously. We should address it, not only in terms of organization, but in terms of budget priorities. We should work with the President to come up with the very best solution in order to deal with the problem that certainly is at the very top of our agenda and a concern to us all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Senator Thompson follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMPSON Thank you Mr. Chairman. There have been other times of great crisis in our country. Few of these, however, caught us with such an inadequate organizational structure and the urgency to build a new one has never been greater. Many distinguished panels and experienced public servants informed us that the government's efforts to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorism were fragmented and uncoordinated; by and large we failed to heed that advice. We hesitated due to the big changes they called for and sometimes because there were more important priorities. But these reasons are, for all practical purposes, immaterial. What we are left with now are decisions we cannot avoid and actions that we must take. Previously, there were questions that could not be asked. Those questions must be asked now. Previously, there were programs that could not be touched. Those programs must be examined and, if necessary, changed and moved. Previously, there were agencies that put counterterrorism on the back burner. Obviously, it must now be a prime concern. However, we should not and cannot reorganize for the sake of reorganizing, and that is what I caution against now. I believe that hasty action leads us down the dangerous path towards the illusion of security, which is more dangerous than having no security at all. I believe that there are a number of questions that must be asked and answered before we can even begin. What is the problem we are trying to fix? The outcome we want--freedom from terror--is clear, but a definition of the problem is lacking. Was it a specific agency that failed to do its job? Several agencies? Was the problem that we didn't plan adequately for those who are willing to die in the commission of terrorist acts? The problem must inform our solution, not the other way around. And at this point, I don't believe anyone has clearly articulated what it is we're trying to solve. Whatever our decision is, it clearly must be able to stand the test of time. We want to ensure that a year from now, five years from now, when the exigency of the moment has passed and when the new Director of Homeland Security does not possess the forceful personality of Governor Ridge, that counterterrorism efforts are coordinated and urgent. If deep organizational change is needed--and as I have said, it may be--then why not let it come from the President? I suggest that what might serve us well is the Reorganization Act. This important legislation was born in the Great Depression, another time when a departure from conventional thinking was called for. We here in the Congress would not be giving up our role in the policy process, since both houses would still have to affirm any measure before it became law. Rather, we would allow the President to assess where the weaknesses in the system are and to act quickly to fix them. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I look forward to hearing what our distinguished witnesses have to say. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Thompson, for that thoughtful statement. Normally, we would go to the witnesses. I wonder, in light of the importance of the hearing, whether any of my colleagues would like to make a brief opening statement? Senator Bennett. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT Senator Bennett. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could just make a personal statement here, quoting the historic Yogi Berra, ``Deja vu all over again.'' I entered the Executive Branch in the first of the Nixon Administration in 1969 at the Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation, which is now stable and part of our government structure, was formed in much the same manner that your bill and Senator Specter's bill is proposing here, with respect to this new department. It took the FAA, which was an independent agency, the Urban Mass Transit Administration, which was part of HUD, the Federal Highway Administration, which was in Commerce, the Coast Guard, which was in Treasury, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and I have forgotten where it was, and the Federal Rail Administration that was created de novo to be part of this Department of Transportation--and all this was done in the Johnson Administration, and the Department was 18 months old when President Nixon was elected, and I was part of the team that went in to take over that Department. I saw firsthand, 18 months after the formation of the Department, how badly it was struggling to come together and how difficult those 18 months were. In the next 2 years, in which I was privileged to serve in the Department under the leadership of Secretary Volpe, we struggled mightily just to pull the thing together and make it work. It was one of the most difficult, exhilarating, educational management experiences of my young life, to go through that. I just want to sound a note of caution, having been through that experience, that the idea of pulling together a group of existing agencies, ripping them out of the roots that they have established in the departments where they exist, and then putting them together on what looks like a very clean piece of paper, in terms of an organizational chart, is a very difficult reality to deal with in terms of the way the structure is built. Having said that, I applaud you and Senator Specter for your bill, because we probably need to get someplace like this as quickly as we can, and we therefore need to start. But my only cautionary note, as we do start, is to recognize that this is not going to come together very quickly. We have the National Security Council, which was created in 1947, after the Second World War. We went through the Second World War with the pressures of the war leaving the disparate parts scattered all over the government, because we did not want to try to disrupt what they were doing to force an additional organizational circumstance. So, I thank you for your indulgence. I simply want to sound that note of caution as we proceed down this road. I again reiterate my congratulations to you for getting us started down the road, because we should not let the caution tell us the task is so daunting we will not even begin it. I wanted to share that personal reaction as I looked at this, because it did stir up memories that are now over 30 years old, in my own experience. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Bennett. That is a very instructive comment, and I presume most people agree that your words are not only realistic and wise, but that the effort was ultimately worth it in terms of what was produced. Senator Bennett. That is correct. Chairman Lieberman. The reassuring reality here is that the President has acted quickly, created the office, has Governor Ridge in it. So something is happening now, even as we consider whether there are better ways to do it that we can build on. Senator Akaka. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you and thank you for calling this hearing, and also to take the time to welcome our friends and our colleagues to this hearing. Even before the tragedy of last month, our leadership has looked for ways to strengthen our defense, and, Mr. Chairman, at this point, I want to include my whole statement, but I will make some brief remarks here. Chairman Lieberman. Without objection, it will be included in the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA Good morning. I commend the Chairman for calling this hearing and thank our witnesses for being with us today. Even before the tragic events of last month, we have looked for ways to strengthen homeland defense. A threat that was once seen as a problem of the future has sadly become a present day reality. The question remains: How can we best prevent, protect, and respond to threats on our homeland while preserving the freedoms that define America? We should also be mindful that future threats may not take the same form of those a month ago. In July, the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services, which I chair, held a hearing on FEMA's role in managing a bioterrorist attack. That hearing made it clear that the United States lacked a national security strategy and the institutional organization to address terrorist attacks. Any strategy should address the fact that such future attacks will affect regions of our country differently. There is no one type fits all strategy. Geographically isolated or remote states like Hawaii or rural areas will require different response strategies and resources than New York City or the Washington, D.C. region. Our ability to address this issue will depend on the organization and coordination of our resources, the strategy we employ, and communication among federal, state, and local governments. Chairman Lieberman has proposed creating a Department of National Homeland Security. President Bush suggests a less formal approach. Whatever choice is made, we must ensure our strategy and organization maximizes the talents of those charged with homeland security and the resources needed to address any threat. I look forward to your proposals and thank you again for being with us. Senator Akaka. What was once seen as a problem of the future has sadly become the present-day reality. The question remains: How can we best prevent, protect and respond to threats on our homeland while preserving the freedoms that define America? In July, the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services, which I Chair, held a hearing on FEMA's role in managing a bioterrorist attack. It became clear at the time that we lack a national security strategy and an institutional organization to address the terrorist attacks. We must ensure our strategy and organize and maximize the talents of those charged with homeland security, and that is what we are trying to do. So I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and wish all of us well and hope we are able to define our strategy and our work. Thank you. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Akaka. Thanks for your Subcommittee's leadership in that area, too. Senator Voinovich. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you for holding this hearing on legislative options to strengthen our homeland defense, and I want to welcome our panels of witnesses. Mr. Chairman, during the waning years of the Cold War, in the decade since its conclusion, Congress and previous administrations have commissioned study after study on the preparedness level of the Federal Government in the face of a terrorist attack on the United States of America. In the aftermath of last month's acts of terrorism on our homeland, the spotlight has shone on the important role our Federal agencies, and the individuals who work for them, play in the defense of our Nation. It is amazing to me that a crisis has to occur before we begin taking action on something as serious as making sure we have the proper structure and personnel in place to guarantee our national security. However, let me say that although Congress has not yet made a decision on the type of homeland security office we might create, if we create one at all, I am impressed with the deliberate and prompt action President Bush has undertaken within the past few weeks to create an Office of Homeland Security. I believe it is important that, as Congress evaluates options for building upon that new office, we seriously consider the input of the Executive Branch in structuring our agencies in a manner that the administration deems most effective. Maybe I have been an administrator too long--10 years as mayor and 8 years as governor, but I wonder: Has the administration been heard from in regard to how they want to organize and deal with the problem? They are the ones that are going to be charged with that responsibility, and they ought to determine the best way to respond, in my opinion, to the problem that we have. Mr. Chairman, only months ago the Hart-Rudman Commission released its final report on the national security posture of our Nation. One of the Commission's findings said, ``Attacks against American citizens on American soil, possibly causing heavy casualties, are likely over the next quarter century.'' Now, that is eerie in its foresight. Another finding of the Commission was that, ``The United States finds itself on the brink of an unprecedented crisis of competence in Government,'' and that, ``The maintenance of American power in the world depends on the quality of U.S. Government personnel, civil, military, and at all levels.'' This Committee is considering restructuring the Federal Government to ensure that our Nation is prepared to respond to future attacks. As we do, we should resolve to take action on the Commission's prediction about the state of the Federal Government's human capital and our Nation's preeminence in the world, and ensure that we correct the situation before it gets worse. For example, right now we know that we are out on the Internet advertising for people that can speak Arabic and other languages. We are just not prepared for this situation today. I think you know, Mr. Chairman, I am preparing to introduce legislation that will address this human capital crisis, and I urge my colleagues to keep in mind the important role that Federal employees play in protecting the American people. As former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger said when he testified before our Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia Subcommittee, in March, ``Fixing the personnel problem is a precondition for fixing virtually everything else that needs repair in the institutional edifice of the U.S. national security policy.'' I would agree with that assessment. We have all kinds of agencies we can restructure, but it is the quality of the people that we have in those agencies that are really going to make the difference. If you have good people--although you may not have the best structure--and they can effectively coordinate their activities, there is a lot that can be accomplished. I think we have seen that so far. We have a crisis. The President has brought them together. We have seen cooperation around here like we have not seen in anyone's memory. Turf battles have kind of disappeared because we have a crisis. So, as I said, Mr. Chairman, as we consider the structure, let's try to make sure we get input from the administration on how they think this should be organized, and let's also pay attention to the fact that we need to deal with the human capital crisis. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Voinovich. Let me just indicate for the record and reassure you that we invited the administration to testify this morning. They chose not to, but they did say that Governor Ridge would be happy to meet with the Committee in session to discuss his attitude toward the various proposals here. Senator Durbin. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this hearing. Several years ago I read an interesting biography of George Marshall. When the storm clouds were gathering over Europe, Franklin Roosevelt went to General Marshall and asked him to take a look at the military capacity of the United States, long before Pearl Harbor. When General Marshall arrived at the War Department he found that we had a token military at best that had been decommissioned after World War I and never really activated in the intervening time. He asked if there were any battle plans that were available. They went to the vault and pulled out the one contingency which they had prepared for. It was the invasion of Mexico. Within a short period of time, Pearl Harbor occurred, America was at war, and in a matter of several years we took that decimated, almost non-existent military force and turned it into a military force that literally saved the world. You have to ask yourself, in that period of time, what happened, and I think we can reflect on several things that happened: First, strong leadership at every level, from the President on down; second, bipartisanship, as Senator Voinovich has said, that we have seen clear evidence of in the last few weeks here on Capitol Hill, a national cause that rallied the best and brightest who wanted to be part of saving America and winning the war, and a sense of purpose and urgency that managed to break through the bureaucracy and all of the problems of the past. We now have lived through September 11, and the question is whether or not we can rally this same strength and this same sense of purpose. I think the President has chosen an extraordinary person to lead that in Governor Tom Ridge. It has been my pleasure to call him a friend and fellow congressman since we were both elected in 1982, but the question is whether or not Congress and the President and all of us as a people will stand behind him with that same sense of purpose as he puts together this critically-important agency. There will be many good ideas. In the end, we must rally behind the best and make certain it works. Thank you. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Senator Collins. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS Senator Collins. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your leadership and for holding this hearing. We have an impressive first panel of distinguished witnesses who have been waiting for a half-hour to share their wisdom with us, so I am going to forego my opening comments and listen to their testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Collins. You are right about the panel of witnesses. I am grateful that they are here. We have three colleagues in the Senate, and three colleagues from the House. I had not thought of it before, but I note as I look, in true human indication and evidence of non- partisanship, four of our colleagues are Republicans and only two are Democrats. How did that happen, Fred? [Laughter.] With Senator Graham's indulgence, I know Senator Specter has to return to Pennsylvania. I am going to ask him to go first, if you would. Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I had negotiated with Senator Graham priority. We are swearing in a U.S. Attorney this afternoon in Philadelphia, but then he told me about his plane, so I am going to defer to Senator Graham. He has to leave at 10:30 a.m., so his statement will not be too long. [Laughter.] TESTIMONY OF HON. BOB GRAHAM, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Senator, and after that it will be shorter than it would have otherwise been. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify before your panel on the legislation that has been introduced on the Office of Homeland Security. Let me say from the outset, and particularly in response to some of the comments by Senator Voinovich, I could not agree more that this needs to be an effort in which there is the highest level of cooperation, collaboration and respect between the Executive and Legislative Branches. This work is too important for it to be treated in any other manner. I see that our efforts here today and the efforts that led to the legislation that has been introduced are all intended to complement, both in the sense of expressing our appreciation for, as well as to join in an effective partnership with, the administration. After several months of research on the day after the President announced his selection of Governor Ridge, along with Senator Dianne Feinstein and others, I filed a bill entitled the National Office for Combatting Terrorism, which would establish an office in the White House with that as its objective. After 9 years on the Intelligence Committee, I am acutely aware of the need for a centralized authority to coordinate our counterterrorism efforts. Many studies, including some that have been referenced this morning, have brought before us the urgency of such coordination. As one example, the General Accounting Office has identified that there is a wide range of agencies, from the CIA to the FBI, from the FAA to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which have part of this responsibility, yet there is no single individual in charge of these efforts. The GAO concluded just last month, ``Key interagency functions are resident in several different organizations, resulting in fragmented leadership and coordination. These circumstances hinder unity of effort and limit accountability.'' In other words, I would analogize our situation to a team which has a number of talented athletes, but no head coach to bring their efforts together behind a single plan. We must have a leader who can command action when the inevitable interagency rivalries occur. The White House appointment of Governor Ridge is a recognition of this requirement, and I am grateful that a man of such talent has accepted this position, but I am deeply concerned that the Governor cannot do all that the President intends for him to do, even though the executive order of October 8 is filled with strong language, including directives that the office, ``shall work with executive departments and agencies,'' and, ``shall identify priorities and coordinate efforts.'' Nor should the homeland security of America have to depend upon the occupant of the office's personal ties with the President. If you want an example of the fragility of that, I would suggest that you might do some research on the first person who held the term ``Czar'' in American history, Harold Ickes, when he was given that title of Czar of Petroleum during World War II, and how much his effectiveness waned when his relationship on a personal level with the President of the United States took a downward slide. Frankly, I do not believe that the director of the Office of Homeland Security will have the clout that he or she needs to perform these essential tasks without gaining the power that would be granted through a permanent statutory position. Foremost among these powers, he needs budget authority, which only the Congress can convey. Without the ability to tell an agency director that his budget priorities are misplaced or order the elimination of redundant functions from agency budgets, I do not believe that Governor Ridge will be able to implement an effective counterterrorism strategy. I also believe the director of this office should be confirmed by the Senate. Confirmation would ensure his accountability to both the Congress and the American people, and I would ask to have entered in the record a statement by the Director of the General Accounting Office on some of the issues that are likely to be raised in terms of the accountability that comes only through Senate confirmation.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of the Comptroller General of the U.S. General Accounting Office, August 6, 2001, appears in the Appendix on page 129. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Lieberman. Without objection. Senator Graham. The Congress cannot afford such resistance when it comes to the battle against terrorism. Mr. Chairman, your Committee, the Intelligence Committee and others, must fulfill our important oversight responsibilities with the Office of Homeland Security. While there clearly were intelligence and law-enforcement failures in the days and weeks leading up to the horrific events of September 11, it is too soon to say where those gaps in our safety net occurred. It is not too soon, however, to commit that we will empower a new leader, a new leader whose mission will be to close those gaps. I have promised hearings before the Intelligence Committee when the time is right, and I do not want to encounter any roadblocks in getting the information that we will need. In closing, let me repeat, as I have told the Vice President and the head of the National Security Agency and others in the administration, we have no intention of undermining the President's plans for his Office of Homeland Security. We seek to give the office the authority it needs to carry out its extremely important functions. We believe that clear lines of authority must be established so that our war on terrorism can be successful, all the way from the collection of intelligence overseas to the ultimate victory, through eliminating the scourge of global terrorism. Also, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I am familiar with the provisions of the bill that you have introduced, which would consolidate a number of agencies. I applaud those goals, especially relating to better protection of our borders. Your legislation is consistent with the approach that Senator Feinstein and I have taken in S. 1449, and we look forward to working with you to merge our proposals into the most effective homeland defense for America. Mr. Chairman, the challenge that we face today is not a new one for America. We have been challenged many times in our national history. I was moved by rereading the words of one of our greatest leaders at one of our times of greatest challenge. In his second address to the Congress, on Feb. 1, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln gave these directions to the American people: ``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so must we think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we will save our country.'' Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Graham, for an excellent statement. Let me just very briefly respond to what you said at the end about your proposal and ours not being mutually exclusive or inconsistent. I agree with you that it is quite conceivable that we could take some of the offices and agencies of government, specifically involved in homeland security, border control, etc., put them together under a strong director, and that would be one element under an overall coordinator of counterterrorism in the White House. So I look forward to working with you and seeing whether it is possible to mesh the two proposals. Senator Graham. Thank you very much, and thank you for your courtesy in allowing me to go first, and I hope that you will make your appointment with the new U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Bob. Have a safe trip. Senator Specter. Senator Graham, riding Amtrak is a lot better than flying to Florida; we have a lot more conveyances leaving. However, your schedule is more urgent than mine, so I am glad to have deferred to you. TESTIMONY OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER,\1\ A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Senator Specter. Mr. Chairman and Members of this distinguished Committee, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the lengthy statement be included in the record, and I will summarize as briefly as I can, in light of the many witnesses you have today on this important subject. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Specter appears in the Appendix on page 57. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Lieberman. It will be printed in the record, of course. Senator Specter. We have had numerous studies, and it is time for action on reorganization. I am pleased to have worked with you, Mr. Chairman, on S. 1534, which represents our best thinking as of the moment, and I am pleased to see our colleagues in both the House and the Senate with other legislative proposals, and I know from my 4 years on this Committee, that this is the place to amalgamate these bills and face up to the needs and produce a finished product. My view is that the government is much too proliferated and diverse, and I came to that when I chaired the Intelligence Committee in 1995 and 1996 and looked at the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and found some 96 separate agencies, many of them overlapping, notwithstanding the overlaps, many gaps, and no centralized authority. In the Intelligence Act of 1996, a provision was legislated to create a commission which was chaired by former CIA Director John Deutch, and I served as the vice chairman. We found that the turf battles were just furious, just extraordinary, and after a lot of hearings and a lot of witnesses and a lot of deliberation, we concluded that really the only person who could handle it, next to the President, would be the Vice President, and that was the recommendation of our commission, with consolidated lines of authority. Today, it is unrealistic to give the Vice President any more duties, we just cannot do that. We have had the action by the President through an executive order, which was exactly right, because he needed to act immediately. Legislation takes time, so President Bush has pursued the first steps in appointing Governor Tom Ridge, a man whom I obviously know very well. We are fellow Pennsylvanians, working practically every day for the past 20 years or more, when he was in the House and when he served ably as Governor. When Governor Ridge was asked about his role, he said, ``Well, people can say no to me, but they cannot say no to the President.'' Now, that is true, but every time there is a dispute the President cannot conceivably intervene, and we are dealing with an office which has to be institutionalized. In the future there may be another person in Governor Ridge's position. There may be another person President of the United States and the personal relationship may not exist, and that is the role of the Congress and the role of this Committee, which is the extensive experience this Committee has had. You have outlined already the provisions of S. 1534, so I shall not duplicate them. When we get to the end of the rainbow on homeland security, we still have a big issue of coordination of our intelligence operations. My 8 years on the Senate Intelligence Committee and chairing the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism has left me in a state of wonderment as really what to do with the intelligence agencies. I have found, I am sorry to say, that the agents in the Central Intelligence Agency do not tell the Director what is going on, and I could be very specific, but we would have to go into closed session. I have found the battles within the FBI and the culture there more secretive than is imaginable. Within those agencies, somehow someone has got to take charge, and it is an ongoing battle, and then it is a problem of trying to find coordination. We had a hearing before this Committee, jointly with the Intelligence Committee, in 1997, and we needed some important information. Senator Bennett had sought some information from the FBI and they told him they did not have the information, but then he found out from the CIA that the FBI had the information. The FBI said they could not find it, but the CIA found it, having been told by the FBI, but nobody would tell Senator Bennett. I do not know why they would not tell you, Senator Bennett, but they would not and they would not tell this Committee. My red light is on, so I will conclude within 30 seconds. At the end of the rainbow on homeland security, I suggest that this Committee and the Congress has to figure out a way to stop the intelligence gaps. We have a very nervous America. The overhang on this country today is just extraordinary, and fortunately we passed two pieces of legislation yesterday, airport security and the terrorism bill, which, as I said on the floor last night, we should have done 2 weeks ago. However, we are going to have to tackle this intelligence issue. It is just unfathomable that when you have the FBI putting a man on a Watch List, he still can get on a airplane and turn a commercial airline into a bullet to topple one of America's great buildings. So, the job is difficult, and I am sure this Committee is up to getting it started, and the Senate and the Congress will finish it up. Thank you very much. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Specter, for a thoughtful and very direct statement. I could not agree with you more. As you look back to what led up to the attacks on September 11, it is hard not to conclude that part of our vulnerability came from the unwillingness or inability of various agents or just the incapacity of the various agencies in our government to work together and share information. That is an intolerable, unacceptable condition, which if this Committee can play a part in avoiding in the future, we will try very hard to do. Thanks for your statement. Senator Specter. Thank you. Chairman Lieberman. Senator Smith, welcome. TESTIMONY OF HON. BOB SMITH,\1\ A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. As I was listening to Senator Graham read yet another great quote from Abraham Lincoln, I was reminded of the fact that I might remind our staffs and all of us that Lincoln wrote his own speeches, and look how long they have been remembered. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Smith appears in the Appendix on page 66. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Lieberman. They also tended to be shorter than ours. Senator Smith. Much shorter. Mr. Chairman, I have a formal statement for the record and I would ask unanimous consent that be placed in the record. Chairman Lieberman. It will be. Senator Smith. I appreciate, again, the opportunity to come here and be heard, and I will say right up front that although I do have a piece of legislation, S. 1453, which is a companion to my friend's--Representative Gilchrist's--legislation in the House, I do not believe that is a silver bullet. I think we all need to work together. I hope, as Senator Specter said, that whatever we come up with will be the right product. Congress tends to be a reactionary body. We have had a very serious national calamity and we need to respond to it quickly, and hopefully pride of authorship will not get in the way of doing that. So I look forward to just offering my views on a couple of issues. As the former chairman and now ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which you are a member, Mr. Chairman, you know that we have been involved in terrorism preparedness, and FEMA is part of our oversight. So I am going to try to speak to that point. The very first meeting I had with Joe Allbaugh when he came to us before his confirmation--the topic of discussion in most of the meeting was terrorism. He was very concerned about it then and that concern turned out to be very prophetic. The consequence management or the preparation to respond after the disaster is the issue that I want to focus on, because it is a very complicated puzzle. I also want to congratulate my colleague, Congressman Gilchrist, for his leadership in the House on essentially the same legislation. Senator Thompson, you made a point about the numbers and departments and agencies out there. There are 140, at least, Federal departments and at least 100 separate Federal terrorism preparedness training courses, and that is just at the Federal level. When we go to the local level and the State level and there are dozens, if not hundreds, more. You made a point of whether or not there is enough--maybe we need them all. I do not think it is a question of whether we need them as much as it is, as you said, who is going to coordinate them to make sure they all work together. There is no coordinated national leadership or strategy right now. We do have Federal programs that overlap. They are fragmented, they are redundant and they are confusing, and they waste resources and time. That is what we need to correct. That is not to say that this Nation does not have the tools to effectively respond, because we do and we have, but we do lack strategy and coordination. The great leadership of Mayor Giuliani in New York carried that crisis through. Similarly with the Pentagon. We had plenty of people right here on the ground to see that it worked well, but that may not always be the case as we look around other areas of the country where something else could happen. The question is how do we coordinate with the State and local emergency responders? They are going to be the first ones on the scene. They would be the first ones there. So, basically, our bill expands the Stafford Act. It expands the definition of hazard to include a terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction, such as an aircraft, and it is my intent to broaden that even more to include any man-made disaster, as opposed to a natural disaster. I will not go into all the things that we do to create an Office of National Preparedness. This, of course, was drafted prior to the announcement by the President of Governor Ridge's role, and obviously we would be looking at melding that together, whether you call it the Office of National Preparedness or Homeland Security, whatever it is, we are more than happy to work with Governor Ridge on that. We will fully integrate State and local emergency first responders into a national strategy. You think about these fireman and policemen that got on that scene. They were the first ones there and they suffered the most severe consequences with a tremendous loss of life. So I cannot stress enough how important coordination is with those State and local officials as the tragedy plays out. The current vice chairman of the Terrorist Task Force of the National Energy Emergency Managers Association, Woody Fogg, is from New Hampshire, and he has pointed that out very effectively. I would just conclude, Mr. Chairman, if you look back at the tremendous job that Jamie Lee Witt did at FEMA, and Mr. Allbaugh had to jump into the harness quite quickly with big shoes to fill, but he has done a great job--I just want to reiterate that we need to work together quickly and effectively to do the right thing to make sure that all these agencies do coordinate and that we do have leadership, as Senator Thompson said. I look forward to working with all of you in any way I can to make that happen. I am not here to say it is my way or no way; I am here to say I am ready to help any way I can. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Senator Smith, for the substance of what you said and the spirit in which it was given. I agree that is just the way we have to go forward. You make a very strong point about the role of State and local officials as first responders, both in what happened on September 11, and, of course, as we know, focusing on public concerns and our concerns about bioterrorism or chemical terrorism. There, too, State and local law enforcement, rescue officials and public health officials will be the first line of response. So we need to work closely with them. Thanks for your testimony. Congressman Gilchrist, thank you for coming across the Hill and giving us your time and wisdom this morning. TESTIMONY OF HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST,\1\ A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND Mr. Gilchrest. Yes sir. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. It is a pleasure to walk across to the Senate side and see our counterparts on this, who are all focused on doing what is best for the Nation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest appears in the Appendix on page 72. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our bill essentially is--H.R. 525 is essentially the same bill that Senator Smith has introduced on this side. There has been a great deal of discussion this morning about the myriad of departments and agencies that deal, for the most part, quite effectively with crisis management and recovery after a crisis has occurred. But, as Senator Durbin mentioned, we were in a new age at the beginning of World War II. We transitioned out of a very different time frame, and I might add that 60 years ago, during that time frame, to give another quote from a famous American, Franklin Roosevelt said, ``This generation has a rendezvous with destiny.'' I think there is a sense in this Nation, and perhaps around the world, that there is a new age that has dawned, a new age of fear and crisis, certainly in many parts of the World, including the United States, but there is a new sense of unity, of cooperation, that we truly are all on this same little blue planet together. The ability to communicate and effectively deal with international problems will require, as Senator Thompson said, effective, knowledgeable leadership to pull these disparate interest groups together. How do we respond in a very organized way when we are dealing with 40 or 90 different departments, agencies, whatever, knowing that each of those departments and each of the agencies has skill, expertise and knowledge that we do not want to disrupt, we only want to direct? I think if we can create an almost invisible structure, but a structure that will not uproot the expertise and knowledge in these various agencies and departments, and yet direct them in a manner that we have never done before, we will be successful. I feel that to a large extent, having worked with the administration for many months, Mr. Allbaugh and FEMA, that we have, to a large extent, mirrored what the President wants to do in this particular arena. I read a book some time ago, called ``Conciliance.'' It was written by E.O. Wilson, a Harvard zoologist. Conciliance is the unity of knowledge. That is the definition of that word. E.O. Wilson said, ``In this new time, in order for the human race to be effective, there has to be an understanding and a direction from all the disparate, all the diversity that we have, in the same direction.'' So what our bill attempts to do, and I am going to boil it down to just a simple structure, but I would ask that my entire statement be submitted to the record. Chairman Lieberman. It will be. Mr. Gilchrest. We are looking for leadership and direction to quell the bureaucratic bickering that sometimes occurs in the Federal Government. The direction needs to come from the President. So in our bill we make the President, for all intents and purposes, the board of directors. The board of directors would include a council, and the council includes anywhere from the Department of Transportation to the Department of the Treasury, to OMB to the FBI, the CIA, EPA, Department of Agriculture, etc. Those people would meet, we suggest, no fewer than two times a year. The chief executive officer underneath that board of directors would be someone like Tom Ridge, and Tom Ridge would have his own staff that would help direct the board of directors. Now, I think the important part of this is to bring--to quote E.O. Wilson's book again, ``To bring human beings together, to exchange information, there is no more complex phenomenon in the known universe.'' Wilson says that the human brain is the most complex organism in the known universe, and the most effective way to exchange information, to understand the nature of a problem, to come up with a solution to that problem and to be effective in real-time, is to exchange information between people. So the people from these different agencies and departments would meet and exchange that information, coordinate that information, to be effective on the ground. So the person who picks up the telephone and calls 911, the person that answers that emergency call, will know exactly what to do. Now, New York, one of the best cities in the country to respond to these disasters, did an extraordinary job. But would Hartford, Connecticut have this same expertise? Would Chattanooga, Tennessee have the same expertise? Would Buffalo, Wyoming have the same expertise? What we want to do is draw the Nation together in the same direction without creating any more bureaucracy, but tap the skill, the expertise and the knowledge from what we have right now. Thank you. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Congressman. I must say I am grateful for the contribution that our colleagues have made today and I am sure that high level will continue with the final two. Congresswoman Harman, thanks for being here. I have been long interested in national security matters. I know you are on the new committee created in the House, I believe vice chair on the new Committee on Terrorism. We look forward to your testimony now. TESTIMONY OF HON. JANE HARMAN,\1\ A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to appear before you and your many colleagues, some former colleagues of mine in the House, and to be on a panel with people very thoughtful about these issues, and to sit anywhere near my good friend, Lee Hamilton, whom we all miss in the House. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Harman appears in the Appendix on page 79. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a subject that, as you say, has long interested me. I served on the House Intelligence Committee in my prior service in Congress. During my sabbatical from Congress I served on the Congressionally-mandated National Commission on Terrorism. One of the members of that commission is now at the NSC as the military aide to the President on counterterrorism issues, and I think we made some very valuable recommendations there. Now I am back, as you pointed out, as ranking member of the new House Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, which has been named by our Majority Leader and Minority Leader as the focal point of homeland security activity in the House. It is a high honor to do that and to be here and to promote legislation which I believe is complementary to the other bills pending and I believe should be part of the package that we move in the House and the Senate as quickly as possible. I would just suggest to you that one opportunity in the Senate to move at least the piece I am about to address would be as an amendment to the Senate Intelligence Authorization Bill, which I know will be coming up here very soon. It could also be incorporated in whatever package your Committee reports, but there is an opportunity, I believe, within the next week or so to start, at least, with part one of the reform package. Mr. Chairman, in President Bush's compelling speech to the Nation last Sunday, as we launched air strikes over Afghanistan, he told our young men and women heading into harm's way, ``Your mission is clear, your cause is just, and you will have all the tools you need.'' That spirit of careful and effective organization and planning, that attention to detail, I believe, drives the most effective military strategy ever launched by our country. But that kind of organization and planning and attention to detail is not present, not yet, in the rest of our response to September 11. I would suggest that we are just as ad hoc after September 11, with respect to the other things we are doing, as we were before. We are doing good things in the Congress. We are providing substantial funds for victims, substantial money for damage repair. We have bailed out the airlines. We are looking at airline and airport security, steps to help displaced airport workers, steps to respond to anthrax attacks, but where is the plan? Where is the careful organization? Where is a national strategy that deals with many of the things we have just been talking about and many of the things you have mentioned--deals with what Senator Specter accurately described as the intelligence gaps, deals with what you said, Mr. Chairman, with this intolerable situation where agencies are unwilling to share information? Where is the national strategy that starts with the way we collect information, the way we analyze information, the way we disseminate intelligence information, the way we act on it and then the way we respond in the unfortunate event of a terrorist attack on our homeland? Where is the strategy? Last week in the House, Congressman Jim Gibbons from Nevada and I, both members of the House Intelligence Committee, and now joined by six more members of the House Intelligence Committee, introduced the bill we think is step one to deal with the need to formulate this national strategy. I would ask your permission to incorporate some formal remarks and remarks from Mr. Gibbons in your record.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons appears in the Appendix on page 133. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Lieberman. Please. Ms. Harman. We believe our bill comes closest to what President Bush has tried to articulate in his executive order, which you mentioned that he released on Monday when he swore in Governor Ridge. That executive order cites the need to form an Office of Homeland Defense to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to and recover from terrorist attacks against this Nation. The mission is challenging in its breadth and complexity. According to the executive order, Ridge's mission is to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive strategy, but he is not asked to develop that strategy. He is directed to advise OMB the appropriateness of other agencies' budget, but he is not given real budget authority. He is authorized to review plans and preparations for ensuring the continuity of government, to work with others, to ensure the adequacy, to encourage, to invite--wonderfully hopeful words, but where is the authority to get any of this done? Beyond his persuasive abilities and his close relationship to the President, Ridge has none of the tools required to force coordination of efforts or to win turf battles, and the turf battles have already begun. To overcome what I believe were the objections from cabinet secretaries, the President appointed himself, not Governor Ridge, to Chair the newly-created Homeland Security Council. Why did he do that? I would guess because Secretary X called up and said, ``I do not want Ridge to be senior to me, that is not fair. I have been here for 9 months; he is the new kid on the block. Do not do that.'' So the answer is, ``Don't worry, I won't do that, I will be chair.'' What does that say about Ridge and his tools? Jim Gibbons and I believe that the starting point of a real toolkit for Ridge is budget authority, not just the authority to certify budgets, that is what my good friends, Senator Graham and Senator Feinstein, have proposed, but the authority to reject budget requests that do not comply with the national strategy. That veto power is only in our bill and we would hope that you would consider that and add that to the package that you are going to pass here, because that veto power will be the tool that Ridge needs to implement a national strategy from the beginning of intelligence collection to the end of the first response effort. Absent that, as I mentioned, I think we are nowhere. The New York Times has said of Governor Ridge, ``The portfolio is enormous, but his authority is vague.'' The Wall Street Journal said, ``Ridge has little control over the counterterrorism budgets fueling concerns that he will lack the tools.'' The Washington Post has written, ``In any circle but those of the Federal cutthroats who guard their turf, Ridge's friendship with the Commander-in-Chief would be a boon, but the gladiators he is about to face devour czars.'' Ridge said himself at his swearing in just a few days ago, ``The only turf we should be worried about protecting is the turf we stand on.'' I agree. So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think we need to give this very able man at this very critical time the tools to do his job. That requires budget authority; that requires inclusion of our bill in any package that you report. Again, I appreciate being here, and I would just tell you that your leadership on this and so many issues like the energy problem, which California suffered under earlier this year, is so much appreciated by me and all of our California colleagues in the House. Thank you very much. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Congresswoman Harman, for your kind words and for a very strong statement. It is quite instructive, and maybe we will get to it with the second panel, to compare the language in the executive authority, executive order, creating Governor Ridge's office, on budget authority with your language on budget authority, which is very clearly stated and much stronger. So thank you. You made a real contribution today. Congressman Thornberry, thanks for your patience. I have found, as you were kind enough to say yesterday, from my side, my work on the Armed Services Committee particularly, I find over and over again as I am heading in a certain direction, I look up and there is Mac Thornberry heading in the same direction. I suppose this could mean we are both wrong, but nonetheless, I find your presence there quite reassuring, and I thank you for your leadership, and as we said yesterday, prescience in introducing this bill long before the tragic events of September 11. I look forward to your testimony now. TESTIMONY OF HON. MAC THORNBERRY,\1\ A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senators. I appreciate your patience in wading through to listen to some of the witnesses. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a statement I gave before the Government Reform Committee in April, primarily because while there is much more intense interest on this issue, I think the basic facts are the same. One of the basic facts is this government is poorly organized to protect and defend the country and to respond against major attacks on our homeland. In that statement, I list some of the studies that all come to that conclusion, all of which, of course, were done before September 11. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Thornberry appears in the Appendix on page 82. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It occurs to me that the comments made by Senator Thompson and Senator Voinovich are exactly right. You have to have a number of things to make something work. Leadership is critical. Good people are essential. Cooperation can overcome a number of other problems, but organization is important, too. President Eisenhower is quoted as saying, ``The right system doesn't guarantee success, but the wrong system guarantees failure, because it sucks the leaders into the cracks and fissures as they seek to manage dysfunction, rather than make critical decisions.'' I do believe that is part of what we are dealing with here. As you have said, Mr. Chairman, my bill is also based on the Hart-Rudman recommendations. I think it is important for me to just--you will hear from some of them directly in a moment-- but I think it is important to remember that this commission, set up by President Clinton and former Speaker Gingrich, was not charged as an antiterrorism commission. Their charge was to determine what is the national security going to look like over the next 25 years? As they spent 3 years looking at this subject, they say the number one problem we have is homeland security. With the widest range of political philosophies imaginable on that commission, they come to a unanimous recommendation that the approach that we have taken is the right thing. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that I do not believe anything in our legislation is inconsistent with the executive order that the President has already issued, and I am going to be a little different from some of my colleagues. Frankly, I think the President ought to be able to arrange his White House any way he wants to, and certainly, if you look at the executive order, Governor Ridge has a full plate before him as he seeks to coordinate everything from agriculture to transportation, and just about everything else that is in the government. But, as he is coordinating at the top of the bureaucracy, you have to think about how you are going to implement this coordinated policy that he comes up with. The analogy the White House has used is this is kind of like the National Security Council. Well, Condoleeza Rice coordinates a wide variety of policies, but then you have a Department of State and a Department of Defense to implement those policies. That is what I see our department as doing, not across the board, but in the area of Border Patrol, response and cyberterrorism, these are the folks that implement it. So it is down a level or so in the bureaucracy. Now we have these three border agencies that are clearly not a good fit with the departments where they reside. Maybe at some point Customs fit in the Department of the Treasury, where it was a major source of revenue, but now, if we agree that part of their primary responsibility is to make sure bad things do not come into the country, it needs to have a little bit of a different focus. So bringing them together, I think, would be helpful. The other thing is, however we rearrange these boxes in the bureaucracy, what counts is what happens on the ground, using the border as an example. Right now we have got Customs Service, Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard--they do not even use the same radios. They cannot talk to one another. They have different equipment. They have among them 11 different databases, none of which work with one another. Now, we could allow Governor Ridge to get in and to try to manage that dysfunction, or we can bring it together, coordinate it and let him worry about other critical decisions. I think that is a better fit, and it just really struck me over the past month how many of our colleagues, whether they have worked on the drug program or they have worked on the immigration problem, have come to the same conclusion on the border issue, that having these different agencies scattered around does not make much sense. The same could be argued for FEMA, the response folks. At a time where seconds could mean many, many lives, having that coordinated so we do not have to worry about whose phone number is the right one to call, but one phone number where action takes place, I think is better. Mr. Chairman, finally I would just like to say I think we should move quickly on this. It is always hard to reorganize the government. You are taking money and power away from somebody and giving it to somebody else. That steps on bureaucrats' toes. It steps on toes up here in the House and the Senate. But if there is ever a time to put parochialism aside, it seems to me that this is it, focusing on, not any magic answers, but some common-sense, prudent steps that can make us a little safer. I think we need to move on it. Thank you. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much for an excellent statement, and I share your sense of urgency. If we can figure out a way to work together, the spirit is here and the intent is here to get something done that would be supportive of the President and Governor Ridge as soon as possible. I also liked your formulation, and I do think it suggests that it is possible, in general terms, to take the approach that is represented here by Senator Graham and Congresswoman Harman, Congressman Gibbons and the one that we have, and meld them together, because they are two different functions. You are right. We are talking about an implementing group. I think theirs is much more an overall coordinating of all the counterterrorism efforts. Thanks to both of you very much. I wish you a good weekend and we look forward to working with you on this important matter. I would like to call the second panel. Again, I thank them for their patience. I think that our colleagues have been very constructive and helpful in their contributions this morning, members of the House and the Senate, and I thank them. This panel has the Hon. Lee Hamilton, now Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, but, of course, our long-time friend and colleague in the House, a real leader on national security and foreign policy questions; the Hon. Barry McCaffrey, now President of B.R. McCaffrey and Associates, one of those czars who faced the gladiators and appears to be neither bloody nor--he is here and he looks strong and healthy--I want to thank General McCaffrey for rearranging a class he teaches at West Point to be here with us, because he brings a unique perspective that we appreciate; General Charles Boyd, now Senior Vice President and Washington Program Director of the Council on Foreign Relations; Dr. Steven Flynn, a Senior Fellow of National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; and Thomas Stanton, Chair of the Standing Panel on Executive Organization and Management of the National Academy of Public Administration. We really look forward to the testimony of this panel. I thank you all for your time and your contribution. Congressman Hamilton, welcome. It is great to see you again. TESTIMONY OF HON. LEE H. HAMILTON,\1\ DIRECTOR, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS Mr. Hamilton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. I am immensely pleased to be here. I want to commend you for trying to find ways to strengthen our homeland security across this great land. Americans are, for the first time in my recollection, worried about their personal security in their homes. So they are very, very anxious that you act appropriately, and I am delighted to see you tackling this problem seriously. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Hamilton appears in the Appendix on page 87. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The threshold question for me in dealing with this question of organization of the Federal Government to deal with terrorism is how serious of a threat to national security is terrorism? Senator Thompson said a moment ago, and I thought he was right on the mark, that we have not taken it seriously enough. In the view of the Hart-Rudman Commission, terrorism is the number one threat to the national security of the United States. If that is true, and we believe that unanimously--if it is true, then that has profound implications as to how the government should be organized and how the resources of the government should be allocated. You have already mentioned, Mr. Chairman, there are two basic schools of thought as to how you proceed, the czar model or the cabinet model. I am not sure there is a right or wrong way to do this. I think the President has made a significant step in the right direction with what he has done. I personally do not think it has gone far enough. My own view is this is an evolving matter in the government and in the Legislative Branch, as well. So he should be commended for the steps that he has taken. Senator Voinovich said a moment ago that the President deserves flexibility. He is exactly right about that, as well, and we should give him considerable leeway in setting up his own government. But, for me at least, although the President has improved the situation, I think you need to strengthen this organization. The key question is will the new government office or agency have the clout, the money and the staff to do what is necessary to protect our security? Will Governor Ridge be able to give orders to many disparate agencies involved in homeland security, many of which have a long history, as Senator Specter said a moment ago, of bureaucratic rivalry? I picked up the quote in the Congressional Quarterly-- perhaps some of you saw it--from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld during his first tour of duty as Secretary of Defense. It is on page 2,309 of the Congressional Quarterly. He was involved in a suggestion that the Pentagon had, at that time, a debate over control of intelligence. This was his response, ``If they are in my budgets, I will run them.'' I think most of us would be sympathetic with Secretary Rumsfeld. If we were running the department and we had the budget, we would want to control it. This is precisely the problem that Governor Ridge is going to confront. ``If they are in my budget, I am going control it,'' and Governor Ridge is going to be sitting around that table with a lot of big hitters in this town--the head of the FBI, the head of the Defense Department, the head of the State Department, and he is not, as I understand it, going to have the kind of clout to get the job done, because they will come to the table and say, ``It is in my budget, I want to run it.'' Sooner or later--my guess is sooner--but, sooner or later he will be confronted with that problem under the present executive order status. The administration has emphasized that Governor Ridge will have access to the President and strong support from him. I do not doubt that, but it is not enough. There are dozens of people who have access to the President of the United States, and without a legislative framework providing budgetary authority and staff, his power will be uncertain and subject to the vagaries of future Presidents and their attention to homeland security. It looks to me like, as I understand it, Governor Ridge will have borrowed staff, uncertain power over department budgets, and have very little control over counterterrorism budgets of the more than 40 agencies that he is to oversee. He will lack the tools necessary to force those agencies to carry out his plans and work together. The question you have to ask yourself is how do you make this bureaucracy work. We all have our own judgments about that. We all know how difficult it is to move the Federal bureaucracy, and I think it can only be done with a person with a lot of clout, a lot of budget, and a lot of staff. So, I support the establishment of a Homeland Security Agency or Department. The head of that agency should be cabinet-level. That position is simply too important to depend upon a personal relationship with the President. It is too important to depend on the public's current mood with regard to terrorism or any other issue. It should be, as Senator Specter said, institutionalized, and he should have robust authority, as I think the Chairman said a moment ago, with budget and line authority. I have always been skeptical of interagency cooperation and coordination. I recognize that the government has to do a lot of its work in that process. In ordinary times it is done in that manner, but these are not ordinary times. The President has said we are at war and that the business of homeland security is a national priority. So the head of this agency must have power not just to advise and to coordinate. I think the Homeland Security Agency, following the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman Commission, should include FEMA, Coast Guard, Customs, and the Border Patrol. There will be others who will comment further on that. May I make two other points before I conclude? I notice in your bill, Mr. Chairman, you have a research component. That is very important and I commend that aspect of it. I know it is not widely discussed. The second point I want to say, with some fear and trepidation in my voice, and that is that the Congress of the United States is not very well organized to deal with terrorism. You have to get your own house in order. If Governor Ridge has to come up here and testify to between 20 or 30 committees of the House and the Senate, he is going to be spinning his wheels an awful lot of the time. You have got to work that out. My own view is that you need some kind of a select committee in probably both houses, the House and the Senate, to deal with it. It is not just a matter of the Executive Branch being reorganized to deal with terrorism. You had better look at your own house, as well. With those stern words, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will accept them in the proper spirit, and I am very pleased to be with you. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Congressman Hamilton. They were stern, but they were right on target and I doubt that you would have any disagreement here among the members about your last point, which is that we not only have to help reorganize the Executive Branch, we have to help reorganize ourselves to deal better with the problem of terrorism. Thank you. General McCaffrey, thanks again for being here. TESTIMONY OF GENERAL (RET.) BARRY R. McCAFFREY,\1\ PRESIDENT, B.R. McCAFFREY ASSOCIATES, INC. General McCaffrey. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may request permission to enter into the record a statement that I have prepared. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of General McCaffrey appears in the Appendix on page 92. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Lieberman. Without objection, it will be printed in full in the record. General McCaffrey. Well, let me thank you, if I may, for the opportunity to share with you some of my own insights, based in particular on more than 5 years' experience dealing with the interagency process of confronting drug abuse in America. I have worked with many of you, to include your Ranking Minority Member, Senator Thompson, in successfully addressing those problems. Indeed, the Congress gave me 3 years of consideration and finally reauthorized ONDCP. I think I got probably 80 percent of what I wanted and ended up with an agency that was more responsive to the American people and the needs of the problem. So I offer that for you as a consideration. Let me also take special note that Rob Hausman, a young lawyer with Bracewell and Patterson, is here. He was loaned to me by his law firm. I am grateful. He was a strategic planner with me at ONDCP, a very bright and effective public servant-- and Major Jen Cook, my teaching associate, a military intelligence officer, Rhodes Scholar, and a terrific partner in my national security professor role at West Point. Let me, if I can, start by underscoring my own sense of admiration and confidence in the President of the United States and the team that he has assembled that has confronted this issue in the last several weeks. Unequivocally, I think listening last night and listening to the President and his address to both Houses of Congress, we were seeing leadership, simplicity of purpose, character and a sense of determination, which I think will serve us well. Indeed, many of these people in the administration, Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfwood, Steve Hadley, Dr. Rice and others, I have known and admired for years. I think the senior military team, Dick Meyers, Pete Pace and others, are as good as we could have produced. We are well-served by the public servants who will step forward and address this problem. Governor Ridge, known by reputation on watch-in-action--you could not go wrong having a Federal Prosecutor, a Congressman, a Governor and combat-infantry buck sergeant, decorated, to step forward and assume the responsibility. I would also underscore, if I could, General Wayne Downing, who has, fortunately, accepted the President's call to serve in the NSC and also to work with Governor Ridge as a counterterrorism adviser. I do not know of a person I have seen in the last 15 years who knows more about that issue and is more of a battle- hardened, tested and creative public servant than Wayne Downing. Let me talk about the problem, though. The problem as I look at it clearly goes back some 15 years, a period in which we watched with an out-of-body sense of detachment while this country accepted dozens killed or wounded, to hundreds killed or wounded, to thousands killed or wounded--the East Africa bombings were 6,054 casualties. During that period of time, it is my own assertion, while we had these brilliant studies and recommendations from people like the Hart-Rudman Commission or the Commission on Terrorism or other bodies that I have watched, we never took any significant positive or negative action against this threat. It was shameless the degree to which the political leadership, the military leadership, the media and the U.S. Congress ignored the problem. I say ignored it because I never really heard a determined debate in which there was disagreement with where we were going. There was instead an acceptance of the threat and then we walked away to go back to our business. Now we have got 6,000 dead and we have got to do something about it, and we are in continuing peril. We ought to understand that. It is going to take us a year to 3 years, in my view, to reorganize domestic defenses. It will take us 6 months, to a couple of years, to adequately confront these terrorist base areas overseas and, more importantly, the states that sponsor them. During that period of time we should not misunderstand that we are in great danger. Governor Ridge's attempt to organize what I would primarily see as the domestic aspect of that problem is one that is vitally needed, and I applaud the President for identifying such a superb public servant and for giving him his initial authority. Nothing but good can come out of that. Let me, if I may, however, offer a notion that if you skim- read the Presidential order that set up his effort, there is no mention of the Armed Forces. There is no adviser from the Chairman of the Joint Staff or the Armed Forces on this council. It is a coordinating, not a directing, authority. It does not mention missile defense, cyber warfare, counter-drug, economic warfare, information warfare, civil disturbances, national disasters, or any other aspect except a narrow definition of counterterrorism. There is no mention of coordination with Canada and Mexico in hemispheric security arrangements. He lacks budgetary authority. There will be no unity of effort in supporting exercises, training and directing the responsible use of monies in the current bureaucratic format. More importantly, it would be my own observation--I really echo the words of the first panel and certainly Congressman Lee Hamilton--that what it lacks is the force of law. We do not have power in the Federal Government unless you are established by legal statute. He is not charged with developing a national strategy, with articulating it. He has not been given budget certification authority or decertification authority. He has not been specifically identified as a policy coordination authority. There is no requirement to develop a performance measure-of- effectiveness system. There is no requirement to say that in 1 year you will have half of civil aviation with Federal Air Marshals and, in 18 months, complete it. There is no requirement on him to report to the Congress, the American people, and devise a format to say what it is that we are concerned about and we are holding you accountable for. There is no authority to call interagency meetings. He does not have his own staff and budget, it has been mentioned already. I would argue--Colin Powell, my mentor, used to say do not talk about your programs, talk about your budgets. So if he does not have the budget for his own TDY staff, if he does not have his own legislative liaison office, legal office and public affairs office, then he will have to borrow those authorities out of the White House, who are doing the Nation's business, not the problem of counterterrorism coordination. In sum, I would argue that notwithstanding this man's superb credentials, clear access to the Cabinet and to the senior leadership of Congress, within 1 year, with a small staff of detailees, with no Federal legislation, with no separate budget, no budget certification, he will be relegated to running the Speaker's Bureau on Counterterrorism Operations. I would argue that would not be what either the Congress or the President's wants. There are huge programs to be addressed--I will not go through them--secure our borders, get sensible immigration policies, strengthen domestic military capabilities. We have the wrong National Guard. We have a force capable of modestly- trained, excellently-equipped, of fighting high-intensity combat operations in an international environment, armor, SP artillery, attack helicopters. We do not have a force in which 54 State governors and territorial governors have an adequate chemical, biological, radiological, reconnaissance and decontamination ability, field hospitals, transportation units, and military police. We have the wrong National Guard and we are going to have to rethink it. We do not have adequate intel sharing on the homefront. There is no mechanism to work with the private sector right now; and then, finally, we lack an adequate Federal, State, and local coordination, particularly to respond to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. We should not misunderstand that we will, in the coming decade, without question, face attempts by foreign terrorist organizations-- there are 31 identified by the State Department--to employ WMD threats against our civil population. It may well have happened already. On that note, let me, if I may say, I very much respect the leadership of Congress on this issue. Governor Ridge is not here to speak up for his own viewpoint and we do not have time to waste for him to discover the tools and come down here to ask for them. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of your Committee. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, General McCaffrey. I look forward to some questions and answers. I was just thinking as I was listening to you speak, we have a colleague here who last year in our national campaign rode what he called the Straight Talk Express. It seems to me that you have been riding it for many years now and you rode it right into the hearing today. Thank you. General Boyd. TESTIMONY OF GENERAL CHARLES G. BOYD, USAF (RET.),\1\ FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON NATIONAL SECURITY/ 21ST CENTURY AND CURRENT DIRECTOR OF THE WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS General Boyd. It is an honor for me, as well, to be here and offer my thoughts. I think the record should reflect that everything that Congressman Hamilton and General McCaffrey said, I would have said, had they not said it first. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of General Boyd appears in the Appendix on page 109. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have asked me to come here today, sir, to comment on these pieces of legislation, proposed legislation, before you, and I think it will come as no surprise to you that the Lieberman bill is one that I can endorse with enthusiasm. It strikes a remarkable resemblance to some work that I was involved in. Chairman Lieberman. On the Hart-Rudman Commission. General Boyd. At the Hart-Rudman Commission, indeed. Also, I have prepared a somewhat lengthy statement that I would ask that you include in the record. I will not read it for you today. Let me clarify a couple of things. I was heartened by your words and Senator Graham's words with respect to, perhaps, melding these two pieces of legislation in some form, because the Thornberry bill, the Lieberman bill, while it does exactly what I think it ought to do organizationally, it does not talk to the integration at the strategic level as much as I would prefer. I assume that the President moved quickly, and I think he did the right thing, to illuminate the problem, to get some supercoordinator active as quickly as he could and not have to take the delay to work out the political or bureaucratic problems involved in agency development. But I am heartened because you all are thinking very, very seriously about that-- the next step. I think General McCaffrey would agree with me, neither of us would like to go into combat--and this is a war-- with only coordinating authority over our component forces that we were required to fight. What troubles me, as well, about only the coordinating aspect of Governor Ridge's responsibilities--there seems to be a parallel organization between the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council, as if homeland security somehow is a separate part, or not integrated into our overall national security framework. That is a new seam that is being introduced, and a problem in this mission area that is plagued with far too many seams already. What the Hart-Rudman Commission tried to emphasize was the importance of integrating homeland security into that overall framework of national security. To integrate it into the way we think about national security with its military, its diplomatic, and its economic components. It now should have a homeland security component. While it is implicit in your legislation by saying that this Secretary of Homeland Security would be a statutory adviser to the National Security Council, I think, if I were to do this again, I would have encouraged my commissioners to think about actually making the Secretary of Homeland Security a statutory member of the NSC, to give him the very kind of clout, authority and equality at the table that Congressman Hamilton argued for. Chairman Lieberman. Incidentally, excuse me, but, in fact, in response to a good suggestion from Senator Specter, our bill actually does that now. We make the Secretary of Homeland Security Agency a member of the National Security Council. General Boyd. Excellent, the variant that I have did not specify that, sir. So I stand corrected. Finally, I think I would say the two arguments that I have heard most recently for not moving in this direction are, that to do so, even though it might be a good idea, would be disruptive in time of crisis, and we would not want to do that. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is going to be a long and enduring conflict. I think if it were something we might hopefully conclude within the next few weeks, then perhaps waiting until after the crisis had ended would be appropriate. But if this is to be an enduring conflict, and I believe it is, then I can see no reason why we would not want to organize our efforts, marshal our resources, get our house in order as quickly as possible right now. The President--and this is the second piece--if he is worried about the politics involved or he is worried about the bureaucratics involved, then I think you all have a marvelous opportunity to give him a gift now and to tell him, ``Mr. President, in a bi-partisan way, we are going to give you the tools that you surely want, but did not ask for, we want and to show you that you will not have the kind of rancor or bureaucratic in fighting that you want to evade. We are going to give you a piece of legislation that gives you everything you need to do this critical task as well as possible, organizing the Executive Branch, and we, the U.S. Congress are standing behind you in a bi-partisan way.'' One last, very brief thought, if I may; I was at the Congressional retreat at Green Briar last spring when that marvelous historian, David McCullough, gave the keynote address. He talked in terms of the nobility of purpose of this notion of representative democracy. He talked about Adams riding his horse 400 miles to cast his vote in support of those who sent him. He looked at the 140 Republicans and Democrats gathered there and respectfully suggested that they might do a little more to pull on the oars together toward common purpose. Then he said something that has stuck with me and I think will continue to: Nothing that has happened in history had to happen that way. It happened that way because people made choices and caused those things to happen that way. You have choices now and you can choose together to do what needs to be done or you can shirk that duty. I have great confidence, based upon this very hearing, if nothing else, that you all, on both sides of the aisle, are prepared to do what is necessary and right, and I commend you for it, sir. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, General, for an excellent statement, and I appreciate what you said just before the conclusion, about the gift that we can present the President. I have had some good conversations with the Chief of Staff, the legislative office at the White House, and a brief conversation with Governor Ridge, and that is just the spirit in which I approach this, and they responded in kind. So I can hope we can keep those lines of communication open. Dr. Flynn, thanks for being here. TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN E. FLYNN,\1\ Ph.D., SENIOR FELLOW, NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS Mr. Flynn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be here, as well. I am basically a border guy. The first part of my career, I served in the Coast Guard as a Coast Guard officer, commanding two cutters up and down our coast. Over the last decade I have been studying and writing about borders and, more recently, the asymmetric threat to our homeland. I have been doing this at the Brookings Institution, the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School, and, since 1999, at the Council on Foreign Relations. I think what I may bring to this is to talk a little bit about the problem that you are trying to organize this government to resolve. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Flynn appears in the Appendix on page 113. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the last 2 years, I have been making field visits across the border crossings on the U.S.-Canada Border and the U.S.-Mexico Border, and many of our Nation's major seaports and airports, overseas and megaports, like Hong Kong and Rotterdam. My research question has essentially been this: Given the cascading tides of people and goods moving across our national borders, how do we filter bad from good, the dangerous from the benign? The answer that I have arrived at is we do not, and given our current border management system, our architecture, we cannot. Let me be clear about this; this Nation presently has no credible way to reliably detect and intercept illegal and dangerous people and goods intent on entering this country. Our border management systems are broken. Let me provide you with just a few of the findings that I have made most recently, and back over the course of my career. At any given time there are literally thousands of 40-foot, multi-ton containers moving around this country, of which U.S. authorities have no clue about what is in them or a good bit about where they are from or where they are going. This is because the way we have developed our Customs inspection system is to inspect and examine at the final destination port. A large number of our containers arrive in Long Beach. They travel by rail to Chicago and go on to New York and Newark. That is the first time that a Customs agent is likely to pick up a piece of paper and say what have we got here; 2,800 miles into the heartland of America and you have 30 days to provide an itemized list of just what it is you are bringing beyond something that says FAK, freights all-kind. There is a terminal in Southern California in which 45 percent of all the maritime crude shipments arrive each day, roughly 25 percent of the crude oil consumed by the entire State of California is off-loaded there. Today is the first anniversary of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. If an attack like on the U.S.S. Cole took place against a tanker tied up to that pier right now, you would effectively shut down the economy in Southern California within about three or 4 days, because there is only 48 hours of refined fuel available to service the entire southern portion of California from Santa Monica to San Diego to the Rockies. There is no full-time uniformed police officers assigned to that port. That terminal is guarded by private security, rent-a-cops. Now, by statute, the U.S. Coast Guard, through its capital- to-port function, is supposed to provide for port security, but after a decade of budgetary neglect, the Coast Guard, which is also tasked, by way with patrolling 95,000 miles of coastline, shoreline, has its ranks reduced to the lowest level since 1964 and is routinely cannibalizing its decades-old cutters and aircraft for spare parts to keep them operational. In the 1990's, the Coast Guard did assemble six specially- trained port security units that were funded by the Department of Defense, they were manned by reservists, and their mission is to go overseas and support the Navy as it does force projection. Another point, despite the fact that the Canadian security and intelligence services believe that there may be as many as 50 terrorist groups with a foothold in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, prior to September 11, the 4,000 mile border, land and water border with Canada, was patrolled by 330 Border Patrol agents, supported by one analyst, with radios that they cannot use to communicate with local and State police authorities. What they do is they talk over their radio on their frequency, the state trooper will listen to his scanner, pick up what he said, talk over his radio and go back to the agents. That is the reality of the border with Canada, which again we have 50 terrorists--groups with terrorist affiliations operating within a stone's throw of this Nation's borders. In addition, U.S. trade with Canada climbed fourfold in 1985, from just over $100 billion to $400 billion a year. U.S. Customs has 700 inspectors assigned to the northern border, 200 less than it had 20 years ago. Routinely one-half of all the primary inspection stations along the northern border, from Washington to Maine, have no personnel assigned to those stations because of staff shortfalls from INS and from Customs. On the Southwest border, port directors communicate--I was just there in August--communicate with their Mexican counterparts by sending couriers to the center of the bridge, to have their counterpart send a courier to their side of the center of the bridge, in order to communicate with each other if there is a problem, because they have no secure communications to talk with one another. This is like Checkpoint Charlie, and this is how we are doing border management now in this Nation. The front-line agencies cannot even effectively communicate with each other. For example, let's imagine this scenario: A ship with a shadowy record of serving in the darkest corner of the maritime trade, its shipping agents notice that it will be importing a type of cargo that does not square with its home port or any of its recent ports-of-call; it is manned by crew members, some of which are on intelligence watch lists because they are suspected of having links with radical Islamic fundamentalist organizations; the ship is scheduled to arrive on the very same day that a tanker with a highly-volatile fuel is also arriving in the port. It would be reasonable for the American people to expect that we would detect and intercept that ship before something horrific happened. The odds of that happening right now are very, very small. Why? Because all those data points, all those red flags, would not be viewed simultaneously. The Coast Guard would know something about the ship, it would know something about the hazardous cargo coming in. Customs would receive some advance notice of cargo manifest information. If it was bulk, you would only receive it at the point of arrival itself. INS may or may not know much about the crew, depending on the kind of visas the sailors hold and the time with which the shipping agent faxes the crew list. In addition, none of the front-line inspectors in these agencies would likely have any access to the national security intelligence from FBI or CIA. All these agencies will have more people and cargo, and ships that spark their interest and concern than they have manpower to intercept and inspect. We have to ask questions. How did we end up in such a mess? It is certainly not this administration's fault and, to some extent, it is not the last administration's fault. This is an accumulated result of four things: An extraordinary 200-year run when we have not faced a serious attack on U.S. soil; a revolution in global transportation logistic networks which has simply overwhelmed the enforcement and regulator agents and supervisors; the statutory blindness of our national security community to the problem and an organizational, cultural bias away from it, because the writ only runs from the water's edge out; and a dysfunctional, byzantine governmental organizational structure that sprawls from front-line agencies who would see the problem, but are in so many departments--they all get a piece of the elephant--nobody can put it together. Their parent departments, the Congressional appropriators, the OMB reviewers, historically have had no real appreciation of the vital security role these agencies play. That being said, Houston, we have a problem. There is a poignant scene in Apollo 13 when the mission controller comes into the room with all the parts of an astronaut's suit and throws it on the table to all his collective staff and says, ``You are not going to leave here until you invent a way to make a new air filter.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, we need to repair our Nation's border- filtering system and it is just as urgent and requires the same level of creativity and energy. We are not going to coordinate ourselves into repairing a problem like this. We are going to need to fix front-line agencies that are broken. We are going to need to change the way they are doing business. We are going to need to change the way the government supports their doing business, and it is going to cost money. We could outfit the agencies that have the equivalent of broomsticks to wage this war on terrorism. We need to provide them the technology and the analysts and the additional manpower to do these things right. They need to be able to fuse it. We need to herd these cats under one roof, that the President, this country and the American people can hold accountable for the homeland security of this great Nation. I would argue that this is the Nation's top priority. On Monday, after the World Trade Center attack, I stood at Ground Zero and saw a sight I hope never to see again. In that rubble, amongst the 5,000 other civilians lying there is the remains of Fred Marone, a colleague of mine. Fred was the Director of Public Safety and the Superintendent of Police for the Port Authority for New York and New Jersey. He was as decent and as committed of a public servant as this country has ever had. I feel a special obligation to raise my voice today, to give meaning to his tragic death. When I started my current study, it was as an academic interest; now it is a deeply personal one. For anyone in this town who feels that it is too painful to try to rearrange the Executive Branch and the Congressional oversight of this government to meet the demands of this mission, I would suggest required reading being the daily obituary list in the Metro section that is going to run for another year, that has the parents and the mothers and the sons and the daughters who perished that tragic day. Mr. Chairman, terrorists have declared war on this homeland. This Nation is extremely vulnerable to these kinds of attacks. For gosh sakes, we need to recognize that we have to fundamentally rethink and reorganize how we provide for the security of this Nation in this new and dangerous era. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Dr. Flynn, for your very powerful testimony, and I promise you, your words will continue to ring in my ears. Senator Levin could not stay longer and has asked just to make a few brief comments before we conclude this panel with Mr. Stanton. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your letting me do that, and I thank our witnesses also for allowing this interruption with the good grace that I can see in their faces. Taking up from what Dr. Flynn just said so eloquently, we do need to fundamentally rethink the way we reorganize our homeland defenses, 40 agencies involved in this. We should do it without worrying about the politics or the bureaucratic toes that we step on. I happen to feel that is very accurate. My own feeling at this point is one of the major problems we have is that we have a huge amount of information that is not shared well, not coordinated well, not assessed well, not communicated well. We have people coming into this country who are on watch lists, who are fugitives who get in, who are not watched once they get in. We have student visas issued to people who are not students, who never show up at schools. We have an awful lot of work to do just to coordinate the mass of information which has already accumulated about people coming into this country. That is just one of the problems. It is amazing to me the shortfalls in that area, however, and one of the issues that I think we have to look at is which of the various structural approaches will best address that problem, and it may be putting it all under one roof, it may be some coordinated approach. But I happen to agree that we should do the right thing and not worry about the reaction on the part of the agencies. That is the least of my concerns. However, I do disagree with a couple of our witnesses on just small points. General McCaffrey, you said that we do not have the time to waste while Governor Ridge discovers the tools that he needs, and I disagree with that. We need to know what Governor Ridge thinks, and I think our Chairman has already indicated he will be meeting with the Committee. Chairman Lieberman. Yes. Senator Levin. I do not know if he will be meeting in a public session or how that will be done, but I think it is very important that we hear from Governor Ridge. He has all the qualifications which you all have talked about in terms of his background. In fact, I think, General, you mentioned some of those qualifications. So it is very important to me what he and the administration wants. General Boyd, you said that we ought to give the administration a gift, even though they are not asking for it. If it is a gift, we ought to give it to them, whether they ask for it or not, but we have to make sure that it is a gift indeed; and in order to get a full picture as to whether it is a gift, I think it is essential that we hear from this administration as to why it is that they do not want a new agency with all of the powers which have been described here, at least in one bill. We may want to do that anyway; and I am not saying we ought to just be governed by what they say, but we surely ought to at least hear from them, one way or another. I hope this administration is not afraid to take on their own bureaucracies. I do not believe for 1 minute that they are afraid to take on their own bureaucracies in the aftermath of these events, but we just have to make sure that what we do is a gift, not just to them, but more importantly to the American people. So I would just emphasize that one point, whichever approach is best is surely the one we are going to be for, but we do need to hear from the administration and from Governor Ridge on that point, one way or another, publicly, I hope, but privately if necessary. I do not know why it would be necessary. I think there is great determination and strength in this administration to do the job that needs to be done. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that a statement of mine be inserted in the record at this point, and again I thank you for allowing this intervention. [The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:] OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN The terrorist attack of September 11 has caused us to reevaluate from top to bottom how we go about our lives in the United States. One important element in that reevaluation is the organization of the Federal Government in handling our response to, and the prevention of, terrorism on our own soil. We need to have the most efficient and effective coordination of programs and agencies, and the existing lines of authority and responsibility may now be out of date. We have to identify areas of duplication and eliminate them; we have to determine the most effective means of management and implement them. Everyone seems to agree that, at present, we have a problem in terms of coordination. In a recently issued report that the Senate Armed Services Committee requested in the Defense Authorization bill last year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) noted that there are 40 different agencies working on homeland security issues, with inadequate communication and coordination between these agencies. The GAO report calls for a single individual within the Office of the President-- appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate--to provide overall coordination and leadership for Federal efforts to combat terrorism. In an effort to coordinate, the President has issued an executive order creating the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council and has appointed Governor Tom Ridge to head it. Questions remain as to whether Governor Ridge has the necessary tools and authorities, the necessary power, to coordinate and control anti- terrorism activities within the government. On the Armed Services Committee, we've been working to give the Department of Defense more tools and authority to address terrorism.
LIn 1999, we created the Emerging Threats Subcommittee, which pushed the Department of Defense (DOD) to improve their efforts in combating terrorism. LIn this year's DOD Authorization Bill, we added funding to the budget request specifically to combat terrorism and broadened the utilization of $1.3 billion of requested missile defense money so that it could be spent either on missile defense or combating terrorism. Today's witnesses advocate different approaches to the government structure to organize the Federal Government's role in homeland defense. The key to deterrence is information--information effectively collected and coordinated within and among key agencies. We have major problems today in that key area. Several examples of this manifested themselves relative to the September 11 attacks: LOne of the alleged hijackers of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon apparently entered the country on a student visa. We since learned that he never showed up at the California school that had admitted him and that the school never contacted the INS. Colleges are required to tell the INS when a student drops out or graduates. Why doesn't the INS routinely review the status of student visas? And would that information, if it had been obtained by the INS, have been shared with the FBI or local law enforcement? I doubt there is a system for that to occur, but if it had it would have apparently taken months for the INS to enter the data from the manual reports that schools submit. LNabil Al-Marabh, a fugitive from Canada, came into the United States even though he had been named on the FBI's ``watch list.'' Why didn't the Customs officials have access to the FBI watch list? In addition, Michigan authorities told reporters that Al-Marabh had used an Ontario driver's license when he applied for a duplicate permit in Michigan. He later obtained a commercial driver's license, allowing him to transport hazardous materials in heavy trucks. In neither case, apparently, did the state authorities know he was on the FBI ``watch list.'' Whatever proposal that will best clear up the problems we have with the coordination of information, overcome the duplication, and make existing programs effective is the proposal we should pursue. We must decide how to break through the barriers that inhibit the free flow of information. Would creating a new agency do this? Or would a new agency consolidating FEMA, the Customs Service, the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard into one agency actually give the head of the agency less power to deal with the other agencies? These are important questions that we need to address in these hearings. We can add millions of dollars to our budgets building defenses and manning defenses but until we have robust inter- and intra-agency communication, the fundamental problem will not be resolved. Sharing of information helps us to predict, prevent, and respond to terrorism. And importantly, we should give real consideration to how Governor Ridge feels that this Administration can best combat terrorism. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Levin. Mr. Stanton. TESTIMONY OF THOMAS H. STANTON,\1\ CHAIR, STANDING PANEL ON EXECUTIVE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Mr. Stanton. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you very much. It is a real honor to be here, to contribute to this important discussion. If Dr. Flynn is a border guy, I guess I am a public administration guy. This statement is being submitted personally, but a number of other fellows at the National Academy of Public Administration have contributed to the testimony. We were asked to look at two bills, one of which would strengthen the current executive office---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Stanton with an attachment appears in the Appendix on page 118. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Lieberman. Excuse me just a second. Lee, thanks so much for coming. I know you told us earlier you had to leave at noon, and obviously we understand. Thanks for your contribution. Mr. Hamilton. I apologize. Chairman Lieberman. Please go ahead. Mr. Stanton. We were asked to comment on two bills, one to strengthen the current office in the Executive Office of the President, give it statutory basis and some budgetary powers, and the other one to create a new cabinet department. In my testimony I would like to make five specific points. First of all, I agree with all the other witnesses who have said the President's prompt action has been an excellent and very much- needed first step. Second, the enactment of legislation along the lines of S. 1449 would help to strengthen the authority of the director and the office. The ability to review budgets of the relevant Federal agencies is very important, as we have heard, provided that we clarify the role of that office vis-a-vis the Office of Management and Budget. What we cannot afford here is yet another turf fight, as two agencies fight over budget matters. Inevitably, it goes up the line and we have to attract the attention of the President or Vice President, who have many more important things to do. We should clarify that issue very early. Third, it is very important to avoid mixing the goals of these two bills. In other words, it would be unwise to have a single person who was both the coordinator of 40-odd agencies, and State and local government activities, and also the head of a cabinet department, because that dual role inevitably will give rise to perceptions that person is favoring their own department at the expense of others. The coordinator has got to be separate so that appearance of impartiality does not arise, and so we avoid, again, unnecessary conflicts that will have to go up the line. Fourth, the complex issues surrounding creation of a new National Homeland Security Department need to be carefully assessed before we act. If you transfer operating functions from four existing agencies to a new department, this could well create more problems than it solves, and the threshold problem is one of composition. There are a large number of agencies with essential roles in border control and in response to terrorism, the FBI, the Consular Service of the State Department--we could go down the list--that are not included in this new department. On the other hand, there are a number of functions of these agencies, the four agencies, that will be transferred to the cabinet department that, in fact, have nothing to do with national security. The Coast Guard has a search-and-rescue mission, has an environmental mission, a high-seas fisheries mission. It has a variety of missions that have nothing to do with national security. S. 1449 is superior to the cabinet department because it retains the flexibility for senior policy makers either to include or exclude functions as we evolve our perceptions of the needs of homeland defense and try to decide what we want to do. Finally, the fifth point, if this Committee does ultimately favor creation of a department, it might be beneficial to use a vehicle of a reorganization act to propose that the President submit legislation to make that change, and then it would be incumbent upon the President to make the careful considerations of the trade-offs to maximize the benefits of a given reorganization and minimize the costs. This Committee, of course, is in an ideal position to enact such a reorganization act because of its jurisdiction over general reorganization matters. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask that my written statement be added to the record, along with an attachment where a number of fellows of the national academy attempted a first draft at a general reorganization act that this Committee might want to consider in that regard. Again, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you very much for holding these hearings and for the opportunity to participate. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Stanton, to you and your colleagues, and all that material will be included in the record. We can do 10-minute rounds, since there are only four of us left standing, or sitting here. General McCaffrey, why don't we begin by asking you to tell some war stories from your time as a czar; in other words, about what experiences you had that leads you to advocate strong budgetary authority within this new Office of Homeland Security? General McCaffrey. Well, certainly, Mr. Chairman, I started with, to some extent, having to accept the responsibility to coordinate national drug policy with enormous personal standing in the Executive Branch and in Congress. I was believed to be non-partisan, to have some credentials in organizing people, machinery and efforts. The President was politically vulnerable and needed some cover. I knew all these key actors, so I came in with a lot of personal standing. Having said that, I inherited an agency which was 25 people or so, demoralized. The Shelby-Kerry amendment had defunded them. It had no legitimacy in Congress. It had no powers that had been used inside the Executive Branch. Chairman Lieberman. Did it have budget authority of any kind when you came in? General McCaffrey. It never used it, the power that had been granted. It had certification-decertification authority, but no one since 1988 had actually ever employed it. Chairman Lieberman. Meaning that relevant budgets would have to combine. General McCaffrey. In theory, the agency, which has been, of course, downsized from 180 ineffective people to 25 ineffective people, had never used the power that was there, to order an agency or department to include or change its budgetary requirements in accordance with the national drug strategy. It was beyond belief. Chairman Lieberman. But what did you do about it? General McCaffrey. Well, the first thing I did was came to Congress and asked for a law, and said, ``Here is the way I see this agency.'' I also went to the President, the Chief of Staff, the OMB Director, did a back-of-the-envelope analysis, designed an agency with 154 people, with 40-some odd liaison officers, put down 10 warrants of authority that I demanded, got nine under the President's verbal OK, said, ``Trust us, we'll back you on this.'' Then I came to Congress and said, ``I would like you to make this a law,'' and 3 years later, partially because I decertified the Secretary of Defense's budget---- Chairman Lieberman. Tell us a little about that. General McCaffrey. It was like setting fire to a cathedral on Easter Sunday. I have never seen anything like it. Chairman Lieberman. Not a good thing to do. General McCaffrey. He was a superb public servant. I do not think he was personally involved in it. He felt betrayed. I had been getting kicked back from DOD. I looked at the counterdrug effort. DOD played a modest supporting role. It was a $1 billion budget. If I tried to do that to Secretary Shalala in Health and Human Services, she would have killed me, but the board had come back, ``Tell McCaffrey to stop screwing around with our money or we will take all his money away.'' So we spent 1 weekend, we lined it all up, we notified the relevant Congressional committees, we notified the media, we notified everybody except the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense, and then we released it and decertified the budget. Unbelievable--it stopped my---- Chairman Lieberman. Briefly stated, why did you decertify? You did not think he was spending enough or giving you enough? General McCaffrey. He had $900 million in it. I wanted $1.1 billion. I had different views of it. I could not get a serious dialogue. I could not share the interagency process. I was not believed to be a credible actor. The word was, ``Keep this up and we will take away all your money.'' In fact, one senior actor told me, ``We will kill you and no fingerprints will be on it.'' At the end of that exercise, from then on, I can assure you when I called a meeting on budgetary matters, people came to the meeting. I really think the key to much of this is you simply have to have a Federal law, Congress has got to tell you what to do. You have got to be a Senate-confirmed officer of government. You have to have your own budget. If you do not have a public affairs and legislative affairs and legal section, then that implies you must borrow these bureaucratic functions from the larger White House. I was an agency, as well as a member of the EOP. If you are going to do that, then you are never going to come see Congress, because you are never going to break through into the priority list for the national business, which is what the White House does. The bottom line is I look at the kind of authorities that the governor has been issued to do this. I think in the acute stage of this crisis he will do just fine. He is a larger public servant with all of his experience. Let me add, if I may, one other thought, and I bet Chuck Boyd would agree with it. One of the things that I know from being a 25-year-old combat leader, rifle company commander, is one of the major weaknesses of the American people is our inability to stay afraid very long. I tell people that I was a four-star general because I could remember fear for years on end, and I worry enormously about 1 year from now, if we have had 10 minor terrorist incidents, which have been disrupted by the incredibly effective FBI and local law enforcement, whether we are going to forget our sense of collective fear. We have got to change some large muscle movement problems, and I could not agree more with Dr. Flynn. Our Federal border control authority--I went down the four border States as the first act in government. We do not have the rule of law and order on the U.S. borders. It is fundamentally broken. If you put your finger on a map anywhere on that border and ask who is in charge of this effort, there is no Federal officer who is charged with integrating infrastructure, intelligence, communication and planning. There is no modality to coordinate across that border. If you ask sector commanders, ``Who is your Mexican counterpart? What is the fax number? What is the telephone number? When did you see him last? Show me the map that shows the other side of the border, the avenues of approach,'' none of it exists. It is outrageous. They resisted--I tried to double the Border Patrol and succeeded, from 3,000 to 9,000. The right answer, I told them, was 20,000, and they resisted that approach. The real answer, it seems to me, is 40,000 people. Chairman Lieberman. Amen. Part of what we have not talked about yet in this whole matter, and it is not for today, is that if we are really serious about Border Patrol, infrastructure protection, preparedness to respond to emergencies, it is going to cost us some money, because not only are we badly organized, or, in fact, disorganized, we are woefully underfunding the effort to protect us. Now that we have, unfortunately, experienced what we have on September 11, hopefully, we will act on it. Your point is a very powerful point and very provocative, General, because part of what we are all dealing with is--when we go home every weekend--is fear that we have not seen before, and there is a natural tendency to want to argue with it. Of course, that is not all bad, we want to reassure people, but there is a way in which the sustaining of fear will motivate us to be where we should be, to be at our best and to defend. So I am going to carry that with me. Dr. Flynn, how would you reorganize the border access and control agencies? I guess a subquestion to that is, how do you respond to the recommendation of the Hart-Rudman Commission, which is in our legislation, to put at least these three agencies, Border Patrol and Customs and Coast Guard, under one Secretary, to work more closely together? Mr. Flynn. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think maybe I can talk directly to something Mr. Stanton had said about the challenge--is if you extract this piece out, assign to the homeland security mission other things that are not homeland security-related, there is a real problem here. Let me say that I do not think that is true, because it turns out that the capacity that these agencies can bring to the table is basically the ability to detect abhorrent activity; that is a way in which the asymmetric threat, the terrorist, is likely to come. That is, my day on a patrol boat--you go out there and you pick up a fisherman and you board him and you say, ``We are here to board to see if you are complying with all applicable Federal laws and regulations. Captain, I see you are fishing. What are you fishing for?'' ``Well, I am doing some scalloping.'' ``Oh, in 3,000 feet of water, that is quite a trick. It is a long way down to get those scallops off the bottom of the ocean.'' What I had was the ability of a context. I could say this is different from what somebody--and I could spot somebody who was fishing in an area that there are not any fish. That is the same thing for the boating safety, the auxiliary people who are out there, on a day-to-day. They are the sensors out there who are going to detect the kind of way these terrorists behave, as we saw their behavior on September 11 trying to blend into the real estate here. The challenge is that these folks turn out to be the front- line new national security agents. They are the likely people who detect and they are also going to be the first responders, but right now they are not equipped to do the day-to-day jobs, so they are not likely to be able to give us that extra edge. They are also not likely to be able to--they are not connected in any way to the national security establishment. So they do not even know what to really look for. Part of this is recognizing that the capacity of these agencies is largely their non-national security role that gives us a clue in how you deal with that. On specifically with putting them together, the number is 40 agencies to deal with-- well, the fact of the matter is, in terms of presence--again, those people have sensors, that is really a small number of them. It is the Border Patrol. It is INS. It is Customs. It is Coast Guard. A lot of these authorities are delegated to them to be on the lookout for more than they can possibly handle. So I think the notion of getting a critical mass together--they are the right players. As that scenario I laid out for you, the ship with the cargo with the people, you have got to at least connect those three dots, and those are now in three different places. If you could bring those three together, you have got this command of the most likely risk at least. We have those 11 databases that were mentioned earlier by Representative Thornberry--at least you would have them talking to each other and you would have somebody to stay in for that. The key is that each of these agencies have a problem in that they are embedded in a department that has a core mission, that Congress mandates them to do and to resource them to do, and when they are doing something related to national security, their appropriator and their OMB reviewer says, ``That is not my account,'' and Big Dig versus Coast Guard, port security. Our core thing is Big Dig, and so, inevitably you get this atrophying of capability. So I think bringing them together helps to bring that. You do not want to strip anything away from these. It will be the Customs officer's regulatory role that will give him the capacity to interact with that trade community and help that trade community--help them spot bad things. Chairman Lieberman. If I hear you correctly, bringing them together in a Homeland Security Agency, without subtracting at all from their other missions, will thereby make homeland security a priority? Mr. Flynn. You get a two-fer. You get them doing their jobs, better resources, because in doing that, if they are tethered to this--they are given the mission that while you are out there doing your job, you are also on the lookout for bad things happening and detecting and intercepting them. You get the best of all worlds, in my view. It is not an either/or. Chairman Lieberman. General Boyd, did you want to say something? General Boyd. No, I was just going to reinforce--and he has done it now--there is nothing those agencies have to stop doing as a result of being integrated into a Homeland Security Agency. They are going to continue to do all of the things that they now do, but they are going to do it with common purpose and they are going to be doing it for someone who controls the way they procure, the way they train, the way they exercise and the way they respond for the principal mission of homeland security. Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. My time is up, but Mr. Stanton, go ahead. Mr. Stanton. I guess what I am hearing is a real need, an urgent need for integration at the operational level, and we face a bit of a Hobson's Choice. The way I read the commission's report, because people were concerned with the problems and disruption that Senator Bennett talked about, in fact, these three agencies would be kept largely separate within the new department. And that is needed because it will take you a 1\1/2\ or 3 years, whatever, to get integration of cross-cutting responsibilities and concerns. My point is not that ultimately we may not want to do something like that. My point is that right now we do not have a full understanding of what we want to put into that mix and what we want to keep out, and that operational integration-- when you read the commission report, and my hat is off to the commission--this was way before September 11--they talked about priorities of border security that were languishing, budgets that were hopelessly inadequate. We are going to solve that problem with or without an organizational change. But we should wait to see what the real contours of this problem are; among other things, how is Congress going to organize itself? To a large extent, Executive Branch organization tends, for very good reason, to mirror what Capitol Hill does, and to figure out over some time what is it we want to put in, what is it we want to keep out, how do we maximize the benefits and minimize the downsides, which inevitably will be there? Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Dr. Stanton. Senator Thompson. Senator Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; we have had some excellent testimony. It has been very helpful. Thank you all. Mr. Stanton, I think you are absolutely right in everything that you say. It occurs to me that we are not here because we have been told for a decade, at least, in very pointed terms, of the nature of the danger, the extent of it, all the things that Dr. Flynn so eloquently described. We have known, basically, all this stuff, for a long time. I mean, it has been on the public record, but that is not the reason we are here. We should have been here because of that, but we are not. We were not focused, and nobody took it seriously. It has not been a part of the national debate. We are here because of September 11. It causes me to think about fundamentally what we are about here. It seems to me that we are looking at reorganization, not because reorganization or changing the boxes or lines of responsibility in and of itself is going to make us safer, but because we can do some things that will create or facilitate or assist the leadership and accountability that we are going to have to have to make us safer. And that is what this is about. I think Senator Hart said that if his proposal--if the commission's proposal had been in place, we could not have avoided September 11. I think if the boxes had all been different, if we had any of these reorganization plans, it would not have been different. This means that until we take things seriously, until we have the right kind of leadership on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, till we have responsibility, so heads roll when things do not work, some measure, some way to measure whether or not we are making any progress, which we do not have in government at all, not much will change. In fact, this is just endemic of all of government. This is just much more serious than anything else. Lack of accountability and lack of leadership are issues we could have addressed at any time, but we did not do it. We have not taken it seriously. The leadership part, of course, is a political matter. It is up to the American people, who have got to demand better. Up until recently, most politicians believe that what is most on the minds of the American people is not national defense, national security and terrorism. All of these issues are certainly way down the list. But, on the side of accountability, perhaps we can do something better to make it more likely that if we have the leadership, we could be doing a better job and have some measures of success. We would be making progress. I think moving the boxes would not have made any difference. In the future, a year from now, we could basically lull ourselves back into the same kind of situation. Unless we have leadership and accountability and some way to measure where we are, we could face this problem again. So what can we do to help that? This is what I am looking at. I have no faith in any system of box reorganization or rearrangement, in and of itself. But if it can help in those underlying things that we have been lacking, clearly lacking, then it is worthwhile. So that does get to the issues that we have been talking about, in terms of reorganization, what would help and so forth. We focused in on the budget problem. I am not sure that I know what we are talking about when we talk about budget authority. General McCaffrey and any of you, does that mean decertification ability or is there more to it than that? As I see the executive order, it says the head of OHS--authorizes the head of OHS to review agency budgets and make recommendations to agency heads and to the director of the Office of Management and Budget regarding the levels and uses of funding for homeland security-related activities. Prior to the forwarding of the proposed annual budget submission to the President for transmittal to Congress, the head of OHS is to certify to the OMB Director the funding levels that he believes are necessary and appropriate for the homeland security-related activities of the Executive Branch. No further guidance in this regard is offered by the order. This is from CRS. So it sounds like he may have certification authority. General McCaffrey. I think the word ``review'' is a throwaway line. It means you do not have to go to the meeting. Now, in addition, I would say some of this is mechanical. Senator Thompson. Is it different than what you had? General McCaffrey. Senator, let me offer a thought, because I generally agree that problems are not solved by bureaucratic reorganizations, generally I would agree. Having said that, let me give you two models, and they really astonish me. Our military formations are set up so that, and I got this at the end of the Gulf War. I had a couple of reporters commenting on how splendidly my division had done, and therefore wasn't it me personally that must have accomplished these great things? You are missing the point. If I had dropped dead the day before the attack started, there were a dozen people who could have stepped in and made this thing work as well as I did, and the reason was we had an organizational dynamic, a training system, a set of authorities that were widely understood, that make the organization responsive to sensible direction. There are other organizational schemes in which they are not responsive, in which it is a trying-to-herd-cats-with-a- broom, and I would argue the interagency process tends to be that way. It focuses on two or three problems; it does pretty good at addressing them. We are in an acute crisis stage now. I have no doubt in the coming 6 months the Congress and the administration will make a series of sensible decisions. But the border, for example, the fact that it is completely dysfunctional, that the Coast Guard is not in charge of coordinating the maritime flank security of the United States in Brownsville, Texas and in San Diego, and that when you go there, there are a dozen people with guns, badges and boats, and there is no integrating authority, these kinds of things need to get fixed. Senator Thompson. There is some real low-hanging fruit that we could obviously start with here. Again, I guess the question I have is whether or not, in trying to reach the goal we are trying to reach, in terms of facilitating the things that we need to have more of, in terms of accountability and measures, and to induce the leadership that we need, is it better for Congress to come with some compromise among all these proposals that we have? It will not be anything that we have seen without changes. It will be probably some compromise of various proposals. Or would it be better to say, ``Mr. President, you have got a lot of things on your plate and have a lot of people responsible to you, but there is nothing more important to this Nation than this, and you have the ultimate responsibility. We are going to give you the authority under the Reorganization Act to reorganize, then you come back to us. If we do not like it, we can turn it down, but you have the responsibility, you have the authority. You must come with the leadership. You must maintain that leadership, and you are going to be held accountable for this and whoever you choose to place in whatever position you choose to place them in.'' That is one approach. The other is coming up with probably and mesh of a new kind of reorganization, and pass that. The second part of the question--should we look at this thing more or less in two phases? Is there an answer possibly for the real short-term, and then an answer for the longer- term? I think most of us assume that there is going to be an intensity about this for some time, but then there is going to be a long-term--forever--problem and need to address it; and possibly, as we look at these questions. Should we look at it in two phases? What should we do right now for the short-term? Should we give ourselves a little bit more time to look at it a little bit down the road? General McCaffrey. Senator, I think you are right on the notion. I mean, thank God the President stepped forward and got this superb public servant, Governor Ridge, and gave him some people and gave him a mission. So, we are moving forward as we are sitting here discussing the issue. There are two definitive options on the table; one is clustered around Senator Lieberman's notion, and others, forming a department, which actually is the right solution. The only concern I have with it is I think it will take you a year to think through the legislation or we will screw it up. When I say think through the legislation, it is not just writing a 28- page document, it is making sure that document is compatible with the responsibilities of the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Treasury and others. You cannot just do the one without the other or we will be in even worse gridlock. Having said that, in the shorter run, it seems to me in the next 30 days you should issue Governor Ridge a model. There are some that you can examine. One of them is ONDCP. You worked for 3 years to find me many of the tools that I wanted. So it is there to be examined and seems to me--I will borrow Chuck Boyd's word--it would be a gift to Governor Ridge, which he has not come down here and asked for. The administration has come as far as they wanted to go for now. I would respectfully urge the Congress to think through this and give him an interim solution. Then a year from now, if you can chart out these other, more-definitive options, one of which I did not think would be possible in my lifetime, was unscrewing the U.S. border control system. That one deserves to be done, and I went to Senators and Congressman and Governors along those four border States and said that you people have lived here all your life. There is no border between the United States and Mexico. It is uncontrolled. It is unbelievable, the situation--two unions, four different departments of government, 700 people, different work rules. There is no high school, hospital or factory in America where there is not a person who is the integrator of that activity. That is not the case in our 32 border-crossing points into Mexico. You can fix these things, but it is going to require some real careful analysis, to make sure the Coast Guard, a giant armed service, one of the most professional organizations I have ever dealt with, with inadequate resources, obsolescent ships and aircraft and probably stuck in the wrong agency of government to boot--but thinking through what to do with that is going to require some real judgment. Senator Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. Could I get Mr. Stanton's comment on this? Chairman Lieberman. Sure. Mr. Stanton. Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo what General Mccaffrey just said, that the first step might be to strengthen the coordinating role of Governor Ridge through something similar to S. 1449, taking advantage of the ONDCP model, and possibly also accompanying that with an enactment of a general reorganization act, so that the infrastructure, the legal infrastructure, is in place, so that this Committee can come back at an appropriate time, whenever the Committee decides, and say to the executive, ``Now we think it is time to move. We think it is time to institutionalize and we would like to hear from you shortly under the parameters of the Reorganization Act.'' Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. Senator Bennett. Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I echo thank you to the panel. I have learned a great deal here and I think you have made an enormous contribution to our dialogue. I would like to just continue the dialogue for a minute, and, if I may, Mr. Chairman, go back to my opening comment about my experience with bringing together the Department of Transportation. Mr. Stanton, I wish you were right, in terms of the Executive Branch mirroring the Legislative Branch. I remember very clearly Bryce Harlow, who was the President's head of legislative liaison in the White House and probably the best individual ever to do that job in any administration. He goes all the way back to Franklin Roosevelt, did it for Eisenhower, finished his career in government doing it for Nixon. He called us all together--I was the head of Congressional liaison at DOT--and he called us all together and said, ``All right, now the first thing you do is get with your committee of authorization in the Congress,'' and that meant the guy at DOD went to Armed Services, the guy at Treasury went to Finance, and so on. I said, ``Bryce, highways are Public Works. Mass transit is Banking. The Coast Guard is Armed Services, Amtrak and the FAA are Commerce. I got five committees of jurisdiction.'' It is still that way. Whoever represents the Department of Transportation to the Congress still has five committees of authorization and jurisdiction up here on Capitol Hill. So if I can do a bank-shot off of that, Mr. Chairman, please talk to Tom Daschle about this issue, in terms of how Congress is organized with respect to terrorism. I have had a conversation with him. I will not publicly say what came out of that, but you have more leverage with him than I do. Let me just put in that plug. Mr. Stanton, I identify with you, absolutely, out of my experience as to how long it is going to take. General McCaffrey, I think your year is very optimistic, and in the meantime the turf battles will become tighter rather than looser, and again--we are coming back to it--but one of the driving forces behind the creation of the Department of Transportation was the Coast Guard believing that if they could just get out from under the Treasury Department, that did not understand their mission, and into somebody that did, they would become the lead agency that would dominate the Department of Transportation. Now we are hearing that the Coast Guard has to get out of the Department of Transportation, that does not understand their mission. In the meantime, I think we may have more going for us with Governor Ridge than the testimony here has suggested. Let me give you three names--Harry Hopkins. Harry Hopkins had no budgetary authority, he had no cabinet position, he had no formal, structural place in the government, and he was probably Franklin Roosevelt's most powerful individual during the entire Second World War, because Roosevelt used him in that kind of capacity. When you heard that Harry Hopkins was going to come see you, wherever you were in the U.S. Government, you paid attention. The second name--again, personal experience--Pat Moynihan. When I was at the Department of Transportation, the most terrifying words that could come to us were that Pat Moynihan was going to come see us, because Pat Moynihan had been appointed by President Nixon as the coordinator--whatever the title was, that was not the word--of urban policy. If Moynihan was going to come over to the Department of Transportation and start looking at what we were doing with respect to cities and mass transit and highways, we were terrified that he was going to discover that we did not know what we were doing, and that he was going to tell somebody, and the somebody he was going to tell was the President of the United States, and bank-shot OMB. The people who really call the shots in the government all work for OMB. I found that out, once OMB decided, or once John Ehrlichman and some of the others around Nixon decided that they did not like John Volpe--John Volpe was a cabinet officer who went 2 years without ever speaking to the President of the United States, because they kept him walled-off, and he ended up being told what to do by a 28-year-old in OMB whose principal government activity has been as an advance man for Nixon in the campaign. Now, General McCaffrey, you are nodding. You are kind of identifying with this kind of experience. General McCaffrey. Except I was talking to my President. Senator Bennett. OK, you were talking to your President, but just being a cabinet officer does not always mean that you have all of the clout that the media assumes with a cabinet officer. Somebody in OMB who decides they are going to cut the knees out from you can almost always do that, unless you have the kind of clout that Pat Moynihan had. Now, when they bundled Pat Moynihan off to be Ambassador to the United Nations, all of that effort stopped in the Nixon Administration. He was never replaced, but that was a Presidential counselor, adviser, whatever, who made a significant difference. If somebody like that had focused Dr. Flynn on the border, the existing agencies in the box where they already are would immediately start standing tall and the money would start to flow, because OMB would decide that they have got to do this, because Governor Ridge or whoever it is carrying that kind of clout is telling us. Now, the third name, and this is one you probably will not recognize, Katie McGinty. Has anybody ever heard of Katie McGinty? Chairman Lieberman. Yes, we recognize that name. Senator Bennett. You recognize that name. Chairman Lieberman. Very fondly. Senator Bennett. Well, not quite so fondly. Chairman Lieberman. I had a feeling. Senator Bennett. Katie McGinty had a staff of 11 people in a funky little office off of Lafayette Park, but she dictated environmental policy to the Department of Interior. The reason I know it is because she created the monument in southern Utah that created an enormous firestorm, similar to what you are talking about, at least in Utah, about setting fire to a cathedral on Easter morning. She did it stealthily No one knew it. She was denying to me that she was doing it while it was going on. She sat in my office and said, ``No, Senator, there is no such thing.'' 24 hours later, the President announced it. Why did she have that kind of power? Because she carried Vice President Gore's torch on the environment, and as long as the Vice President was willing to say this is what is going to happen, she was the implementing officer. So I give you those three names, Harry Hopkins, Pat Moynihan and Katie McGinty, to demonstrate that it is not automatic to assume in a structural way that someone who does not have cabinet--does not have enormous clout to get things done. Now, I am convinced, as a result of this hearing, that we need to restructure in the Executive Branch something like what you are talking about here. But I am also convinced, Mr. Chairman, that what we need to do--and maybe we need to do nothing. Maybe it would happen--I would hope that it would happen automatically--but, given Governor Ridge's background, given his proximity to the President and given the visibility of this issue, he will be able to go in and shine the light on the border problem within existing structure. We need to pursue his capacity to do that immediately, and give him every support and strength we can out of the Congress, while at the same time taking the time to do the long-term fix right, rather than rush to judgment. Now, I have acted as a witness, but in the 30 seconds or whatever remaining, I would appreciate your comments, disagreements, objections, observations and so on, from any of you. Yes, Dr. Flynn? Mr. Flynn. Senator, one of the key things--I agree--I am sort of struggling myself with trying to organize a new threat environment that we are trying to sort through. There is a problem with this organization, and the real problem we have right now is a bifurcation between national security, water's edge-out, and the notion of homeland security and homeland defense as water's edge-in, with a heavy emphasis on more consequence management, picking up the body parts in the event of an attack. What might get lost in that conceptualization is that what happened on September 11 is the divide between domestic and international was obliterated by how these terrorists operated. So we have capacity in that national security establishment that clearly has to come into the domestic round. Some of the usual suspects in the domestic round that are very good at what they do, do not have a framework to work from. How you do the cross-fertilization is key, and moving around boxes is not going to solve that entirely. Can we talk about critical infrastructure protection, for instance? You have got to talk about Canada. The pipeline from Alaska runs through Canada. The energy grid that feeds most of it runs through Canada. The natural gas compressors that feed most of the power plant is in Canada. The idea that you are going to put a line across Canada, who is part of NORAD, a part of our air defense system--we can work that out, but we still have problems working on the border. So the key here is that homeland insecurity will not be done at home. It will require pushing out Customs agents, pushing out the Coast Guard in order to be able to detect and intercept. How you structure this may, in fact, cause problems at the outset. If you have division of labor as, ``OK, Governor Ridge, you look inside and handle that and the National Security Council is going to take over the war over there,'' we miss what is key about this terrorist threat. It is that the fundamental goal is to cause economic and social disruption in order to weaken the power of this country and its fortitude and its willingness to stay open. Our disorganization has led these border agencies--as an immediate response to the threat of September 11--was to essentially impose a blockade on our economy to make us more secure. We did not just ground the aircraft. We closed, virtually, all the seaports and we closed the border with Mexico and Canada, effectively by shutting things down to a trickle, and every time we have a new threat, a new intelligence threat, we may do that again and again and again, and that is a major security priority. But it is falling through the cracks because we do not have ourselves structured to think about that new dimension of the problem. I do not know if this particular--given the timing, I would have loved to have this conversation, working on this issue, much before September 11, but clearly we need to have this conversation. I think the Congress has to debate it and deliberate it. It is a long struggle. We are going to live with terrorism. It is going to be like a flu. This manhunt right now in Afghanistan will hopefully take out some very nasty people, but this is like a flu. Every season, it is going to be a new virus. We have to organize this government to cope with this new reality. The 200-year run is done. We have got to live with the fact our adversaries are going to take the game here, not let us fight it over there. Mr. Stanton. Senator, I guess we need to do some action. We need to, I believe, strengthen Governor Ridge's hand in his current coordinating capacity. I hear, and I share what I hear, a certain concern that, if like the flu the season goes away for a while and we all relax, whether we are changing the boxes, in which case an OMB that is parsimonious could still stifle homeland security, or whether we do not change the boxes, we will have problems when the flu comes back. So I think what I hear is that we are all concerned with that problem, but again I would say it is not immediately clear that this particular organizational solution is the answer, compared to another one that we might come up with as we understand the contours better. Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Boyd. General Boyd. One additional thought, perhaps, and I certainly agree that powerful men, with superhuman effort and unique access to their President, can get lots done. But I am not sure why we would want to keep the boxes where they are, and therefore require that kind of superhuman effort. Senator Bennett. I am not suggesting that we do, long-term. General Boyd. Let me clarify one thing that I am sure Senator Rudman would want me to clarify the notion that changing the boxes around would not have stopped the attack on September 11 is true, but irrelevant. Had we reorganized these essential elements in the summer of 2001, shortly after the Commission made its recommentations, it probably would not have made much difference by September 11. But I think Senator Rudman would be very quick to point out to you, for reasons that Barry McCaffrey gave, relative to that military structure and its culture, and the common sense of purpose and mission, that had those boxes been rearranged for awhile, it would have made a significant difference in the way that this Nation secured its borders. So be careful about drawing conclusions about the short-term and thinking they apply to the long-term. In the short-term, it would not make much difference, but you have got to get started on a trip before you can complete the trip, and the sooner, it seems to me, that we get started, the better off we are. One last little thought; we formed the JCS in the early days of World War II very quickly, and that system, which then endured and was codified in law in 1947, the National Security Act of 1947, came together very quickly, because it was a time of crisis and a time of need. I think this reorganization, under a time of crisis, can take place a heck of a lot faster than our more pessimistic estimates would have it. Senator Bennett. Thank you. General McCaffrey. Perhaps I could make a quick comment. Chairman Lieberman. Sure. Please. General McCaffrey. Senator, I actually like the way you set that up. I do think it is going to take a year to think through this. I would not rush to judgment on moving huge elements of government, putting them in new departments and re-creating authorizations and the Appropriations Committee in Congress. You need to think through this, whether it is 3 months or a year, it is going to be something that has to be done very deliberately. At the same time, I would give the governor some simple leadership tools to employ. A leadership tool is, ``I am authorized by law, confirmed by the Senate. The Congress told me I am supposed to do five things.'' You wave it at people. You also say, ``I have to report to these guys twice a year, and they are going to tell me to report about the following. You had better cooperate, because I am going to go down there and lay out the data.'' Authority is to hire your own people and not end up--I do not want to sound like a cynical, experienced Washington lawyer. Senator Bennett. But you are. General McCaffrey. But otherwise you end up with the cats and dogs of Washington, with the Manchurian candidates sent over to spy on you, constrain you, etc. If you do not have your own budget, you cannot go TDY. Somebody rolled their eyes, apparently on TV, when they heard Governor Ridge had asked for a speechwriter and a press guy. That is his job, to communicate to the American people. How can he do it without a team? Then finally, it seems to me this issue is pretty complex. If you can hire Dr. Flynn, you are OK, but to understand some of these programs is going to take a good bit of time, and I would argue the Governor needs to bring in the best and the brightest in our land quickly, under his aegis, and put them in office, and you ought to confirm the top five people that work for him, so you understand who is about to move the levers of government here. Chairman Lieberman. In the last couple of weeks I have received probably 10 calls and letters from people who want to leave what they are doing and go to work for Governor Ridge. There is a real sense of national purpose, wanting to be of service, and I think, given the proper authority, he could really attract a first-rate group of people to work with them. This has been a wonderful hearing. I have one more question about something that has perplexed me, and I cannot resist the opportunity, though, because I think you all probably have got some thoughts about it. This goes to immigration and the INS. In the proposal from Hart-Rudman that we have put in our bill, we have taken the Border Patrol and put it in this Homeland Security Agency, but obviously there are so many questions about the way INS decides who can come in and who cannot that relate to this, and then they make it even more complicated. You probably read the same stuff I have. All 19 of these terrorists that were involved on September 11 were here on tourist and business visas obtained through consulates in their--not their countries, but countries from which they came, which, if I understand it correctly, is actually more under the State Department. So, as we are thinking about really trying to do something about homeland security, do you have any thoughts about whether we should reach into any other parts of INS and bring it into this Homeland Security Agency? General Boyd, do you want to start? General Boyd. Yes, sir. We made a deliberate choice, and our thinking at the time--not to include INS--and our thinking at the time was we would take the law-enforcement elements out and collect them under the Homeland Security Agency. Chairman Lieberman. That was more than Border Patrol. General Boyd. No; more than Border Patrol--just INS. So I think that was a mistake. That is a second-order thing, the INS, but it is also, as you have suggested, critical to the overall business of knowing who is coming in and keeping some kind of track of them. So that was a mistake. We made a mistake. We should have included--there are probably some other things we should have included, but remember, sir, we were trying to think of the minimum number of things to make this an effective organization without ruffling any more bureaucratic feathers than we had to, because it was a time of peace at the time we were putting this together. It is like the French finance minister, in talking of the art of taxation, likened it to the art of plucking as many feathers as possible with a minimum amount of hissing from the goose, and that is what we were trying to do. We were trying to get the maximum number of feathers we could into this thing with a minimum amount of hissing from the bureaucratic geese. Chairman Lieberman. Right. Dr. Flynn. Mr. Flynn. Yes, one of the key things we have to realize when we think about this border dimension of homeland security is we are not going to stop and examine our way to security. If you have to inspect everything, you see nothing. You just overwhelm the system, the volumes of people and goods that come through. So the key is going to be the ability to detect abnormal behavior in the system, and what we are talking about is people, cargo and conveyances; that is, vehicles, trucks and so forth--and vessels. So the notion of--I would be an advocate of putting the whole INS in, because, again, that is the people-dimension, and you have, obviously, a relationship with councils and so forth that are key. But what you fundamentally want to do to be able to get a handle on this problem, is you need to be able to find a way to do proof-of-identity and proof-of-legal purpose as far upstream as possible, and then maintain that integrity as it goes through, and the agencies are going to help you do that. Again, the terrorists of today are exploiting that system, as well as criminals and so forth. Our regulatory enforcement agencies, they have a vital national security role to play in this new threat environment. You have to push them upstream and those three components have to come together. So it is not hard. It is the people, it is the cargo, and it is the conveyances that we need to have a good picture of what is legitimate so we can facilitate that--because this economy will implode if we do not--and what is illegitimate. It seems to me that structure could be there, and they keep doing what they do precisely because that is what gives them the intelligence, that gives them the ability to ask questions around the regulatory authority, but they need that tether into that national security world to know what the heck they should be looking for, what is a terrorist in this mix and what is a threat in the mix. Chairman Lieberman. You and General McCaffrey both sort of offered a conceptual point of view on this, which is very important, which is that these folks working in these positions really now have to think of themselves in a totally different way, and we have to think of them differently, too, because they have now suddenly become--Customs agent, Coast Guard-- first line of defense for the Nation. That is a different vision than they have had, and the Border Patrol had a certain vision of itself, but I do not think in terms of real defense, more in terms of keeping people out who were not supposed to come in on the basis of our immigration laws. General did you have any response? General McCaffrey. Well, just one thought, if I could. First of all, INS does have a system called CIPRIS, which needs to be funded, to track people coming across that border. That is something Congress could look at. But, if I may, having looked at this system with almost bafflement year after year, the principal difficulty, in my judgment, is we do not have an agency that thinks they own the border legal responsibility. It should be the Border Patrol, a uniformed service, and every border crossing, every port of entry, the Border Patrol has infrastructure planning, is the host for a com system, the host for an intel system, etc, and that other government agencies are there to carry out their Federal mandate, but to do so as part of this receptacle run by a single agency, that is the problem. When you go to a border-crossing site, 500 people--it is slightly better now. There will be a separate intel system being run by Customs and INS. INS has the port. The Border Patrol starts left and right of it. It is unbelievable. They do not have an integrated facility, and it seems to me the Border Patrol ought to run that, and these other--Department of Agriculture plays a very important responsibility in these border-crossing sites. They ought to be there and there ought to be a chief of that crossing site that sets work schedules, etc. I have sat there with a U.S. Attorney and found a Border Patrol officer on one of our four areas where we--remember, Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico is another one--where a Border Patrol officer was talking about his own cross-border intelligence system that he was running, with plainclothes U.S. border officers who were unknown to the Border Patrolman, that he was grabbing new guys and putting them across the border with radio systems, and no one was aware of it, and the Customs Service was running their own inadequate, amateurish electrooptics surveillance systems. We have got to have an agency like Bundus Gunshutz or the Gendarmarie, which is charged with border security. There is no law that tells me if I drive up to our border with a truckload of guns and money, and I tell the Border Patrolman, ``I'm going into Mexico; get out of my way,'' there is really no law I am violating, leaving this country where I choose to do so. If I build a giant house up to the border with barn doors that open into Mexico, the Border Patrol may not come into my house. This does not make any sense. The Border Patrol has no authority inside a reservation that borders on Mexico or Canada. There is a separate Department of the Interior jurisdiction there. So we just have no coherence to how we try and establish the rule of law and order, in cooperation with foreign law-enforcement institutions, on the border. Chairman Lieberman. Mr. Stanton. Mr. Stanton. Mr. Chairman, your question basically shows how difficult it is to draw new organizational lines. On the one hand, if somebody is trying to fly a crop duster and do us a lot of damage, we do not care whether they get naturalized or not. On the other hand, as you stated with your question about the Consular Service, and Dr. Flynn is talking about in terms of the need for a forward defense of the border, we need to be controlling people's visas, what sort of people, goods, what is coming in across our borders, and we need to be doing it overseas, and that may require drawing different lines from the ones that have been suggested so far. So, again, my concern is one of caution, that we do not leap into a solution. On the other hand, I am not at all urging that we simply stop and do nothing, but we have got to think it through. It is almost the way the President addressed the issue of fighting these terrorists, that we have got to think it through. There are some subtle problems here. We have got to grapple with them, but there are things we can do in the immediate future. Chairman Lieberman. Thanks. Senator Thompson or Senator Bennett, any more questions? I want to thank the witnesses. This has been a very productive hearing. I have the feeling that we all came with some ideas and predispositions, and unlike a lot of hearings, where we make speeches and the witnesses testify and there is not too much of a connection often, I think we all listened, both to one another and to you, and part of that is the fact that you are a very, very strong group of witnesses who were not hesitant to tell us exactly what you think, and I think you have made our work more manageable. So I am going to think a lot about what was said here, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to do the best that we can to set up a structure, in the short-run and the long-run, that protects the American people. The record will remain open for additional statements and questions. Senator Feinstein asked me to admit a statement of hers to the record,\1\ and Senator Carnahan has done the same.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Feinstein appears in the Appendix on page 130. \2\ The prepared opening statements of Senators Carnahan and Bunning appear in the Appendix on page 55. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARNAHAN Several weeks ago, a distinguished panel sat before this Committee and discussed the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman and the Gilmore Commissions. I was struck by the similarities between the two commissions' recommendations on what our priorities should be. The reports agreed on three points: Lthere is an increasing variety of possible threats to our homeland; Lthe country does not have a clear strategy to prevent these attacks; Land the responsibility for homeland security is spread across too many agencies without adequate coordination. Both reports called for a new, more coordinated prevention and protection strategy. The events of September 11 proved we can no longer afford to ignore this urgent need. We must move forward expeditiously. I applaud President Bush for appointing Governor Ridge as Director of Homeland Security. But it was only the first step. This new post needs statutory authority that clearly defines its powers and responsibilities. When it comes to the Office of Homeland Security, several issues must be addressed: accountability, coordination, and resources. This new office will be charged with overseeing matters that already fall within other agencies' jurisdictions. Without statutory authority, holding our so many agencies accountable for their performance will be inherently difficult. This Committee will play a major role in providing oversight over the new Office of Homeland Security. But how will Governor Ridge provide oversight of the other Federal agencies responsible for domestic terrorism? How will cooperation among these agencies be enhanced? Furthermore, responsibility for homeland security does not only rest with the Federal Government. It will require effective coordination of all levels of government. State and local governments are important partners in both preventing and responding to attacks on our homeland. How will this new office coordinate with state and local governments to maximize our national response capabilities? How will the Federal Government coordinate with local first responders--who are at the forefront of our defense against domestic terrorism? I hope that we will use this hearing to begin answering these questions. There are several legislative options currently available to us. And I look forward to working with my colleagues on this Committee to ensure that the Federal Government is organized properly to protect our homeland. __________ PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BUNNING Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the second hearing the Committee has held on homeland security this year, and I am looking forward to hearing from our guests testifying today. Thank you for being here. The attack on America was just a little over a month ago. During that time, Congress, the President and the nation have taken many steps to increase our national security, including putting police departments on high alert, making changes to our aviation security, and providing additional protection at our ball parks and many public places. And, let's not forget, however, that one of the most important steps we have taken is sending our troops overseas to combat terrorism at its root. We owe a tremendous debt to these men and women willing to fight on the front lines for us. Today, this Committee is going to look at the different legislative options currently on the table dealing with a Homeland Security Office. While we all agree that we need to shore up our homeland security, the solutions offered are numerous. There is more than one way to skin a cat, or to staff a government office. Some would create a separate Federal department, while others would establish an Executive Branch office. Some have also suggested that a combination of these two would be best. We have a lot of issues to consider. However, it is important to note that President Bush has already established the Homeland Security Office, along with the new Homeland Security Council. Personally, I think that substance is more important than style, and I hope that any legislative proposal that moves forward in Congress would be done in close consultation with the White House. Thank you. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6806.097