<DOC>
[108 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:22802.wais]
S. Hrg. 108-851
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY OVERSIGHT: TERRORISM AND OTHER TOPICS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 9, 2004
__________
Serial No. J-108-81
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2005
22-802 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JOHN CORNYN, Texas JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
Bruce Artim, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 1
prepared statement........................................... 112
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 3
prepared statement........................................... 115
WITNESS
Ridge, Tom, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, D.C................................................ 7
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Tom Ridge to questions submitted by Senators Biden,
DeWine, Kohl, Leahy, Cornyn, Feingold, Kennedy, and Sessions... 33
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Border Trade Alliance, Richard Cortez, Chair, Phoenix, Arizona,
letter......................................................... 109
Ridge, Tom, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, D.C., prepared statement........................... 120
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY OVERSIGHT: TERRORISM AND OTHER TOPICS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2004
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G.
Hatch, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Hatch, Grassley, Specter, Kyl, Cornyn,
Leahy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, and Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Chairman Hatch. We are here today to hold our eighth
hearing since last fall to oversee our Government's attempts to
protect against and respond to acts of terrorism. We heard from
Attorney General Ashcroft yesterday, and today we are pleased
to have Secretary Tom Ridge, the leader of our Department of
Homeland Security.
In the aftermath of September 11th, a new Department of
Homeland Security was created. This was a massive undertaking,
the likes of which this country has not seen since 1947, when
President Truman reorganized our defense and security agencies.
I, personally, want to thank Secretary Ridge and his
colleagues at DHS for your efforts, sir, in improving our
Nation's security. You are to be commended for your leadership
and the initiatives that you have implemented--initiatives to
increase our Nation's ability to respond in time of emergencies
to emergencies, to enhance the security of our borders, to
increase our ability to defend against bioterrorism, and of
course to improve our intelligence-gathering and information
sharing, and to integrate our local communities within our
Nation's homeland defense efforts.
Now, despite the daunting nature of your challenge, in just
over a year, your department has successfully merged 22
agencies and 180,000 employees into a single department. That
is amazing in and of itself. You have developed and implemented
aviation security procedures, including explosives detection
systems. You have issued new security directives, requiring
enhanced rail operator protocols. You have tailored the Student
VISIT Program to ensure that students who pose no threat to our
country are permitted entry. You have streamlined the
information-sharing process, which is a big, big move. You have
established a Homeland Security Operations Center aimed at
coordinating the efforts of the Federal, State and local
authorities. You have enhanced port security, and you have
provided substantial assistance to those on the front lines,
our Nation's first responders.
By no means is this a comprehensive list of your
accomplishments, and all would agree there is a lot more to be
done in order to ensure the security of our homeland. Most
recently, however, you have proven that you are a leader
willing to take the constructive criticism and recommendations
of others when it comes to safeguarding our great country.
By way of example, the Office of the Inspector General
recently issued a report recommending a number of changes to
the Visa Waiver Program. In response, the Department of
Homeland Security announced that by the end of September of
this year, it will extend U.S. visit requirements to travelers
who visit the United States from visa-waiver countries. We have
had 93 million visitors from these countries over the past 5
years, so naturally that is not going to be a very easy task. I
commend you for taking this bold step forward to improve our
visa waiver system and for working to secure this country
against the threat of terrorists.
I do want to take a few moments to challenge the
administration in an area in which I think we can do much
better, and that is bioterrorism.
First off, let me recognize that our country is, in many
ways, much better off to respond to various bioterrorism
attacks than we were in the fall of 2001. Our first responders
are much better equipped. There is much better coordination
among the Federal, State and local Governments. We, in Utah,
saw this firsthand during the Winter Olympics that went off so
successfully there.
I want to commend the administration and my colleagues in
Congress for their work on the biofield legislation. Senators
Gregg, Frist and Kennedy have consistently moved the ball
forward on this issue.
Vice President Cheney and Secretary Thompson have provided
leadership in this area. One of the favorites of mine, Dr. Tony
Fauci at the National Institutes of Health is coordinating
Government, academic and private-sector scientists and, as
always, is pushing the envelope of the scientific knowledge
forward. Unfortunately, the results to date are simply
inadequate. We know that there is a list of some 57 known
bioterrorism threat agents. It is my understanding that there
are only two--just two--FDA-approved countermeasures to these
known threats. That is correct, just 2 of the 57 threats, have
responses.
And the truth of the matter is that the R&D pipeline is
less than robust. That is one reason why Senator Lieberman and
I have proposed bipartisan legislation whose goal is to provide
a variety of incentives designed to stimulate private-sector
biotechnology firms to develop new research tools, diagnostics,
therapeutics, and vaccines.
Our legislation includes tax incentives, intellectual
property incentives, such as patent term restoration and
extension of current marketing exclusivity periods and up-front
liability negotiations. We should not let any politically
expedient, antidrug antipathy to interfere with the attempt of
the Lieberman-Hatch bill to unleash the creative genius of the
private sector because that is where treatments and cures are
going to have to come from.
And, sure, we need to create a well-capitalized biodefense
industry that will respond to our needs as any of these threats
arises or evolves. Now, that is the goal of the Lieberman-Hatch
bill. I commend my partner, Senator Lieberman, for his vision
in this critically important area. Although the year is moving
along, I hope in the weeks ahead to hold a hearing on some of
the novel intellectual property and liability provisions of the
Lieberman-Hatch bioterrorism bill.
Now, Mr. Secretary, I hope that the administration will
carefully review our bill and provide experts to participate in
the hearings on that matter.
Now, let me close by saying that I know that everyone on
this Committee shares the common goal of protecting our country
from additional terrorist attacks, and I believe we are all
committed to achieving that goal, with complete respect for the
fundamental freedoms of our American people. This Committee has
an historical tradition of examining, debating and resolving
some of the most important legal and policy issues that have
been presented to Congress. Sometimes we get in fistfights on
this Committee. It is one of the toughest Committees ever on
Capitol Hill. It is always the fault of the other side, of
course--
[Laughter.]
Chairman Hatch. --but through these tough times, we are
able to do a lot of great work on this Committee thanks to
great Senators on both sides of the dais here.
We are, once again, faced with an important task that will
have a profound impact on our country's security and liberty. I
have every confidence that we are up to that task, and I have
every confidence in every member of this Committee to put our
country first and to do what is best under the circumstances.
Above all, I hope everybody in the Congress and people
throughout this country cooperate with you, as you do this very
almost impossible job to try and keep up with everything that
possibly could occur that can damage our country, our people,
and of course cause a lack of optimism in this country which we
have always had. I, personally, want to thank you for the hard
work that you have done.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears as a
submission for the record.]
I turn now to Senator Leahy.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Leahy. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I like your
analogy of the fistfights. The Chairman, of course, a former
boxer, I am just the punching bag that he works out on every
day. But if I can serve my country that way, I do it willingly.
Chairman Hatch. Well, I am so pleased he is willing to be
that punching bag and serve.
[Laughter.]
Senator Leahy. Well, I have now for a period of time.
I want to thank my friend, Secretary Tom Ridge, for being
here. Actually, I also want to thank you for your willingness
to serve your country in such a difficult position.
We are discussing the state of our homeland security
efforts. I worry that we see the American people uneasy about
their security as they enter the summer traveling season. Part
of the unease may be some of the conflicting signals they are
getting from their Government. Yesterday, we heard from the
Attorney General, who, 2 weeks ago, took to the Nation's
television screens to warn all of us of an impending al Qaeda
attack, but it had the appearance of the unilateralism that we
have come to expect from the Attorney General's Office.
Earlier the same day, Mr. Secretary, you had appeared on
many of those same television screens, and you encouraged
Americans to go out and have some fun this summer. I think the
American people are left to doubt whether they should be
summering in fallout shelter or living their lives the way they
had been accustomed before the September 11 attacks. Certainly,
I would hope that people in my State, your State and all of the
other States could take your advice that you gave to enjoy the
summer. We are a great and good Nation blessed with so much,
and we should be able to enjoy that.
But the doubts that are in the American people's minds
stem, in part, from the administration's failure to follow the
process that Congress mandated in the Homeland Security Act of
2002. Under the act, the Secretary of the Homeland Security
Department is the only person authorized to issue public threat
warnings. And in broadcasting his own independent warnings, of
course, the Attorney General ignored the law of the United
States.
And I agree with the words of Christopher Cox. He is a
well-respected Republican Chairman of the House Select
Committee on Homeland Security. He said, ``In the Homeland
Security Act, DHS was assigned the central coordinating role in
this process. The absence of Secretary Ride from the news
conference held by the Attorney General and the conflicting
public messages their separate public appearances delivered to
the Nation suggests that the broad and close interagency
consultation we expect, and which the law requires, did not
take place in this case. The American public, State and local
law enforcement, Governors and mayors, and private-sector
officials with the responsibility for critical infrastructure
all deserve crystal clarity when it comes to terrorism threat
advisories.'' And I agree with Congressman Cox.
I think the administration's lingering ambivalence about
the Department of Homeland Security seems to be a residual
byproduct even from the way the Department came about. As we
review the administration's failure to hew to the charter of
the Homeland Security Act, we should think about the history of
the Department's founding. We know, of course, that the
President initially opposed the efforts of Democrats--and we
had been joined by some Republicans--when we asked to create a
Department of Homeland Security. He then flipped over on the
issue and embraced the creation of a new agency. Interestingly
enough, timing the hurry-up announcement that he had now
changed his mind and supported to coincide with the oversight
hearing of Coleen Rowley, the FBI agent who accused the
administration of negligence in its reaction to the arrest of
Zacarias Moussaoui the month before the September 11 attacks.
Even the White House admitted the timing was no coincidence.
After the President's conversion, he then barnstormed the
Nation. He campaigned against Democratic Senators like Max
Cleland, who had, right from the outstart, had supported a
Department of Homeland Security, but Senator Cleland wanted one
that would respect the rights of the men and women who are
working to keep our Nation safe.
Well before the Department was established, the White
House, for more than a year, ignored outright--without even a
dialogue or an acknowledgment--the appeals many of us had made
for implementing the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that
authorized help to our partners in homeland security, our State
and local first responders, the people that if something
happens out in Utah or in Texas or in Vermont or anywhere else,
the first people that are going to respond are not going to be
us, here in Washington, it is going to be the first responders.
So I would like to be able to tell Americans that, despite
the conflicting guidance from their leaders and the President's
history of playing politics with homeland security, that their
Government was doing everything possible to keep them safe. We
cannot say that today. There is much left undone in securing
our Nation.
And we have recently learned that a White House budget
memorandum circulated within the administration last month
states that if he is reelected, President Bush intends to cut
spending for homeland security by $1 billion in his next
budget--the first budget he will be able to submit knowing that
he will not have to face the voters again. So, if we have gaps
today, and we go ahead with the administration's plan to cut a
billion dollars, there is going to be greater gaps. Apparently,
this is because of the fiscal consequences of the tax cuts, but
I think that we should worry first not about the wealthiest
Americans, but worry about the safety of all of us.
Now, I would like to share some of my most serious homeland
security concerns, starting with the administration's failure
to provide enough for the first responders. As the costs borne
by law enforcement agencies across the country, in communities
of whatever size, continue to rise, we should increase funding
for our Nation's first responders. Instead, the President has
proposed cutting overall funding for our Nation's first
responders by $800 million. That will affect every State, large
or small.
The Hart-Rudman Report on Domestic Preparedness argued that
the U.S. will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting
critical emergency responder needs over the next 5 years under
the President's budget. Clearly, the domestic preparedness
funds available are insufficient to protect our people.
In fact, a 2003 report by the Council on Foreign Relations
found a number of serious flaws in the preparedness of our
first responders. They found that only 10 percent of the fire
departments in the Nation have the personnel and equipment to
respond to a building collapse. They also wrote that most
cities do not have the necessary equipment even to determine
the kind of hazardous materials they may be responding to.
In February of last year, I introduced S.315, the First
Responders Partnership Grant Act. I have repeatedly asked
Chairman Hatch to mark up this bill. He has declined to do so.
That is his choice as Chairman. But the bill would provide $4
billion annually to support our State and local public safety
officers in the war against terrorism. Grants would be made
directly to State and local Governments and Indian tribes for
equipment, training and facilities. I think it is essential
Federal support that our law enforcement officers, firefighters
and emergency medical services need. I think it is unfortunate
that this Committee will not even consider it. Vote it down if
they want, but at least consider it.
I have raised a number of concerns in my remarks. I do not
mean by doing that, that I am suggesting you have an easy job.
You do not. I told you at the time you got appointed I did not
know whether to offer you congratulations or condolences
because of the difficult job you have.
I am very proud of the fact that you have made yourself so
available to members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
When the calls have gone out, you have not asked whether it was
a Republican or a Democrat. You have answered. I wish the
Attorney General would do the same, but I admire you for doing
that.
I think that the administration should take into
consideration these concerns. The Chairman said all of us up
here, it does not make any difference our party, we want this
Nation, this most wonderful, blessed Nation to be safe. But
simply saying we want it safe does not make it safe. And simply
saying we are safe, does not make it so. It requires really
difficult work, not arbitrarily cutting the budget of our
people who have to keep us secure, but working together.
You, Mr. Secretary, have shown a willingness to do that.
Please bring the message back to the rest of the administration
that you have both Democrats and Republicans who want to work
with whomever is President to keep this country safe.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Schumer. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Hatch. Sir?
Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before we begin, what is the schedule? I have heard that we
are going to end this by the time the vote occurs, and some of
us will not get to ask questions; is that--
Chairman Hatch. No, I intend to try and follow through.
Senator Schumer. We will come back after the vote.
Chairman Hatch. Try to come back. But I know the Secretary
is busy, and we are going to have to end it--
Senator Leahy. If that happens, if we are not able to have
all of the Senators have a chance on both sides to get the
questions they want, could he come back, say, on Tuesday and
continue?
Chairman Hatch. I think we can finish it today.
Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hatch. We will do our best to do so.
Senator Schumer. Thank you.
Chairman Hatch. And I hope, Mr. Secretary, you can give the
time to us. We would appreciate it.
Mr. Secretary, we will be glad to take your statement.
Let me just say, though, if we are going to end it, we will
continue through the early part of the vote. Those who want to
question are going to have to go vote and then come back real
quickly so that we do not waste any time.
Mr. Secretary?
STATEMENT OF TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Secretary Ridge. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly be willing
to accommodate that schedule, even if we have to wait a little
bit to accommodate your colleagues with a Q and A.
Chairman Hatch. We appreciate it.
Secretary Ridge. Mr. Chairman, to you, to Senator Leahy, to
members of the Committee, I certainly do appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our progress
at the Department of Homeland Security and our continued
efforts working with you to help secure our Nation.
As we all know, the tragic attacks of 9/11 required a swift
and drastic change to our understanding of what it actually
means to secure America. The Department of Homeland Security
was envisioned as a means to bring together some of the most
critical homeland security entities in the Federal Government
under one central authority to better coordinate and to better
direct our security efforts.
We knew, from the outset, that our vast scope of protective
measures had to build upon our existing strengths to more
importantly be reconstructed in a way that unified and
facilitated speed, openness and easy access for all of those
involved in the hard work of securing our country every day.
With that in mind, we have worked to build more integrated and
coordinated homeland security, intelligence and law enforcement
communities, communities that connect capabilities and people,
that share information swiftly and effectively and that add
layer upon layer of security to make our Nation safer and more
secure.
Knowledge is both a fundamental principle and instrumental
resource in our efforts to secure our borders and our people.
The Department has made widespread coordination and information
sharing the hallmark of our approach to homeland security.
Presidential initiatives like the USA PATRIOT Act and others
have helped tear down the walls that prevented our policymakers
from having the benefit of intelligence analysis that were
based on all available information.
As we have developed new tools for communication to share
that information, tools that reach horizontally across Federal
departments and agencies, and vertically down to our partners
at the State, local, territorial and tribal levels.
Within Homeland Security, we see communication as a two-way
process. We collect information from the field and listen to
what our partners need from us in order to do their jobs
better. This means heightened awareness, better intelligence,
wiser decisions, and improved coordination at every level of
Government, not just within the Federal Government.
First, we interface with all of the components of the
intelligence community, including the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center, the acronym TTIC, in which Homeland
Security is a full partner in order to synthesize, analyze and
apply information collected from thousands of sources.
Now, let me be clear. The Department of Homeland Security
is not in the traditional intelligence collection business,
although many of our components collect significant amounts of
information. We are definitely in the analysis and application
business of that information. It is our job to turn the
information into action and implementation. That happens
primarily under the umbrella of the Homeland Security Advisory
System.
This communication tool includes not only the color-coded
threat condition, as well as several projects such as the
information bulletins and threat advisories that allow the
Department to tailor specific information for specific
recipients within the States and local communities, as well as
the private sector.
This communications process represents the first-ever
centralized, integrated effort of its kind in the Federal
Government and a vast improvement from the fragmented system
that existed before. It not only outlines threats, but also
recommends specific steps that can be taken to heighten
readiness or improve physical protections. So this is much more
than simply the dissemination of information. This is about
achieving the right security outcome, supplying the necessary
information and recommendations to decisionmakers on the ground
who could then take appropriate action to protect the citizens
of their respective communities.
To accomplish this, we have created several new two-way
channels of communication, including our National
Infrastructure Coordination Center, created strictly to reach
out and to have daily contact with the private sector, and the
Homeland Security Information Network, created for use by
Government entities.
The National Infrastructure Coordination Center provides a
centralized mechanism for the private sector, industry
representatives, individual companies, and the Information
Sharing and Analysis Centers--or ISACs--to share and receive
situational information about a threat, an event or a crisis.
The Homeland Security Information Network is a real-time
collaboration system that allows multiple jurisdictions,
disciplines and emergency operation centers to receive and
share the same intelligence and tactical information so that
those who need to act on the information had the same overall
situational awareness.
This year, we are expanding this information network to
include senior decisionmakers such as Governors, statewide
homeland security advisers and emergency operation centers in
all 50 States, territories, Tribal Governments and major urban
areas. And by the end of the summer, we will achieve real-time,
nationwide connectivity, more information, more integration,
better coordination.
Both of these important communication networks support the
Homeland Security Operation Center, a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-
week nerve center that enables the Department to monitor
activity across the country. This combination of new abilities
in information sharing and improved two-way communication has
given the Department capabilities that the Federal Government
never had before.
Most importantly, it means we have improved our efforts
significantly to prevent terrorist attacks and protect
Americans. We have emerged from a very static security
environment into a dynamic, real-time, action-oriented system
of layered protections of air, land and sea and constant two-
way communication with our partners at the State and local
Government level, as well as within the private sector.
Of course, we build layers of security designed to keep
terrorists out. We must not forsake our National character as a
country that is both open and welcoming to citizens of all
lands. I know this is an issue of particular importance to this
Committee, as it should be, and not just to members of the
Committee, as it should be to all Americans.
Our homeland security policies have been designed to keep
our borders closed to terrorists, but open to legitimate, law-
abiding visitors. And programs such as U.S. Visit and One Face
at the Border are helping us do just that.
And while stopping a terrorist at our border is a critical
accomplishment, we want and need to go even further. We want to
stop them before they ever board a plane or a ship destined for
the United States. So we are hard at work with other Nations to
strengthen visa processes and policies at consular offices
abroad, yet we want to do so in a way that does not place an
unfair burden on our allies or inhibit legitimate trade, travel
and commerce.
An example of this is the Visa Waiver Program which allows
citizens of participating ally countries to travel to the
United States for business or tourism for 90 days or less
without obtaining a visa. To strengthen the security of this
program, participating countries are now required to issue
machine-readable passports that incorporate biometric
identifiers. While this will add an important layer of
security, we have learned that the deadline originally set for
October of this year will be difficult, if not impossible, for
many of these Nations to meet. I must say it is not because of
a lack of will, but due to the difficult technical issues of
putting such a system in place and, frankly, a lack right now
of a consensus around the technical requirements around having
a machine-readable passport with the biometric enablers within
it.
Secretary Powell and I support a 2-year extension of the
deadline to not only give us time to work out the technological
issues, but also to ensure that the systems we build is one
that is interoperable for all countries.
And I might add, Mr. Chairman, you noted that as of the end
of September this year, even the visa waiver country entrants,
because we are hoping to get this deadline, but will be part of
the US-VISIT program, so they will leave a digital photograph,
as well as the finger scans, with us so we can have a record of
their entry while we are trying to work out the technical
differences among the countries.
By working with our allies and assisting them with time and
resources to get this program up and running, we not only can
make our Nation safer, but we can also protect the vital flow,
the critical flow of travelers to and from our shores. It is
this kind of commitment to cooperation and partnership that has
led our homeland security efforts from the start.
By working with communities, citizens, business leaders,
State and local Government officials, first responders, members
of Congress, we have forged a course of protection defined by
the integration of our efforts. Everyone pledged to freedom's
cause, everyone freedom's protector because everyone is
freedom's beneficiary. And as we move forward to secure our
land for future generations, we must do so with constant
vigilance against our enemies, continued commitment to each
other and then unwavering support for the protection of our
liberties and the preservation of our freedoms.
I thank the Chairman, the Ranking Member, for the
opportunity to testify and appear before you today.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Ridge appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Let me just ask you this question. We all know that one of
your primary responsibilities is gathering threat information
and communicating with the public your assessment of the threat
level. Now, you performed, I believe you performed this task
incredibly well during this past December's holiday season.
And as you know, several weeks ago, the Department of
Justice informed the public about an escalation in the chatter
among al Qaeda terrorist and the possibility of a summer
attack. You and your Department were criticized for not
appearing with the Attorney General--unfairly, in my opinion--
and for not raising the threat level.
So I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to
both of those criticisms.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I hope everyone understands that the Attorney
General, the FBI Director and I are literally on the same page
with regard to sharing of information. We see the same
intelligence. We meet daily, and then our organizations, along
with the balance of the intelligence community, meet by secure
video twice a day. And General Ashcroft and I had a lengthy
conversation the other day, understanding that there was some
confusion that arose between my public comments in the morning
and his statement in the afternoon.
Let me make it very, very clear that we understand we
created some confusion and that we have pledged ourselves to
make sure that the language we use describing whatever
information we are sharing with the public, we are going to do
a lot better job coordinating that effort.
It is very important to note, however, that as the two
chief law enforcement agents within this country, as the
Department of Homeland Security is in the business and given
the responsibility of coordinating an administration-wide
effort to secure America, that there will be many, many
occasions when the Attorney General and the FBI Director will
talk to America about the specific law enforcement measures
that are being taken as part of a nationwide administration
effort. I do not think there should be anything read into the
fact that I appear or did not appear with my colleagues. We
admit that there was some confusion that arose from that, but
we pledge to make sure that it does not happen again.
Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you. As you know, the
administration has asked Congress to extend the October 26th
deadline for biometric passports, and you have raised that in
your opening remarks. We are dealing with cutting-edge
technology here, and the fact is that neither the visa waiver
countries nor the United States can comply with these current
deadlines.
Now, Secretary Powell has also asked the Committee to
extend this deadline and has called me personally about it, but
time is running out. We can, and must, turn these visionary
scientific breakthroughs into a reality.
Now, Secretary Ridge, what might be the national security
implications of extending the deadline?
Secretary Ridge. Well, first of all, I think, in the long
term, the national security implications are substantive in the
sense that if we can reach a technical agreement within the
next year and then get the compliance--there certainly is a
will there. The problem right now is technological not a matter
of commitment--then it will have very long-term and very
positive implications for homeland security. Our ability to be
able to use biometrics to identify those who enter the United
States, confirm both their identity, as well as validate their
passport, is extremely helpful to us.
As you well know, Senator, Congress, well over 10 years
ago, had asked the Executive Branch to establish an entry/exit
system. It was not until the Department of Homeland Security
was created, and then within the Department the decision made
was to not only create an entry/exit system, but also to
include biometrics. That is the technology of the 21st century
that will significantly enhance security. So it is our hope
that Congress will give us sufficient time--our request is for
2 years--so that these countries we can all work out to our
mutual satisfaction the technical requirements. But while we
are doing that, we plan on, and we have told these 27 countries
who benefit from the Visa Waiver Program, that their citizens
will still be subject to the US-VISIT identification, verifying
their entrance and, as we work on the exit model, verifying
their exit as well.
So I think it is a very positive step. If we extend it so
we can reach agreement on the technical requirements and, in
the meantime, we will have them participate in the US-VISIT
program, so we will have of a biometric identification of their
entry.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you. I reserve the balance of my time
and turn to Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You did not want to
use your remaining 50 seconds?
Senator Grassley. Do not encourage him.
[Laughter.]
Senator Leahy. Mr. Secretary, just parenthetically, when
Secretary Powell called me about extending the biometric, and
we probably will, I recalled some urgency in getting that bill
signed in the first place. I wish that some of the thoughts had
been raised I suggested to him at that time. But I also
understand the technology, and it is very complex--digital
photographs and digital fingerprints, and you want to get it
right so you do not have a lot of people turned back.
We had 100-percent certainty from the Department of Justice
that they had the digital fingerprint of a man out on the West
Coast, supposedly involved with the bombing in Madrid, and they
seized all of his property, his computers, and totally
disrupted his life, locked him up and all, and then after a
while said, ``Whoops, now we are 100-percent certain we have
the wrong fingerprint.'' I do not think we want to, in this
beckoning country, to have that sort of thing going on.
Incidently, the impression may have been given that you
were criticized about the warning given a couple of weeks ago.
You were not the one criticized here by Republicans, and
Democrats and the media, it was the Attorney General who was
criticized for stepping outside--I just want to make that
clear--the criticism was not made of you, it was made of the
Attorney General for stepping outside the rules of the homeland
security law, which gives you exclusive authority to issue
threat warnings to the public.
Do you believe, today, that it constitutes a threat warning
to state that, ``Credible intelligence from multiple sources
indicates al Qaeda plans to attempt an attack on the United
States in the next few months,'' as the Attorney General said
in May?
Secretary Ridge. I think not only has the Attorney General
said that, I have said it, other members of the administration
have said that there are reports from credible sources, the
talk of the intent, whether it is in response to what they
perceive to be the influence on the outcomes of the elections
in Madrid or not remains to be seen, but there are reports from
credible sources that indicate that that is a desire or an
intent. There is no--
Senator Leahy. Do you feel it was a high enough level to go
from what you said in the morning about enjoying our summer
to--
Secretary Ridge. No, I do not. I do not. I mean, we are at
an elevated level of risk. The threat is fairly substantial.
But our job every day within the Department, Senator, there is
the normal pace of operations, and you will understand because
that is a requirement the Congress gave to the Department, we
do not need to raise the threat level to continue to improve
security and enhance protection around the country, and that is
what we are doing every single day.
If the intelligence dictates, and there is a consensus
within the President's Homeland Security Council that we would
raise the threat level, then obviously that is a recommendation
we would make to the President, and if he agreed, then I would
be the one to announce it. But the Attorney General and I had a
good conversation about what transpired and admit the confusion
that arose.
But substantively, his piece, his discussion of the be on
the lookout and the photographs, as well as the task force that
he was putting together, again, was part of an
administrationwide effort that we would be doing, and are
doing, regardless of raising the threat level.
Senator Leahy. So you would agree with Congressman Cox that
the broad and close consultation that the Act requires did not
take place in this instance.
Secretary Ridge. In this particular instance, again, the
consultation on the substance occurred. I knew very well that
the Attorney General was going to talk about the BOLOs. We have
been working with the Attorney General's office and the FBI
about the task force. Again, it is part of the administration-
wide effort. But we also decided that not only do we worry
about sharing information on the substance, but the tone that
need to be projected. We need to make sure that we do a better
job with our language, both of us.
Senator Leahy. I am not trying to play ``gotcha'' here, but
the American people have a great deal of--they give you a great
deal of credibility, as I believe they should. And we cannot
live in constant fear every day. This Nation, just as most of
Europe and a lot of the Asian nations have for decades, we will
face terrorist threats probably for the rest of your life and
my life, if not from these people, from others.
Secretary Ridge. Correct.
Senator Leahy. We are the most powerful Nation on Earth,
and we are not having to face, thank God, the threat of armies
or air forces or navies coming against us because we are too
powerful for that. But there are always going to be those who
are going to resent us, for whatever reason, theocratic,
political, or anything else, who will come after us. So there
will always be a threat.
But I would hate to think that in this great and good
country that we are always running, cowering from that. I think
we rely on people like you to follow those threats, do
everything possible to protect us, wherever they come from.
But, you know, we sometimes use too loosely this ``we are at
war.'' I was just in Normandy over the weekend with the
President and others. That was a war. This is a threat that we
will always face, and we will do our best to stop it. But it is
a lot different than the war we were at during that time when
all of Western civilization as we know it could have
disappeared.
Last weekend, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld spoke in Asia
about the war on terrorism. The Associated Press reported that
he said that the troubling unknown was whether the extremists,
whom he termed zealots and despots bent on destroying the
global system of nation states, are turning out newly trained
terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill
them. He said, ``It is quite clear to me that we do not have a
coherent approach to this.'' These concerns are similar to what
he had said in his earlier, well-publicized memo in the war on
terror.
Do you agree, one, that the revelations of torture and
abuse are providing strong motivation for terrorist recruiters?
And have you seen any evidence during the 15 months you have
held your current posts that the number of terrorists seeking
to harm the United States has declined?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I am not sure anyone around the
world can actually put a firm figure on the number of
terrorists that have been generated, not just in the past year
or two but over the past 10 or 15 or 20 years, as extremist
schools have been funded around the world and there has been a
concerted effort within that extremist jihadist community to
attract terrorists. I would like to think that we have made it
certainly more difficult for them to operate with the
destruction of much of their leadership core, at least al Qaeda
and the difficulty we have created for them in terms of access
to money and communication. But I don't think we should kid
ourselves that--at the very least, I think it is better to
think of it in terms of a more permanent condition that you
have talked about. We are going to be dealing with this threat,
whether it is bin Laden and al Qaeda or a successor to bin
Laden and successive organizations to al Qaeda, for the
foreseeable future. In my judgment, that is years and decades.
Secondly, I think it defies common sense to suggest that
these extremists wouldn't use the unfortunate events around the
treatment of the prisoners to try to improve their recruitment.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I will submit
my other questions for the record, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you, Senator Leahy.
Senator Grassley?
Senator Grassley. Mr. Secretary, the first point I want to
make you can't know anything about, but I would like to call it
to your attention and have you see if we could get answers to
some letters by the end of the week: a March 4th letter,
questions to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
regarding money laundering; February the 12th, question to
Under Secretary Hutchinson regarding your Department's handling
of illegal border crossings other than Mexicans, OTMs; and July
23, 2003, questions regarding whether the Department has
followed recommendations from internal reports about border
security issues, including letting a suspected terrorist under
investigation become a citizen. I would appreciate answers to
those letters.
Now, my first question to you: money laundering and
terrorist financing. Yesterday I asked the Attorney General
what role the Department of Justice plays in identifying and
confronting the vulnerabilities in our financial system that
terrorists and money launderers use to finance their
operations. What role do you believe the Department of Homeland
Security should play in identifying these vulnerabilities? And,
two, who should be responsible for coordinating our
Government's response to these vulnerabilities? And how is this
responsibility being executed?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, the overall coordination
responsibility rests with Justice and the FBI by specific
direction of the President. The GAO commented just a couple of
weeks ago on the integration of the efforts between the
Department of Homeland Security and the FBI as it relates to
terrorist financing.
As you now, we inherited that traditional responsibility in
our Department that used to reside in Treasury to go in and
explore financial vulnerabilities within the financial services
community. Oftentimes, the exploration of those potential
vulnerabilities, if you follow the chain of evidence, led to
the possibility that the vulnerability was being exploited by a
terrorist organization.
To make sure that we would harmonize our approach and to
ensure that the FBI would have overall coordinating
responsibility, we entered into a memorandum of understanding
with the Department of Justice and the FBI nearly a year ago,
and the GAO took a look at the relationship since that time and
concluded that it is working very effectively. And I think that
is a feeling that is shared by both and within both
Departments.
The lead responsibility for coordinating is the FBI.
Oftentimes, our investigations, based on traditional
responsibilities to examine vulnerabilities within the
financial institutions, leads us into a potential terrorist
financing investigation. We coordinate with the FBI, give them
information. Oftentimes, we continue that investigation,
sometimes with their support, sometimes without it. But it is
all coordinated through the memorandum of understanding, and it
is working quite well.
Senator Grassley. Okay. Information sharing, I hear
complaints--I suppose I should say continue to hear complaints
from local law enforcement that criminal intelligence does not
flow to them from the Federal level. I know that both your
Department and Justice are attempting to address the problem.
However, I am concerned that various strategies compete rather
than cooperate with each other.
Three questions: Which agency is the lead for sharing
information with State and local law enforcement? How do your
Department's and Justice's strategies fit within the national
criminal information-sharing plan? And how does the Department
of Homeland Security's strategy work with the regional
information-sharing system?
Secretary Ridge. The FBI historically, through the Joint
Terrorism Task Forces, has had an infrastructure that dealt
with the police and law enforcement community of not only the
major metropolitan areas, but generally to the States and to
the local police chiefs through that system. We have a
compatible system that we have developed because of our need
to--and more often than not, we coordinate our message with the
FBI, to establish a linkage with State and local law
enforcement as well.
I would say in response to your question that there are
times when, depending on the kind of information we are
sharing, the primary responsibility may fall either to the FBI
or to us. Generally, we work very hard to coordinate those
messages so when they are going down either through the FBI's
chain or through ours, we have basically signed off and feel it
is necessary to send the same message. We don't want to be
inconsistent, again, in delivering the message to the State and
local governments.
I would tell you that we are developing through the
Homeland Security Information Network the ability to connect
via the Internet by the end of July real-time Internet-based
exchange of information with our Homeland Security Operation
Centers for the 50 largest urban centers in this country.
During the December time frame, when we went up and raised the
threat level, we actually had that kind of connectivity with
Los Angeles and New York City. We will have it with the 50
major areas by the end of July, and we will have secure
channels to pass that information by the end of the year.
So the objective is to coordinate information, which we do
on a regular basis. There are times when we will send out
independent pieces of information, depending on the kind of
information we are trying to share; some may be far more law
enforcement-intense than what we might otherwise send out. We
send out bulletins and advisories to State and locals all the
time. We coordinate it with the FBI. And, again, we took a look
at this Internet-based system, which was the Joint Regional
Information Exchange System--JRIES was the acronym. It was
actually something they were doing in California and New York--
and said this is a system that ought to be national, it ought
to be hooked up to our Operations Center, and we are going to
use it to stay in touch with the Governors, the homeland
security advisers, the Operations Centers, and the chiefs in
the law enforcement community in the 50 largest centers, and we
will build out from there. But that is the goal, and that will
be the information exchange system that we use within the
Department.
Senator Grassley. I have two questions I will submit for
answers in writing.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Senator.
We will turn to Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. A little more than
a month ago, I wrote to you about potential security breaches
at General Mitchell Airport in Milwaukee. An investigation by a
local news reporter indicated problems, including the fact that
passengers are able to easily identify Federal air marshals. In
Milwaukee, the marshals were, or perhaps still are, required to
show their badges and register for duty in full view of the
general public.
I was troubled by this security gap, and I met with Thomas
Quinn, who, as you know, is Director of the Federal Air
Marshals Service. I commend Director Quinn for quickly meeting
with me, and through his cooperation I believe there have been
some improvements. But, to your knowledge, has the situation
been resolved in Milwaukee? And on the national scale, what
more can we do to make the check-in process for the marshals
more discreet, that is, a process whereby an air marshal does
not have to report to duty in front of the very people that he
is supposed to be protecting?
Secretary Ridge. First of all, Senator, thank you for the
graceful way you pointed it out to us by the letter and the
discussion you had with Director Quinn. It is pretty clear that
that is not in anybody's interest that we identify for all
potential passengers who the Federal air marshals are.
I am afraid that the condition that you reported in
Milwaukee was not unique to other airports. We do a better job
some places than others, and it is leading to a full-scale
review of how we can effect the--nationwide, how we can effect
the entrance of the Federal air marshals on to these aircraft.
We don't want to do it in a fashion that indicates who they are
and what their purpose for securing a seat on the flight is. So
it is something that we are grateful you brought to our
attention. We are doing a better job in some airports than
others, but we are looking at a systemwide change. And as we
effect those changes, we would be pleased to report to you,
either publicly or privately.
Senator Kohl. I appreciate your interest. Director Quinn
said it was his number one priority. And usually when somebody
of his stature and influence to be able to move the system
indicates a number one priority, there is some reason to
believe that there will be some action and on a fairly quick--
Secretary Ridge. It is. And it has become--
Senator Kohl. He, in fact, said that with respect to
Milwaukee, he would give it particular attention. And I do not
believe the problem has yet been rectified. And while I am not
trying to make this, you know, into a huge, huge issue that
needs to be taken care of this morning, I would like to ask
whether or not I could hope to see Director Quinn give that
airport and other airports, which, as you point out, are
equally important, his attention.
As you said, it doesn't make any sense to have Federal air
marshals known to the public. It defeats in a large way the
purpose, doesn't it?
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir, it does. And, again, to your
point, it has become his number one priority as it relates to
the FAMS and, therefore, as it relates to the FAMS, our number
one priority in the Department. And based on his conversation
with you and an assessment of some of the procedures at other
airports, we have clearly determined that we need to make some
significant improvements in that whole process. And we will be
pleased to report you what we intend on doing and then give you
a schedule as to when it will be done.
Senator Kohl. I do appreciate.
Secretary Ridge. Yes, sir.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you.
We will turn to Senator Cornyn next.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ridge, my questions relate to the US-VISIT
program and implementation, but first I want to refer to the
letter that you and the Secretary of State wrote with regard to
the need to extend the deadline for the implementation of the
biometric passports under the visa waiver program.
You make some persuasive points in the letter, one of which
I want to highlight, though. In addition to the security
concerns, which are paramount, there is a concern that the need
to acquire individual visas might suppress demand for travel to
the United States with tremendous economic consequences in the
country. The last sentence said ``possibly resulting in multi-
billion-dollar losses to our economy and reducing employment in
one of our economy's most dynamic sectors.''
My question with regard to the US-VISIT program is the
implementation of that program along our Southern borders. And,
of course, in Texas, as you know, we have about a 1,200-mile
border with Mexico. I am sure that Senator Feinstein and
Senator Kyl perhaps have similar concerns to make sure that not
only that our border security is established, which, again, is
our paramount concern--and I know yours as well--but that it be
done in a way that does not adversely impact the economy in
South Texas, for example, along the border, which are
traditionally some of the poorer counties in parts of our
State.
Since the advent of NAFTA about 10 years ago, fortunately,
we have seen huge economic growth in South Texas. But out of
all of the entries into the United States--I believe INS
inspects more than half a billion entries into the U.S. each
year, but about 80 percent of those, as you no doubt know, are
at land borders, and about 800,000 alone occur between the
United States and Mexico.
I must tell you that I have been struck by the differences
in comprehension of life along our U.S.-Mexican border, between
that area which I know so well and Washington, D.C., because I
think we tend to think in global, sort of broad-brush terms.
But, specifically, what I would like to ask for your help on--
and your staff has been very attentive to these concerns, but I
just want to make the point with the boss. There is a
tremendous concern about the use of the laser visa, which,
ironically, does provide the kind of biometric identifier that
US-VISIT hopes to ultimately accomplish for all entries, but
with limitations on the time that non-immigrant visa holders,
these laser visa holders, can come into the United States to
shop and conduct business, which provides a tremendous economic
benefit to the border region of the United States, including
South Texas.
So I would like to ask for your continued attention and
cooperation and just raise this matter to your attention
because it is a profound important issue to my State, and
particularly the South Texas border region. And it corresponds
precisely with the concerns that you and Secretary Powell
raised in your letter with regard to the implementation of the
visa waiver program.
If you have any comments on that, I would appreciate it.
Secretary Ridge. I do, Senator. Thank you. I can recall
giving very specific directions within a couple of weeks after
I came to Washington to initially serve as the Assistant to the
President for Homeland Security, when he related the facts
associated with making security paramount as of September 11,
2001, at both our Canadian and Mexican borders. We made it
paramount, and we basically shut down travel and commerce. We
had traffic backed up for literally miles and delays that
sometimes went almost as long as a day, if not longer.
So it is pretty clear that along our land borders we have
to layer in different means of identifying the people and the
products that come across to make sure that they are legitimate
and lawful and that the people coming across are law-abiding.
And we began that in the Smart Border Accord where we have
identified--pre-screened certain people, pedestrian traffic,
people coming across in commercial traffic, pre-screened
shipping companies and the truck drivers that bring that
traffic across, looking at various kinds of technology to
really apply to the border, again, as part of the layered
effort to provide security so we can move literally hundreds of
thousand of people across the border back and forth every day.
One of the other things we are looking at is to extend the
time and the distance that people with the laser visa can
travel, which, again, is part of our effort to--we can
legitimize they are coming over for legitimate purposes, but if
we make them go back and forth every single day when, in fact,
they plan on staying for two or three or 4 days, whatever it
may be, it will reduce the pressure on the border.
So we want to layer in different levels of security at the
border, and we will continue to work with you and your
colleagues on the Southern border, but as well the colleagues
on the Northern border, to effect the outcomes that we want,
and that is a successful US-VISIT system by the end of this
year at the land borders, at the 50 largest land borders in
America.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, sir.
Secretary Ridge. You are welcome.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Feinstein?
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. And welcome,
Governor Ridge.
I wanted to spend my time discussing the visa waiver
program because I have carefully read the May 13th report of
the Office of Inspector General, and you have got a program
that is very sloppy and is in great disarray. It involves 27
countries and 13 million people in 2003 that came into this
country without a visa.
We know that this program has been used by terrorists.
Specifically, Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, used a British
passport; Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 World Trade Center bomber,
used a British passport; Mr. Moussaoui used a French passport
under the visa waiver program; and Ahmed Ajaj used a Swedish
passport. And this report details many others as well. So it is
a point of maximum exposure for terrorist intrusion. The
management is sloppy, and it goes on and on and on from there.
I wrote you a letter last month, and I referred you to a
specific FBI classified memo involving the thefts of large
numbers of travel documents relating to this program. Now, the
only reason for the theft of large numbers, well in the
thousands, of these documents is really to sell them to people
who want to fraudulently use them.
The report points out that even when they find a fraudulent
passport, the passport is returned to the individual because
the individual has to return to their country. So that
fraudulent passport is still out there.
I was part of this Committee when we considered the
timeline for the biometric passports, and we carefully
considered it, and it has already been extended, as you know, a
year.
Secretary Ridge. Correct.
Senator Feinstein. And now the October date is coming up,
so the proposal is extended another 2 years. I am one that
won't vote for that extension of 2 years because I believe this
is an enormous security risk for our country.
If the management problems can't be remedied, I am one that
believes we should declare a moratorium on the program. And I
know this has raised the ire of the business community, and the
concern. But if you measure concern to concern, the concern
about terrorist intrusion, which we know this program has been
used exactly for that, is much greater, in my view, than the
concern about loss of business because somebody has to get an
actual visa to come to this country.
We know the problem in US-VISIT. They are documented here.
So my question of you specifically on the concerns in this May
11th OIG report is: How much of it has been remedied? How can
you assure this Committee that this program cannot be used as
an entry program for terrorists?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, first of all, I think it is
important to note as just a matter of public record that the
visa waiver program is not a creation of the Department of
Homeland Security. We are obliged under an Act of Congress to
allow these citizens from the 27 countries in without a visa.
So if there is going to be any change in the visa waiver
program, it would probably require an Act of Congress to do so
since Congress set it up.
The concerns you raise, notwithstanding the origin of the
program, are legitimate and very much I believe the reason that
this Committee and I think Congress generally supported the
requirement that citizens from visa waiver countries on a
particular date start appearing at our borders with machine-
readable passports with biometric enablers within it.
I would share with you, Senator, that I do not believe that
there is anything other than agreement that is growing, I think
even internationally, that using biometrics to protect not just
our borders but borders of other countries is something that
the international community has begun to embrace holistically.
It is interesting, the nature of the conversations that
have occurred, and I have seen the evolution over the past 12
to 18 months. The Attorney General and I just concluded a
couple of days with our colleagues from the G-8 countries. I
just had a luncheon with 25 Ambassadors from the European
Union. Everyone is focused now not just on America's borders
but the use of biometrics to secure their borders as well.
So I would say to you that, one, we will get compliance,
and we are hoping to get the extension, and we will push very,
very hard to get the compliance and an agreement around the
technical solutions. Two, in our discussions with the EU and
the G-8, this notion of fraudulent passports and stolen
passports was a critical part of that discussion, and we are
working with them to use your poll as a central repository of
information about stolen passports and trying to work within
their law enforcement communities as well so that we get
immediate notice of any of these lost passports.
And as you know, one of the requirements for a country to
continue to be on the visa waiver list is that they report to
us as quickly as possible lost or stolen passports. And we are
going through that whole process now.
Senator Feinstein. Let me just respectfully interrupt you
there.
Secretary Ridge. Sure.
Senator Feinstein. This report points out that even when
they report to you the serial numbers of the stolen passports,
you can't pick them up unless it is done manually. And I think
that is the soft underbelly.
Secretary Ridge. Well, again, as we develop the technology
at our ports of entry, I would tell you, Senator, I believe we
are transferring--we are beginning to transfer that information
via technology. But we have turned away people at the borders
who appeared with a stolen European passport. We do get that
information.
Senator Feinstein. Why don't you confiscate the passport?
Why do you give them back the fraudulent passport?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I am not--on that specific
matter, I am going to be discussing that and some other things
with my IG this afternoon, and I am not sure that is the case
across the board. But I am going to--
Senator Feinstein. It is according to this.
Secretary Ridge. I understand, and that is why I wanted to
discuss that issue with the Inspector General to make sure that
if that is--if that is not an aberration, that that is policy,
then we change the policy.
Senator Feinstein. Page 25 of the report.
Secretary Ridge. I understand. We read it.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Secretary Ridge. He and I are going to have a conversation
this afternoon.
Chairman Hatch. Senator, your time is up.
Let me just say this: This is a very significant and
important day. They have asked that we all be in our seats to
vote from our seats on this resolution. The vote is to begin at
11:30, so what I would suggest is that we head over to the
floor. As soon as that vote is over, we will come right back. I
apologize for this interruption, but it is an important one.
And I think by the time we go through one more, some of us
would be late to get to the floor.
Secretary Ridge. I understand, Senator.
Chairman Hatch. And I think we need to show that kind of
respect at this particular time. So, with that, we will recess
until we can return from the floor, which I hope will be, you
know, within a half-hour.
Senator Specter. Mr. Chairman, before we break, may I just
say a word of welcome to Secretary Ridge, distinguished former
Governor of Pennsylvania, now distinguished Secretary of
Homeland Security. Nice to see you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Ridge. Good to see you again. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Hatch. For that we apologize to you, Mr.
Secretary.
Secretary Ridge. I understand, Senator. Been there, done
that.
Chairman Hatch. If you would like to come over with us, we
would--
Secretary Ridge. I have been on the other side. Not a
problem.
Chairman Hatch. We will recess until we can get back.
[Recess from 11:05 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.]
Chairman Hatch. Mr. Secretary, I am sure you have enjoyed
this interlude. I apologize to you. I never thought it would
take 40 minutes, but we are grateful for your patience, and we
appreciate your being here. And we are going to try and go
through this as quickly as we can.
So Senator Kyl will be next, and then we will go to Senator
Feingold.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, and please convey to all of the folks with whom you
work how appreciative we are of the work that they do to help
provide security for this country.
I would like to return to a subject that Senator Feinstein
raised, and others have raised, and it has to do with the Visa
Waiver Program. And just to remind folks, if they need
reminding, how important this program is. While we work
cooperatively now with I believe 27 different countries to
ensure that their citizens can gain fairly easy access to this
country without obtaining a waiver, there are security issues
with that as well. People like Zacarias Moussaoui, Richard
Reid, the shoe bomber, Ahmed Ajaj, one of the 1993 World Trade
Center bombing organizers, these are the kind of people who
came into this country under this Visa Waiver Program. So it is
an important program for commercial and other purposes, and yet
there are terrorist concerns about it.
One of the things that we asked is that a biometric
identifier be created--we did not ask, we legislated--that a
biometric identifier on the passports of these people be put
into place so that we could ensure that security would be
maintained notwithstanding the fairly lax standard with respect
to these 27 countries.
The State Department and your department, have asked for a
2-year delay in the implementation of that program because of
the inability of the other countries to come together on a
standard that we agree with and to implement that standard, as
I understand it.
Tentatively, we have a hearing scheduled for next Tuesday,
the 15th, in the afternoon. We would like to hear from somebody
from the State Department and from Homeland Security to talk to
us about precisely how it is that we are going to get our other
countries, the 27 countries here, to succeed within that time
frame in meeting our objectives--in other words, not to simply
say we need an extension, but to come up with a plan on how we
are going to succeed in getting the job done by the end of that
period of time, if not before. So I will be interested in
hearing from the State Department and from your folks about how
we can ensure that we can get the job done and not simply have
another delay.
Now, you have done a lot of things in response to this IG
report, and I want to complement you for that. I know one
thing, and you commented on, it was the US-VISIT program. I
have two basic questions, and let me just ask them and then you
can take the rest of the time to respond.
It is well and good that the VISIT program will be applying
in this interim period of time, but of course the question is
whether it will also apply after. And that is what I understand
the law requires; in other words, that both the entry and the
exit aspects of US-VISIT will apply, even after the Biometric
Identification Passport Program is completed. I assume that is
the case. We would like to get confirmation of that.
Second, there were some other things in the IG report that
raise questions about compliance with law. For example, one of
the legal requirements is that there be a biennial review to
evaluate each country and whether or not they should be
maintained on the list and, as a matter of fact, a couple of
countries have been dropped as a result of the review.
And in the case of Belgium, they have been put on
provisional status. But that requirement under law is not being
routinely carried out, and we need to know whether the
Department will be able to comply with the legal requirement
that every 2 years the effects of the Visa Waiver Program are
evaluated with respect to each country, specifically as to law
enforcement and security interests.
I note, in that regard, for example, that some of the
countries like Belgium, and Sweden and Denmark have very
liberal naturalization laws, which the Inspector General noted
allows third-country nationals to obtain citizenship in as
little as 3 years. Other countries like Ireland and Italy
allowed derivative citizenship. And so there are good reasons
for evaluating whether, in each case, we want to continue the
Visa Waiver Program for these particular countries.
And then just a final point. According to the Inspector
General report, there is no DHS department with clear
responsibility for the Visa Waiver Program. I do not know that
to be the case. If it is, obviously, you are going to be
correcting it. If that is not correct, then I would like for
you to tell us.
So, if you could respond generally to what I have said and
then the specific questions, I would appreciate it very much.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator, very much. I am glad
we have an opportunity to come back to the question that the
Senator from California raised because it is an important
question, and we do deal with millions and millions of visitors
from visa waiver countries. So I am glad to continue to explore
not only the IG's report, but what we are doing about it,
particularly since we are the ones that requested an extension.
First of all, it is my belief that the US-VISIT system has
been refined to a point where it is not inconvenient at all. It
is very much accepted by people coming across our borders. And
even when the countries comply with our requirement for a
machine-readable, biometrically enabled passport, I see no
reason why we would not want to just continue to have them
comply with the entry/exit system. I mean, I just think it
makes a lot of sense. Congress mandated that we come up with an
entry/exit system, and I do not think, in light of 9/11, that
you are going to draw an exception for anybody. And I think it
is easily done. I think it is easily done.
Secondly, as you know, Senator, the legislation that
created the Visa Waiver Program initially said we ought to
conduct a review of the status of these visa waiver countries
every 5 years. The initial legislation was in 2000. In 2002,
Congress said, under the circumstances, every 2 years--very
appropriate. I do not know the Inspector General's reference to
his data point, but that is a process of review that we are
presently conducting and have been conducting or began
conducting before the date of his report. But notwithstanding
that, we will have those reviews of those countries completed
by I believe September 30th of this year.
To the point you made with regard to the unique qualities
associated with the policies of 4 or 5 countries--I think you
mentioned Belgium, Ireland, places like that--that is something
over which we have no legislative or regulatory authority to
include in our assessment as to whether or not these countries
should have visa waiver status.
Congress has been very prescriptive. They said you need to
look at these five or six different things, and based on these
particular components of your report, then you need to make a
decision as to whether or not they are eligible to remain on
the visa waiver list. I do not need to remind my colleagues,
but the Visa Waiver Program is basically administered by the
Department of State. Our responsibility within the Department
of Homeland Security is the biennial review.
And Senator Feinstein made an interesting point. I went
back to check it--actually, I was glad to have the break--with
regard to getting the passport, discovering that it is
fraudulent, and then handing the passport back to the visitor.
As I understand it, first of all, we did not set that
requirement, and it is done on a case-by-case basis because
some of the countries will not let the offending citizens, the
person that tried to get into our country with a fraudulent
passport, back into their country unless they have the passport
with them.
Now, the State Department has seen that as a vulnerability
and has identified and going back on a country-by-country basis
and saying, look, I suspect they are saying it is a fraudulent
passport. We want you to let your citizen back, but we do not
want to put the fraudulent passport back into circulation. So
at least I had a little opportunity to find that information
and share it with you.
And then, finally, Senator, Secretary Hutchinson, who is
the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security,
really has been overseeing the visa waiver requirements that
the legislation has imposed on us in a very, very aggressive
way, and I would be happy to send you--we have taken a look at
the recommendations. Some of the data points we do not think
were particularly accurate.
But notwithstanding that, there are things that need to be
changed. There are things that we need to do. We are doing
them, and it will take a lot longer than 6 minutes to respond
to your question, but I would be happy to send back to you and
members of the Committee an answer in writing--a recommendation
of what we are doing. I think you will be satisfied that we
took the report seriously and are taking action on it.
Chairman Hatch. That would be great.
Senator Kyl. Appreciate that very much. Thank you.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Senator. We would appreciate
having that information.
Senator Feingold?
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ridge, good morning.
Secretary Ridge. Good morning.
Senator Feingold. Thank you for coming back and spending
all of this time here.
Your testimony for today's hearing includes many positive
steps the Department has taken to keep America safe. However,
as you are aware, the administration has continued to place a
tremendous burden on our Nation's first responders, many of
whom work in law enforcement. The administration has again
proposed slashing many of the most critical law enforcement
programs like COPS, Byrne grants and local law enforcement
block grants.
As it has in previous years, the administration's current
budget proposal would consolidate several law enforcement grant
programs into one program--the Justice Assistance Grant
Program. The request for the Justice Assistance Grant Program
is $284 million less than is currently appropriated for these
programs with regard to the time when they continue to be
separate.
In addition, the administration has proposed a $1-billion
cut in the Homeland Security Grant Program from the fiscal year
2004 appropriations and $250 million from the Fire Act grants.
These grant programs are essential in providing funds to our
first responders, police officers, ambulance drivers, doctors,
nurses, fire workers and EMT workers, and I do oppose these
dramatic cuts.
I believe we need to do more, not less, to support our
first responders if we want them to be successful. There has
never been, obviously, a more critical time for adequate
resources, specialized training, and sufficient equipment for
first responders. Local law enforcement, fire departments and
community organizations in Wisconsin have repeatedly expressed
to me their need for upgraded equipment so they may better
communicate, especially in times of emergency.
Mr. Secretary, do you support these proposed cuts, and how
can this administration justify these repeated attempts to cut
assistance to those who put their lives on the line for the
rest of us day in and day out?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, first of all, I think you know
that we have about $8 billion in the pipeline, and right now we
are working, frankly, with your State and all of the other
States and the territories to break the logjam that has I think
frustrated the immediate disbursement of these dollars. That is
a real challenge we have, and I think we can find some ways to
get the dollars that you have appropriated out. That has been
part of their frustration.
Secondly, Senator, the President, in his 2005 budget,
requested, in the aggregate amount, the same amount of money he
requested in the 2004 budget. And the reductions that you refer
to are the difference, by and large, between what the President
requested in his 2004 budget and what Congress decided to
appropriate.
It is an interesting challenge that executives have. I had
the same experience when I was Governor. There were certain
programs that I knew that, regardless of the baseline, the
legislature would probably add a few dollars onto it. And in
trying to control the budget, oftentimes I just went back to
the number in the preceding year, anticipating that there would
probably be some increase in the following year. But I just
wanted to dispel the notion that there has actually been a cut.
I think if you take a look at the aggregate in 2005, while
the President did not request in his budget the dollars that
Congress ultimately appropriated, the line items for most of
those are precisely the requests in 2004. We will, whatever
Congress chooses to do with those line items, add, subtract or
shift, we will obviously deal with.
But right now I would tell you one of the biggest
challenges we have, Senator, is getting a couple of billion
dollars that seems to be cut in between the States and the
locals distributed to your colleagues in your State and
around--we have got a real solid group of people working on
some very specific recommendations which we hope to have--no,
not hope--we will have delivered to me by the end of June.
We still have a couple billion dollars out there that some
of the mayors and the Governors have legitimately expressed
some public concerns about. It is not the Federal Government.
You told us get ready to allocate that money within 45 days. We
are ready to write the checks, but there is a maze of different
ordinances, laws, depending on the different States. So we will
continue to work on that and hopefully improve the flow of
those dollars.
Senator Feingold. I hate to interrupt you, but I have very
limited time.
Secretary Ridge. I am sorry.
Senator Feingold. Just a couple of points.
First of all, I can tell you that, at least with regard to
the Byrne grants, and I do understand the role an executive has
to play in trying to budget, but it is not a useful exercise to
have the administration propose cutting this each time and then
having to go around and say how terribly important the Byrne
grants are for local law enforcement. This is one at least
where the administration should just acknowledge the tremendous
support for the program.
Let me also say I know there are some pipeline issues in
some parts of the country. But in my State, our experience has
been that our people know how to take the fire grants and take
the resources for first responders and use them very, very
effectively. So I do not want our people painted with that
brush, and I think, frankly, States that show that they are
able to use the money efficiently should be acknowledged in
that regard. And I think it is very important for the safety of
the people in my State, as well as the people in the country.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I appreciate the correction.
There are some States that are doing a lot better job of
getting the dollars out the door, and it is those best
practices that we want to share with the other States. I
apologize for that. I did not mean to paint everybody with the
same brush.
Senator Feingold. Fair enough. As you may know, Senator
Lautenberg has introduced a common-sense piece of legislation,
Senate Bill 921, the State and Local Reservist First Responders
Assistance Act of 2003. I have cosponsored the bill. It would
authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to make grants to
reimburse State and local Governments and Indian tribes for
certain costs relating to the mobilization of reserves who are
first responder personnel.
Under the bill, grants can be sought to replace reservists
who serve six or more consecutive months of active duty. The
administration's decision to extend the deployments of our men
and women who are serving in these situations is obviously
understandable, but I am wondering what your reaction would be
to this sort of a piece of legislation.
Secretary Ridge. Senator, I cannot give you a public
reaction, but would be happy to once I took a look at the
legislation. As a former Governor, I appreciate the direction
the legislation goes, but I do not have a position one way or
the other. I would be happy to review the legislation and share
it with you.
Senator Feingold. I look forward to it.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you.
Chairman Hatch. Yes, Senator.
We will go to Senator Schumer now.
Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary. As you know, we go back
a long time. I have tremendous respect for you. But I have to
tell you the frustration in New York at these funding formulas
is just through the roof--bipartisan frustration, mayor,
Governor, myself, our whole delegation. And so I have to ask
you some questions about it.
Secretary Ridge. Please.
Senator Schumer. When we have talked, you have always been
very positive, but so far nothing has happened, and that is the
problem.
First, on the State Homeland Security Grant Program. This
was from the PATRIOT Act originally.
Secretary Ridge. Correct.
Senator Schumer. This was DOJ. The act mandated a .75-
percent State minimum. That means about 40 percent of the money
went out by formula, and New York and Wyoming got the same
amount of money. But then we granted the Executive Branch the
ability to give out the money, the rest, the 60 percent any way
they wanted. And DOJ decided to do it on a per-capita basis,
compounding the problem because we all know that high-need
areas should get this money if it is not going to be just pork.
I know everyone has a problem. That is why we have a set for
everybody.
You have never said a thing on this. Do you think the
formula should be changed? It is now something that you would
have a lot of say over because this occurred before your
department. We have not seen any real leadership on that. It
results in New York getting $5.47 per capita, Wyoming getting
$38.31 per capita.
Secretary Ridge. First of all, Senator, I have said
publicly, time and time again, I do believe that every State,
regardless of the size, regardless of the population,
regardless of the risk, should receive from the Congress some
financial support to build up, over a period of time, the kind
of infrastructure that we are trying to build up nationwide.
But I think the President's budget reflects, in a very
dramatic way, when we have shifted, I think, if I recall
correctly, about $700 million from the pot that would have been
distributed simply based on the formula over to the Urban Area
Security Initiative is where we think most of those dollars
should go.
Senator Schumer. Yes, I will get to that in a minute, but I
had--I understand that.
Secretary Ridge. We have tried to work, recognizing having,
because we do go back such a long time, trying to work out a
formula with 535 members of Congress in terms of how you
distribute those dollars. We have been up here talking and
working on it. We have not been able to find the magic formula
yet, Senator, but we do think more money should go to high
urban areas.
Senator Schumer. Would you support changing, though, these
grants away from a per-capita basis, the 60 percent in your
discretion? If you could give me a yes or no on that because I
have two more questions, and we have limited time.
Secretary Ridge. I will support whatever formula, within
existing fund, puts more dollars into an urban area, but how
you go about making sure that everybody gets a certain amount
of money--
Senator Schumer. But, sir, this is done per capita. You
made the--your administration, not Congress--made the decision
that 60 percent should be per capita. That sends a State
without any rural areas getting the same exact amount as to--I
mean without any urban areas--the same amount of money per
capita as a highly urbanized State. It contradicts what you are
saying here.
Secretary Ridge. But in the aggregate, Senator, in the
aggregate, what these smaller States receive, in comparison to
what the large urban areas receive, as I said, there is a stark
contrast. And all I am saying to you is--
Senator Schumer. There is not, not on this formula.
Secretary Ridge. Not on the per capita. I understand that.
I have not been able to come up with a formula that gets 218
votes in the House or 51 votes in the Senate in order to get it
done, and as soon as I--
Senator Schumer. In all due respect, sir.
Secretary Ridge. --as soon as I do, I will make the
proposal.
Senator Schumer. With all due respect, we have not heard a
peep. When we tried to lobby this last year, we did not hear a
peep out of the administration about what they wanted, how to
change it, et cetera. It is not, frankly, that you failed to
persuade Congress. You have not attempted to persuade Congress.
You sort of let it happen.
But I am going to ask a second one. This is on the High-
Threat Urban Area Fund and which you mentioned. We had set
aside some money for high urban funding and, again, before you
were there, Mitch Daniels was sort of the guy in charge, and I
negotiated with him that. And he had promised me that this
would go to the high-threat areas. And the first year it did.
Of the $800 million, New York City got $160 million.
In 2004, the next round, you gave it out to 50 cities and
30 transit areas, and New York's share dropped to 9 percent.
That was on your watch.
Secretary Ridge. Right.
Senator Schumer. Different than the previous year.
Secretary Ridge. Correct.
Senator Schumer. And do you think that New York's threat
percentage went down so much that New York, relative to the
rest of the Nation, became so much safer? For New York City,
which has been the focal point, the only two international
major terrorist incidents have had in this country have been
aimed at New York City, for New York City to get 9 percent of
that is a disgrace, and that was again totally--that had
nothing to do with Congress. That was totally your discretion.
And so I would ask you to comment on that, and then I am
going to ask you just on two other things because my time is
running out.
Secretary Ridge. Sure.
Senator Schumer. There are two bills in the House. One is
by Young and Latourette. It continues to give homeland security
funding on a per-capita basis regardless of threat of
terrorism. That is the Latourette bill.
And it also, an amendment--that is the bill in the
Transportation Committee. It also allows these homeland
security funds to go to all hazards--tornadoes and fires. There
is an alternative bill that Congressman Cox has put together
which directs them on the real basis of need. What is the
administration's position on, A, the transportation bill, the
per-capita bill; B, the Cox bill, which is the Energy and
Commerce bill, which is on need; and, C, the provision that
allows this money now, which is supposed to go to homeland
security, to go to tornadoes and forest fires?
Chairman Hatch. Senator, your time is up, but if you would
answer the question.
Secretary Ridge. I would like to, Senator, and I am not
trying to avoid a public answer. I need to get back to you
because I do not believe we have a--we have been working with
Congressman Cox on the formula, but we have not come up with a
position on either measure, but I will get back to you within
24 hours to tell you specifically what we are doing.
Senator Schumer. And with a position, I hope.
Chairman Hatch. That would be great.
Senator Durbin?
Senator Schumer. Because the problem, if I just might, Mr.
Chairman, is the administration says they are for good things
and never takes a position on any of these things.
Secretary Ridge. And I just did want to say, Senator, we
have, on both occasions, whether it was on somebody else's
watch or our watch, recognized the importance, and the
vulnerability, and the sensitivity to New York City's needs. I
think, over the past 2 years, they have received twice as much
as any other city.
Senator Schumer. Nine percent. Do you think 9 percent is
fair, when we received 20 percent the year before?
Chairman Hatch. Let him answer the question.
Secretary Ridge. It is in excess of $300 million, and they
would be the primary beneficiary where they would benefit more
than any other city if Congress would accept the President's
proposal.
And if you can keep the funding formula per capita, the
argument is diminished substantially, if you reduce that pool
and keep the formula, which would probably be the easiest
political solution, and just reduce that pool and take
substantial dollars over and put it in the Urban Area Security
Initiative Program. And, again, the city that is at the top and
the city that will get proportionately more than everybody else
is New York City because of population density, because of
critical infrastructure.
Senator Schumer. I would just say, in conclusion, it is not
even close to the needs, and it is not a fair formula. No one
thinks it is, and we need your voice and your activity on the
Hill, which we have not seen thus far.
Chairman Hatch. Senator Durbin?
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Ridge, thank you for being here today and for your
service to our country.
We spoke briefly before about the interoperable information
systems, which has been an issue of concern. I met with your
chief information officer, Steve Cooper, on March 3rd. He
really was impressive. I think things are moving the right
direction.
In your appropriation bill, I asked for a report. I am sure
you are always glad to have a request from Congress for a
report. If you would be kind enough to take a look at it and
ask your people to respond, I would appreciate that very much.
Secretary Ridge. Sure.
Senator Durbin. If I could ask you two specific areas.
One of your responsibilities now, of course, with the new
consolidated department, is in the area of immigration. There
is only one immigration reform proposal that has been reported
to the floor in the 108th Congress, and it came from this
Committee. And it relates to a measure known as the DREAM Act,
which Senator Hatch and I are co-sponsoring. It passed from
this Committee on a 16-to-3 vote, and it relates to providing
immigration relief to a select group of students of good moral
character who want to pursue college education or military
service for example.
This bill has a lot of support, 48 sponsors and cosponsors,
but the administration has not taken a position on it. Do you
know what the administration position is on the DREAM Act?
Secretary Ridge. I think you just told me officially there
is none, but I would prefer to have the opportunity to review
it myself and get back to you, as I have tried to do with some
of your other colleagues on some of the other pieces of
legislation.
Senator Durbin. If you would, please.
Secretary Ridge. Sure.
Senator Durbin. I have certainly had a lot of differences
with this administration, but I have publicly saluted the
President for raising the immigration issue, a difficult,
difficult issue, but one that we cannot ignore. And I think
Senator Hatch and I have found a reasonable way to deal with a
specific group of young people who will make a great
contribution to America given that chance. So I hope that you
would ask the President when you see him and get back to me.
That would be very helpful.
Now, I want to speak to an area that is a little more
controversial--the Special Registration Program. That
explicitly targeted Arab and Muslim males, requiring them to
register with your department.
Secretary Ridge. Right.
Senator Durbin. The Justice Department created the program.
You inherited it. We found that singling out a large group of
Arabs and Muslims, it turned out that the vast, overwhelming
majority of them were innocent people and really did not, that
effort did not help in our efforts to combat terrorism. We, in
doing so, though, have alienated a very important community of
people in our country.
Due to inadequate publicity, and misinformation from the
Department of Justice, many of those who were supposed to
register did not or registered late. More than 83,000 people
have registered so far. Almost 14,000 have been placed in
deportation hearing proceedings because of this. Many were here
in the country legally and are being deported simply because
they failed to comply with all of the requirements of special
registration.
Over the past year-and-a-half a lot of people have
expressed concerns about this program. I wrote to you on
January 23rd to ask a number of questions about this program. I
think this program has failed us, in terms of making America
safer, and in fact has created an undue hardship on innocent
people. Will you terminate the Special Registration Program?
Secretary Ridge. Senator, first of all, because you h v
paid very close attention to the program, you know that it was
our department that did inherit it, but eliminated the 30-day
call-back and the annual review. And I would tell you that we
are presently, because we now have a good and a robust entry/
exit system, we think our long-term goal should be to treat
everybody the same way as they come across our borders, not
targeting anyone.
And so we are looking at some of the changes, some of the
adjustments we made to visa policy and some of the adjustments
we made immediately after 9/11 to see the impact of that. And
one of the areas we are looking at very, very carefully is
what, if anything, we should do to either modify or eliminate
the NSEERS program--that is what you are talking about--with
the goal being that regardless of the country of origin,
regardless of ethnicity, you will be treated, when you come to
our borders, you will be treated the same way. And that review
is ongoing.
It would be my intention to make some recommendations not
only on that, but other areas of visa policy, to the
administration within the next 35 to 45 days. And once that
review is completed, I would be happy to, either by phone call
or by visit, to tell you what we intend to do about it.
We share the same goal. If you come to the United States,
we are an open, welcoming country. We benefit from that kind of
openness, and we all know the enormous benefits which treat
everybody the same way. In order to do that, we have to make
some adjustments to things that we did right after 9/11, for
which we are not going to make an apology, but it is time to
look at them and see if they really served the purpose for
which they were intended, with the goal being one policy
applied universally regardless of country of origin.
Senator Durbin. That is a fair standard, and I think it is
one that all of us would applaud. And I commend you for
aspiring to that goal in a timely fashion.
I would ask you, as you take a look at this program, that
you pay special attention to several things. Individuals who
are under this Special Registration Program can still only
leave the United States from certain points of departure and
have to register their departure with an immigration officer.
And I guess the most troubling aspect is that there were
many who were placed in deportation proceedings, and face
deportation, not because they were here illegally, but simply
because they either registered late or failed to register under
the terms of the program.
I think I detected in your remarks the notion that perhaps
there were decisions made soon after 9/11 which we can now
reflect on and say, all right, now, we were doing those in our
best efforts to make America safe. Some achieved their goals,
some did not. Now, let us be honest about those that did not
and not punish people if we created a program which, in effect,
has led to their deportation or some punishment that they did
not deserve.
And I hope, when you take a look at it, you will take a
look at that particular aspect.
Secretary Ridge. I will.
Senator Durbin. Because I think that is a hardship that we
ought to try our best to alleviate.
Secretary Ridge. I think it makes very good sense for us
to, on a regular basis, review what we do in terms of our
borders, with an eye toward always enhancing security, but that
the outcomes we hope to achieve, the benefits we hope to
achieve, did we actually realize them? Again, that is tied to
the larger goal of we have historically been as open, and as
welcoming, and as diverse a country as there is on the face of
the earth, and we do not want to let the terrorists change that
rather unique, extraordinary quality of America.
That is why the goal, as we review the adjustments we made
in a post-9/11 world, is to bring back that universality of
application of whatever the policy might be.
I would be pleased to reflect on both these particular
elements in that review process.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Let me say, in closing, Mr. Chairman,
Governor, thank you for your hard work and your accessibility.
I know there are some who are troubled by Congressional
meddling in your Executive Department, but you have been
patient, to a fault, and submitted to questions time and again.
It makes a real difference. And I think it increases the
confidence level and the level of dialogue, and I think that is
very important for our country.
Thank you.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. We really
appreciate your taking the time. You have been very patient and
especially with that delay, but it was in honor of former
President Reagan, and I think we all understand that. But you
were very gracious about it, and I personally appreciate it.
And I appreciate the way you have answered all of the questions
here today, and I appreciate the terrific job you are doing. It
is almost an impossible job to do it completely, but if anybody
can, you can, and we are very grateful to you.
With that, we will recess until further notice.
Secretary Ridge. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 12:39 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
<all>