U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–802 PDF 2005

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

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

BRUCE ARTIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

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

(1)

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 FedVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Aug 09, 2005 Jkt 022802 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22802.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
2

eral, 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. 

3

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. 

4

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. 

5

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 

6

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. 

7

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 

8

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-aweek 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. 

9

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. 

10

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. 

11

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. 

12

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 

13

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 

14

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 

15

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 

16

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, 

17

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 

18

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—prescreened 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. 

19

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. 

20

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. 

21

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. 

22

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 thirdcountry 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. 

23

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 machinereadable, 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 caseVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Aug 09, 2005 Jkt 022802 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22802.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
24

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, 

25

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. 

26

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. 

27

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. 

28

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? 

29

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 

30

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 

31

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 hisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Aug 09, 2005 Jkt 022802 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22802.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
32

torically 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.]

33


22802.001
34


22802.002
35


22802.003
36


22802.004
37


22802.005
38


22802.006
39


22802.007
40


22802.008
41


22802.009
42


22802.010
43


22802.011
44


22802.012
45


22802.013
46


22802.014
47


22802.015
48


22802.016
49


22802.017
50


22802.018
51


22802.019
52


22802.020
53


22802.021
54


22802.022
55


22802.023
56


22802.024
57


22802.025
58


22802.026
59


22802.027
60


22802.028
61


22802.029
62


22802.030
63


22802.031
64


22802.032
65


22802.033
66


22802.034
67


22802.035
68


22802.036
69


22802.037
70


22802.038
71


22802.039
72


22802.040
73


22802.041
74


22802.042
75


22802.043
76


22802.044
77


22802.045
78


22802.046
79


22802.047
80


22802.048
81


22802.049
82


22802.050
83


22802.051
84


22802.052
85


22802.053
86


22802.054
87


22802.055
88


22802.056
89


22802.057
90


22802.058
91


22802.059
92


22802.060
93


22802.061
94


22802.062
95


22802.063
96


22802.064
97


22802.065
98


22802.066
99


22802.067
100


22802.068
101


22802.069
102


22802.070
103


22802.071
104


22802.072
105


22802.073
106


22802.074
107


22802.075
108


22802.076
109


22802.077
110


22802.078
111


22802.079
112


22802.080
113


22802.081
114


22802.082
115


22802.083
116


22802.084
117


22802.085
118


22802.086
119


22802.087
120


22802.088
121


22802.089
122


22802.090
123


22802.091
124


22802.092
125


22802.093
126


22802.094
127


22802.095
128


22802.096
129


22802.097
130


22802.098
131


22802.099
132


22802.100
133


22802.101
134


22802.102
135


22802.103
136


22802.104
137


22802.105
138

Æ


22802.106