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

89–325 DTP 2003

S. HRG. 108–137

THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM: WORKING

TOGETHER TO PROTECT AMERICA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 4, 2003

Serial No. J–108–3

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 

MAKAN DELRAHIM, 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

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............. 40

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 1

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63

Kohl, Hon. Herbert, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 66

Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona .................................... 18

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 3

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67

WITNESSES 

Ashcroft, John D., Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, 

D.C. ........................................................................................................................ 6

Mueller, Robert S., III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department 

of Justice, Washington, D.C. ............................................................................... 13

Ridge, Thomas J., Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, 

D.C. ........................................................................................................................ 11

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Ashcroft, John D., Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, 

D.C., prepared statement .................................................................................... 50

Mueller, Robert S., III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department 

of Justice, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ............................................ 72

Ridge, Thomas J., Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, 

D.C., prepared statement .................................................................................... 82

(1)

THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM: WORKING 

TOGETHER TO PROTECT AMERICA 

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:48 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, DeWine, Sessions, Graham, Craig, Chambliss, Leahy, Kennedy, 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. Good morning, and welcome to the Committee’s important hearing examining the war against terrorism and 

the coordinated efforts of the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to protect America. I want to welcome all three of our distinguished witnesses who are here before 

us today. It is indeed an honor to have before the committee Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary Tom Ridge, and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Bob Mueller. I understand that each 

of you is extremely busy, and I want to express my appreciation for 

your taking time to appear before us today. 

I also want to take a moment to acknowledge Secretary Ridge’s 

appearance since it is his first occasion to testify before this committee since his confirmation at Secretary of the new Department 

of Homeland Security. So I am happy and we are all happy to see 

you here before the committee, Tom. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the war against terrorism and coordinator efforts to disrupt and disable terrorist organizations and to 

protect our country from terrorist attacks. I am committed to legitimate oversight to examine critical issues related to our country’s 

war against terrorism. Senators Leahy, Grassley, and Specter 

issued an oversight report last week on issues surrounding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and I have responded to the 

Senators providing certain observations on that report. It is my 

hope that in the coming months that Director Mueller can return 

before the committee to address significant oversight issues surrounding FISA, and we will hold that hearing, and I am sure that 

the Director will return. I believe there are important issues relating to implementation of the November 18, 2002, Foreign Intelligence Review Court’s decision, as well as the internal Justice DeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Oct 07, 2003 Jkt 089325 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89325.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
2

partment and FBI reforms, which this committee should address in 

greater detail in a later oversight hearing. So we intend to go into 

these matters even though they probably won’t be gone into in as 

much detail here today, although it depends on our colleagues. 

We all recognize that these are challenges times for our country, 

and that the American public, I believe, appreciates your leadership, your commitment, and heroic effort to protect our country and 

our people from devastating terrorist attacks. 

As we recognize here in Congress and as the American people 

should know, every day through your efforts you are saving American lives. Now, I know that you cannot trumpet each and every 

one of your successes without compromising sensitive intelligence, 

covert operations, and strategic planning. I was just in the Intelligence Committee today listening to some of our leaders in the efforts in counterterrorism. And I am really pleased with the efforts 

that have gone on, that are going on, that in many ways the public 

will never know, but real efforts to try and help protect our country 

and our people. 

Your efforts to win this war have borne fruit on many, many occasions. Just last Saturday, United States law enforcement and intelligence agents, working together with Pakistani intelligence 

agents, captured a significant Al-Qaeda terrorist, Khalid Shaikh 

Mohammed, the Al-Qaeda senior lieutenant who served as the operations manager and alleged mastermind behind the September 

11th attacks, as well as numerous other deadly attacks against 

Americans worldwide. This latest success is indeed significant. It 

represents a striking example of the President’s and this administration’s commitment and efforts in the global war against terrorism. The apprehension of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is just one 

more success in a string of successes by you and others in the law 

enforcement and intelligence communities aimed at disrupting and 

eliminating Al-Qaeda from the face of this earth. So I want to commend each of you, as well as the many hard-working agents who 

are fighting this global war, for this latest accomplishment. 

Now, even with this recent accomplishment, however, I recognize 

that there is more to be done. Now, it goes without saying that 

Americans are experiencing very trying and anxious times. It has 

been almost a year and a half since terrorists attacked our country, 

killing almost 3,000 people. The enemy is unlike any that we have 

faced before: deadly, well-financed international terrorists whose 

tentacles reach into every corner of the globe and who are ready 

to give their lives in order to destroy other people’s lives. Make no 

mistake: the threat to our country continues today. Terrorist organizations exist within our borders and throughout the world. They 

are fanatics committed to the destruction of America and will do 

anything to harm our country and our people. 

Terrorists will use any means to defeat America. Their means to 

their gruesome ends will evolve. And our ability to respond must 

evolve, and we must embrace new tools and new approaches. We 

must ensure that law enforcement, intelligence, and homeland security agencies are given the tools and the resources needed to protect our country. 

So I look forward to hearing from each of you and your assessments of our country’s global war against terrorism, your efforts to 

3

implement initiatives and programs needed to protect our country, 

and your ideas of areas where more is needed to address current 

needs. I do in the hope of continuing our bipartisan commitment 

to enacting measures to win the war against terrorism and make 

our country safe. Our commitment to working together hopefully is 

unwavering, and I personally will do whatever is necessary to see 

that we do work together. The American people expect nothing less 

from us, and I intend to see that we do what has to be done. 

So I want to thank you, and I am going to turn to the ranking 

member, Senator Leahy, for his opening statement, and then we 

will turn to your statements starting with Attorney General 

Ashcroft. 

Senator SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, just before Senator Leahy, I 

was glad to hear that Mr. Mueller will come back for a separating 

hearing. But I would ask that—this is such an important issue. We 

are creating a whole new agency. And we have 3 hours here for all 

three witnesses together. Many of us won’t even get to ask any 

questions. If we could make time, I think it is important enough 

to have each witness come individually and give us some time, because I have so many questions. I know every one of my colleagues 

does on both sides of the aisle. It seems that we are not giving this 

the attention time—and I am sure the witnesses would be willing, 

if we accommodated their schedules, to come back individually. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, we will certainly take that under consideration. Let me tell you, 3 hours from these three gentlemen is like 

the world up here. I think we will have time for everybody to ask 

questions. We are going to have 7-minute rounds, and we will see 

how far we go. But certainly I have asked the FBI Director, Mr. 

Mueller, to come back at a later time when we can discuss the 

FISA issues, which are among the most important issues that this 

committee is concerned about. But we will certainly take that 

under consideration. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Let me just say I will put the rest of my remarks, my more extensive remarks in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. Senator Leahy? 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, I am glad we are having the 

hearing. I do agree with Senator Schumer. We are going to want 

more from these gentlemen, and I know it is hard to accommodate 

schedules, but it is doable. And we should do it. We find how helpful this can be. As you know, last Congress we started the first 

comprehensive oversight of the FBI that we have had in decades. 

For years and years, long before Director Mueller, Director after 

Director felt that they did not have time. We found the time, and 

I think everybody benefited by it. 

I also want to applaud the CIA, the FBI, the other dedicated field 

operatives in Pakistan. I think all of us were relieved to see the 

capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind 

behind the 9/11 attacks. The headlines are great. We can all anVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Oct 07, 2003 Jkt 089325 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89325.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
4

nounce it. It is the operatives, as all three of you know, in the field 

that are putting their lives on the line to make this work, and I 

wish there was a way that we could thank each one of them personally. Obviously, they don’t want us to thank them by name or 

who they are, but it is wonderful work. 

Our oversight duties are at the core of our constitutional responsibilities to the American people. It is sometimes said that in war 

and in emergencies, democracy becomes the first casualty. Our 

Constitution, with its separation of powers, was designed to prevent that. The American people don’t want to just feel safer. They 

want to be safer. And congressional oversight and the checks and 

balance can make that possible. 

Last week, Chairman Grassley and Chairman Specter and I released a detailed report based on the oversight that the Judiciary 

Committee conducted in the 107th Congress. We found, in that 2-

year effort, a pressing need for further oversight and reform. 

I think Senator Specter and Senator Schumer both suggested 

that each of these witnesses appear in separate hearings. I think 

that is important. We don’t want this just to be a photo op. We 

want it to be something that we really come out safer. 

I have spoken with Governor Ridge about the question of first responders when terrorists strike. The first responders are the first 

people we turn to. When somebody picks up their phone and calls 

911, it is not going to ring at the desk of any one of you. It is going 

to be the local fire department, the local sheriffs, the local police, 

who receive the call. As we saw at the World Trade Center and at 

the Pentagon, these were the people that were the first responders. 

They have been asked to be the Federal Government’s vanguard 

partners against terrorism, but it has become largely to this point 

an unfunded mandate on their communities and their States. It is 

frustrating to them and to those of us in Congress who have advocated on their behalf to encounter, first, a stone wall of silence 

about the administration’s intention to honor the increasingly desperate requests for first-responder funding, and then we had a constant undercurrent of resistance to the meager help that we have 

begun to provide. 

I mention this because we can find billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars to give to countries around 

the world if they would just say they will support us in a war 

against Iraq. It may well be important. We have a war here at 

home, and we ought to be able to find just as many billions of dollars to help those people, those Americans, who are fighting it. 

In the Appropriations Committee, we passed a bill, which, incidentally, had administration people watching every single line of it, 

yet it came through with a cut of $637 million to the Office of Domestic Preparedness. Training grants were cut by $50 million. Exercise grants were slashed by 50 percent. Spending for firefighters 

was cut by $150 million. In total, the bill cut nearly $1 billion in 

funding for Federal programs that directly assist first responders. 

I am glad to see the President, even though this was watched 

carefully by the White House, now says that first responders have 

been shortchanged, and I hope that we will get the money back in. 

We need money here at home. We need money for those whom we 

call upon to be our first responders. 

5

Attorney General Ashcroft, I am glad you are here, because last 

month a secret draft bill entitled ‘‘The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003’’ was leaked to the press as a sequel to the USA 

PATRIOT Act. Now, this draft, we have asked about it. We have 

asked if it was there, and yet it is something that both Republicans 

and Democrats read about in the paper first. None of us saw it. In 

fact, a member of my staff called the Department just 5 days—just 

5 days—before this bill was leaked to the press. She was told pointblank there was no bill in the works. Five days later, we have an 

86-page bill, along with a 33-page sectional analysis. I know they 

are good down at the Department of Justice, but neither this administration nor anybody else could put together a 86-page bill of 

this complexity with a 33-page sectional analysis in 5 days. Somebody lied to a member of my staff. Not you, Mr. Attorney General, 

I want to hasten to add. But somebody who reports directly to you 

lied to her. And I think that this is not a good way to do things. 

If we are going to have such a piece of legislation and we are going 

to give it to all the newspapers first, we ought to at least be willing 

to tell the oversight committees that it is in the works. 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator LEAHY. Could I just finish? 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. Mr. Chairman? Well, I would be 

very happy to respond. 

Chairman HATCH. Go ahead. 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. The charge has been made that 

there are individuals in the Justice Department that are lying. And 

I want to be sure that I have time to respond to that, and I don’t 

need to do it now. But I just want to make sure——

Chairman HATCH. Certainly. We will certainly make sure 

that——

Senator LEAHY. I will venture that that is in my questions. I will 

make very clear what I said. I am not suggesting you, Mr. Attorney 

General, but when we ask people who are in the position where 

they are supposed to know, when they report directly to you, they 

tell us there is no such bill, 5 days later a very complex bill that 

has taken months to be drafted is leaked to the press, if they are 

not telling us an untruth, boy, they are way out of the loop—way, 

way out of the loop, in a position where they should not be. 

I think it shows a secretive process in producing this. We do not 

know whether we went too far or not far enough in authorizing 

new Government powers in the USA PATRIOT Act. It has been 

only a year since its passage. The administration has not responded to questions asked by the Republican chairman of the 

House Judiciary Committee, nor by members of this committee. 

But this leaked proposal would go much further in granting the 

Government more surveillance powers over American citizens, 

while drastically curtailing the ability of Congress, the courts, and 

the American people to find out what the Government is doing. 

This is one of the reasons why Congressman Dick Armey and I 

joined together to put sunset clauses in parts of the PATRIOT Act, 

because we couldn’t get answers as to how it was going to be used. 

Whatever this new stealth bill is called, let’s not call it USA PATRIOT II. It is not patriotic when it is done this secretively. If 

there is going to be a sequel, let’s find out what it is going to be, 

6

and let’s make sure we fully debate it. Good ideas will prevail in 

such a debate. Bad ideas will be rejected. That is the American 

way. 

I don’t envy any one of you for what you have to do. You have 

among the most difficult jobs imaginable. But I would add—we 

have seen so many promises made of money for homeland security 

here in this country, and then the money doesn’t show up in the 

budget. Please look at it again. If we can promise $10 billion to 

Turkey and tens of billions of dollars to other countries in the Gulf 

region to back us on the war, we ought to be able to find at least 

a small fraction of that to give to firefighters and police officers and 

medical personnel here in America who have to defend us. 

I will put my full statement in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. If I could just make one comment, the money 

was not appropriated until 3 weeks ago. So it is pretty hard to 

criticize——

Senator LEAHY. What I was saying was the fact that I agreed 

with President Bush who said that the appropriation bills that 

came out had less money than should be in there. The concern I 

have, however, is that the White House scrubbed every single line 

of that bill when it was coming out, and then they said—after there 

had been so much criticism of adequate money not being in there, 

that is when they said there should be more. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, that is fine, but I just want to observe 

that we had almost 2 years since 9/11 to have appropriations that 

would have gotten these people going a lot faster than they are. 

But about 3 weeks ago, we finally were able to get that done. I 

think we have got to be careful how we couch some of our comments. 

But let’s turn to Senator Ashcroft—General Ashcroft, and then 

we will turn to Secretary Ridge and then finally Mr. Mueller. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. Good morning, Chairman Hatch 

and Senator Leahy and members of the Judiciary Committee. I am 

honored to have this opportunity to again be with you. The United 

States of America is winning the war on terrorism with unrelenting 

focus and unprecedented cooperation. 

Let me quote Stephen Flatow, the father of a terrorist victim. I 

am quoting him. ‘‘When you know the resources of your Government are committed to right the wrong committed against your 

daughter, that instills you with a sense of awe. As a father, you 

can’t ask for anything more.’’

Stephen Flatow’s daughter, Alisa, was a 20-year-old American 

student killed allegedly by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad when a 

terrorist drove a van of explosives into Alisa’s bus. 

The resources of the U.S. Government are dedicated to righting 

the wrong against Alisa and the thousands of other American victims of terrorists. Most importantly, we are focused intensely on 

preventing such wrongs from destroying more innocent American 

lives. 

7

As I testified 8 months ago, America’s defense—the defense of 

life and liberty—requires a new culture of prevention, nurtured by 

cooperation, built on coordination, and rooted in our constitutional 

liberties. The excessive constraints imposed in the late 1970’s that 

erected barriers to cooperation between Government agencies, that 

segregated law enforcement and intelligence gathering, and prohibited information sharing, those barriers must be replaced systematically. 

Our survival and success in this long war on terrorism demands 

that we continuously adapt and improve our capabilities to protect 

Americans from a fanatical, ruthless enemy. I will continue to seek 

the assistance of Congress as we build a culture of prevention and 

ensure the resources of our Government can be dedicated to defending Americans. 

Let me share three reasons why the United States is winning 

this war and illustrate those points with some examples. 

First, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation have set new standards for cooperation and coordination. The FBI’s domestic intelligence operations are substantially 

strengthened by the CIA’s information sharing, intelligence analysis, and operational coordination. 

For example, the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed by Pakistani authorities, in coordination with the CIA, is a severe blow to 

Al-Qaeda that could destabilize their terrorist network worldwide. 

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the ‘‘brain,’’ is the Al-Qaeda ‘‘mastermind’’ of the September 11th attacks and Osama bin Laden’s senior 

terrorist attack planner. Next to bin Laden, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist. 

May I be clear here. The Department of Justice’s overriding priority is preventing future terrorism, not just prosecuting past 

crime. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s capture is first and foremost an 

intelligence opportunity to prevent new terrorist attacks from killing more innocent Americans. 

Today, the world’s premier intelligence agencies, the CIA and 

FBI, are moving rapidly to exploit that intelligence opportunity. 

The CIA and FBI are cooperating thoroughly to share information 

from ‘‘the capture,’’ analyze that intelligence, and coordinate followup operations. And when I say today, I don’t just mean today. 

I mean from the instant the opportunity matured in the capture. 

I know my phone was ringing at 1:30 in the morning Sunday morning with the request for consultation in regard to our exploitation 

of this opportunity. Under our new standard of FBI-CIA cooperation and coordination, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s capture means 

the FBI can better prevent terrorism and save American lives. 

Second, the new FBI, America’s domestic counterterrorism force, 

integrates fully intelligence and law enforcement capabilities to 

protect American lives. Today we have unsealed charges against 

two Yemeni citizens, Mohammed Ali Hasan Al-Moayad and 

Mohshen Yahya Zayed, the result of an extensive FBI undercover 

operation. They are charged with conspiring to provide material 

support to Al-Qaeda and Hamas terrorists through Moayad’s worldwide fund-raising operation. As the complaint alleges, the FBI undercover operation developed information that Al-Moayad personVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Oct 07, 2003 Jkt 089325 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89325.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
8

ally handed Osama bin Laden $20 million from his terrorist fundraising network. 

As set forth in the complaint, in November of 2001, the FBI’s 

International Terrorism squad began working with a confidential 

informant who had known Al-Moayad for over 6 years. According 

to the complaint, during several meetings with the FBI informant, 

Al-Moayad boasted ‘‘jihad’’ was his field and trumpeted his involvement in providing money, recruits, and supplies to Al-Qaeda, 

Hamas, and other terrorist groups, and he said he received money 

for jihad from collections at the Al Farouq mosque in Brooklyn. AlMoayad also claimed to be Osama bin Laden’s spiritual adviser. 

On January 7, 2003, Al-Moayad and Zayed flew from Yemen to 

Frankfurt, Germany, to meet with the FBI informant. According to 

the Government’s complaint, Al-Moayad allegedly went to the 

meetings intending to obtain $2 million from a terrorist sympathizer who wanted to fund Al-Qaeda and Hamas. 

Again, the complaint details that at meetings with FBI inform- ants in Frankfurt last month, Al-Moayad confirmed that the $2 

million contribution would be used to support the mujahideen 

fighters of Al-Qaeda and Hamas. Zayed even ‘‘swore to Allah’’ that 

Zayed would get the money to Al-Qaeda and Hamas if anything 

happened to Al-Moayad. 

This extensive FBI counterterrorism operation blended human 

intelligence sources, advanced electronic surveillance, deep undercover operations, terrorist financing savvy, and criminal subpoenas 

and search warrants—with seamless law enforcement and intelligence cooperation added to those components. We find ourselves 

in a position to unseal that complaint today. 

The breadth and talent of the team fielded in this case literally 

spanned the globe—from New York City police to prosecutors in 

Frankfurt, Germany. This is the new FBI, focused on preventing 

terrorism, integrating intelligence and law enforcement, and delivering results. Director Mueller and FBI agents around the world 

have transformed their intelligence and counterterrorism operations to achieve this prevention mission. Their results make 

Americans safer and bring justice to the full network of terror, 

often in ways that the public does not see and that cannot be disclosed. 

Third, the Justice Department is prosecuting the war on terrorism by integrating our law enforcement and intelligence capabilities as authorized under the PATRIOT Act. The Department recently indicted Sami Al-Arian and seven co-conspirators, several of 

whom were leaders of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The indictment details that Al-Arian served as the secretary of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s governing council called the ‘‘Shura Council.’’ 

He was also identified as the senior North American representative 

of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. 

As the allegations in the indictment detail, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is responsible for the murder of over 100 innocent people, including 20-year-old American student Alisa Flatow, whose father I quoted at the beginning of my testimony. 

Seized items described in the indictment include: 

A fax to Al-Arian and several associates on April 9, 1995, the day 

Alisa Flatow was killed. The fax announced the death of Khalid Al 

9

Khatib, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad killer who carried out the 

suicide bombing that killed Alisa. 

Also seized and described in the indictment, the wills of suicide 

bombers in the computer files of Al-Arian’s purported charitable organization; and also seized, a fax containing the names of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide bombers killed and the names and account numbers of those who were to receive money on their behalf, 

their having committed suicide, money to come from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. 

Yet, prior to the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the prosecutors in 

this case did not have the ability to participate fully in this investigation that ultimately led to RICO and material support charges 

against Al-Arian and his associates. 

Today, Americans are safer because we have transformed the 

rules of engagement for investigating and prosecuting suspected 

terrorists within our borders. 

First, and the Congress to be commended for its passage, the 

passage of the PATRIOT Act in October 2001 allowed for information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence and allowed 

us to implement our new FISA guidelines; 

Second, on November 18, 2002, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review reversed the district level FISA court and 

upheld our new FISA guidelines for information sharing; 

Third, we have tasked the U.S. Attorney’s Offices to review all 

intelligence material that may provide the basis for criminal 

charges against terrorists and terrorist financiers. 

As the FISA Court of Review noted—that is the appeals court of 

the FISA court, and it has only issued one opinion in its existence, 

and I quote: ‘‘Effective counterintelligence requires the wholehearted cooperation of all the government’s personnel who can be 

brought to the task.’’ I am continuing to quote: ‘‘A standard which 

punishes such cooperation could well be thought dangerous to national security.’’

This dangerous standard existed until we reformed the law. You 

helped in the PATRIOT Act. We rewrote the FISA procedures and 

directed prosecutors to change their practices. Senator Hatch, I 

want to thank you personally for your strong support and your 

leadership in eliminating this dangerous standard. 

I also would like to thank the American people for their continued role in protecting the country from terrorism. We have no suffered another major attack in this country, and it is to the credit 

of an alert, vigilant, and supportive public as well as thousands of 

unsung and dedicated public servants that Senator Leahy mentioned—they are to be commended and thanked—and some whose 

stories cannot be told as a result of national security concerns, 

many of whom I am privileged to work with on a daily basis, and 

they deserve my thanks and, I believe, the thanks of this Nation. 

Now I would like to turn to a brief overview of additional results 

of our integrated prevention strategy. 

First, we are gathering and cultivating detailed intelligence on 

terrorism in the United States: hundreds and hundreds of suspected terrorists have been identified and tracked throughout the 

U.S.; our human sources of intelligence have doubled; our 

counterterrorism investigations have doubled in 1 year; 18,000 subVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Oct 07, 2003 Jkt 089325 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89325.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
10

poenas and search warrants have been issued; over 1,000 applications in 2002 were made to the FISA court targeting terrorists, 

spies, and foreign powers who threaten our security, including 170 

emergency FISAs. 

Second, we are arresting and detaining potential terrorist 

threats: four alleged terrorist cells in Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle, and 

Portland broken up; 211 criminal charges brought to date; 108 convictions or guilty pleas to date, including those of shoe-bomber 

Richard Reid, ‘‘American Taliban’’ John Walker Lindh, and one 

member of the Buffalo cell; 478 deportations linked to the September 11th investigation. 

And we are dismantling the terrorist financial network: 36 des- ignated terrorist organization; $124 million in assets frozen and 

over 600 accounts frozen around the world; 70 investigations into 

terrorist financing with 23 convictions or guilty pleas to date. 

Fourth, we are disrupting potential terrorist travel: more than 50 

major airport sweeps in Operation Tarmac with more than 1,200 

arrests for ID and document fraud and other crimes; nine major 

alien smuggling networks disrupted; hundreds of terrorists and 

criminals stopped through the National Entry-Exit Registration 

System, NSEERs—a mandate of the Congress, I might add, which 

we are now fulfilling—including 8 suspected terrorists, with at 

least one known member of Al-Qaeda apprehended as a result of 

that effort; 551 aliens stopped at the border who were wanted 

criminals, had committed past felonies or violated other laws; 46 

felons identified through domestic enrollment—the special registration—who were in the country illegally, including cocaine traffickers, child molesters, and individuals convicted of assault with 

a deadly weapon. 

Fifth, we are building our long-term counterterrorism capacity: a 

270-percent increase in counterterrorism funds, thanks to the appropriations of the Congress; over 1,000 new and redirected FBI 

agents dedicated to counterterrorism and counterintelligence; 250 

new Assistant U.S. Attorneys; 56 Joint Terrorism Task Forces; a 

337-percent increase in Joint Terrorism Task Force staffing; and 

Fly Away Expert Teams for rapid deployment to hot spots worldwide. 

As I said, these are just some of our actions to date. Today, Director Mueller will be providing you with details regarding the fundamental reforms at the FBI that make terrorism prevention the 

Bureau’s No. 1 priority. 

Finally, I would like to point out that throughout this process, 

the Department of Justice has acted thoughtfully, carefully, and 

within the Constitution of the United States, that framework for 

freedom. Time and again, the actions on the war on terrorism have 

been subjected to thorough judicial review, and time and again, the 

Department has successfully defended legal challenges, including: 

detaining enemy combatants—sustained; detaining the enemy at 

Guantanamo Bay—sustained; sharing FISA information—sustained; withholding the names of sensitive immigration detainees—

sustained; freezing assets of purported charities that fund terrorists—sustained. 

The President’s powers to protect the American people are rooted 

in the Constitution and they are sustained in our courts. The acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Oct 07, 2003 Jkt 089325 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89325.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
11

tions we take against the terrorist threat will always be rooted in 

the Constitution while accounting for the adapting and changing 

methods of our terrorist enemies. 

As the President stated in a recent visit to the FBI, ‘‘There is no 

such thing as perfect security against a hidden network of coldblooded killers. Yet, abroad and at home, we are not going to wait 

until the worst dangers are upon us.’’ We will work. 

Our strategy and tactics are working. Listen to the recorded conversation between charged terrorist cell member, Jeffrey Battle, 

and an FBI informant on May 8, 2002. This is instructive about 

whether or not what we do and what you do really makes a difference. Battle is part of the alleged Portland, Oregon, cell. 

In his conversation unsealed in court, Battle explained why his 

enterprise was not as organized as he thought it should have been, 

and now I quote: ‘‘...because we don’t have support,’’ Battle says. 

‘‘Everybody’s scared to give up any money to help us. You know 

what I’m saying? Because that law that Bush wrote about, you 

know, supporting terrorism, whatever, the whole 

thing...Everybody’s scared...He made a law that says for instance 

I left out of the country and I fought, right, but I wasn’t able to 

afford a ticket but you bought my plane ticket, you gave me the 

money to do it...By me going and me fighting and doing that they 

can, by this new law, they can come and take you and put you in 

jail.’’

Very frankly, I was stunned at the understanding of those involved in terror of the impact of the law passed by the U.S. House 

of Representatives and Senate and sent to the President for his signature. They are getting the message: We are gathering and cultivating detailed intelligence on terrorism in the United States. They 

understand our effort. We are arresting and detaining potential 

terrorist threats. We are dismantling the terrorist financial network, and we are disrupting potential terrorist travel, and we are 

building our long-term counterterrorism capacity. We are winning 

the war on terrorism. 

I thank you for this opportunity to be with you, and I will be 

happy to respond to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Attorney General Ashcroft appears 

as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, General. 

We will turn to you, Secretary Ridge. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. RIDGE, SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Secretary RIDGE. Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, and distinguished members of the committee, it is a distinct pleasure and a 

privilege to appear before you today in what is, as Senator Hatch 

has noted, my first opportunity to testify before the Congress as 

the Secretary of Homeland Security. I also appreciate the opportunity to appear with my colleagues, Attorney General John 

Ashcroft and FBI Director Bob Mueller, two extremely distinguished public servants and two of my closest allies in the ongoing 

campaign to enhance the safety and security of our American 

homeland. Thank you for this opportunity to highlight the activiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Oct 07, 2003 Jkt 089325 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89325.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
12

ties and the accomplishments and the work of the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

Last Saturday, the 1st of March 2003, we integrated nearly two 

dozen agencies or entities into the Department of Homeland Security. With them came some 180,000 dedicated Federal workers who 

have all been serving their country with distinction from various 

departments within the Government. This momentous milestone 

means that there is now real muscle on the skeleton of a Department that was created back in January. With these agencies and 

these people come tremendous capabilities, as well as challenges. 

In order to better protect our borders, Under Secretary Asa 

Hutchinson has launched a well-conceived and much needed plan 

to combine the forces of the Customs Service, the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service, the agricultural inspection functions of the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the Federal Protective Service. His initiative, based on the vision articulated in the 

Homeland Security Act, combines the four entities into two: a Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and a Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This is an important step that will 

leverage the operational expertise of all those involved and move 

us toward a future where there will be one organizational face at 

our borders rather than several. 

This realignment of resources has already demonstrated its benefit. Last week, customs, immigration, and agriculture border inspectors reported to three separate port directors who in turn reported up three separate chains of command to three separate Cabinet Secretaries. Today, these inspectors now report to one interim 

port director, who reports through a unified chain of command to 

one Cabinet Secretary. 

Two weeks ago, we rolled out the Department’s Citizen Preparedness Program. The public response has been overwhelming, with 

our ready.gov website receiving more than 2.5 million visits per 

day since becoming operational. This program provides immediate 

and practical guidance to the millions of Americans who, to their 

credit, know that preparation makes sense and saves lives. 

As of the 1st of March, we have entered into a number of Memoranda of Understanding that consolidate previously dispersed national incident support functions into the new Department of 

Homeland Security. We have taken responsibility and control of the 

Domestic Emergency Support Team, the Strategic National stockpile, and America’s National Disaster Medical System and Teams. 

Restructuring these authorities gives the Department the ability to 

manage major domestic incidents by establishing, again, a single, 

comprehensive, and coherent national incident management system. 

Also ahead of us are other challenges as well as opportunities to 

work more efficiently and effectively. We are making good progress 

on a regional structure that will help to enhance overall accountability and efficiency. That plan is still under development. When 

we have a better idea of how the regions will be organized, we look 

forward to presenting the final plan to Congress. 

We continue to build and refine our partnerships with other Federal departments, State and local governments, and the private 

sector. There is no Federal plan that will ensure our homeland seVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Oct 07, 2003 Jkt 089325 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89325.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
13

curity. It must be a national plan that involves all Americans. And 

it must go beyond even this, working closely with our neighbors 

and allies overseas to build an international plan and an international response. We are working to build such a plan. 

While this work goes on, we must continue to carefully tend to 

all the critical missions of the Department of Homeland Security, 

especially those that are not directly security-related. 

We have the support of our partners, like the gentlemen and colleagues who join me here today, and we have the support of Congress, which has been critical in getting us to this point. 

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify 

and to talk about the work we are doing to make America a safer 

home for us, for our children, and for generations to come. I thank 

you for inviting me to appear before you today, and I look forward 

to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Ridge appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

We will turn to the FBI Director, Mr. Mueller, at this point. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT S. MUELLER III, DIRECTOR, 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Director MUELLER. Thank you, Chairman Hatch and Senator 

Leahy and members of the committee. President Bush recently reemphasized to all FBI employees that the FBI has no greater priority than preventing terrorist attacks against the United States. 

And since the attacks of September 11th, the FBI has embraced 

this challenge and transformed itself to address the current threat 

facing this country. 

Before I outline for the committee the advances the FBI has 

made in the past 18 months, I do want to assure the American people and the members of this committee, particularly the members 

of this committee who played such a vital role in enhancing the 

FBI’s counterterrorism efforts through the USA PATRIOT ACT—

I want to assure you that the FBI is committed to carrying out its 

mission in accordance with the protections provided by the Constitution. Every FBI agent is trained to recognize that the responsibility to respect and protect the law is the basis for their authority 

to enforce it. Respect for constitutional liberties is not optional. It 

is mandatory. And the FBI could not be effective and would not 

exist without it. 

The FBI’s efforts to identify and dismantle terrorist networks 

have yielded major successes over the past 18 months. We have 

charged over 200 suspected terrorists with crimes, half of whom 

have been convicted to date, and the rest are awaiting trial. And, 

moreover, our efforts have damaged terrorist networks throughout 

the United States and overseas. 

Last month, I testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the Al-Qaeda network will remain for the foreseeable future the most immediate and serious threat facing this country. And while this remains true, the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Pakistan only 3 days ago is a significant blow to the 

leadership of the Al-Qaeda network. While Osama bin Laden mainVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Oct 07, 2003 Jkt 089325 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89325.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
14

tains worldwide name recognition as the leader of Al-Qaeda, 

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is the operational or was the operational mastermind. His terrorist plots—believed to include the 

1993 World Trade Center, the USS Cole bomb delivered by boat, 

and the September 11th terrorist attacks delivered by air—have resulted in the death of thousands of innocent people. 

I would like to congratulate and thank our Pakistani partners on 

this major victory in the war on terrorism, as well as thanking our 

brethren in the intelligence community. But, most particularly, I 

want to thank the Pakistanis for their efforts that led to the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. I can assure you both here and 

throughout the country that any and all resources of the FBI will 

be brought to bear to exploit the intelligence information that may 

become available as a result of this arrest. 

We must not lose sight, however, of the fact that there are many 

groups committed to international terrorism which offer Al-Qaeda 

varying degrees of support. Nor will we discount the threat from 

single individuals sympathetic or affiliated with Al-Qaeda, acting 

without external support or surrounding conspiracies. 

And despite the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Al-Qaeda 

and other terrorist networks are adept at defending their organizations from U.S. and international law enforcement efforts. As these 

terrorist organizations evolve and change their tactics, we, too, 

must evolve. Accordingly, over the past 18 months, we have 

brought momentous changes to the FBI, including the incorporate 

of an enhanced intelligence function. These changes will better enable us to defend against this terrorist threat. 

Mr. Chairman, to effectively wage this war against terror, we 

have augmented our counterterrorism resources and are making 

organizational enhancements to focus our priorities. I would like to 

review some of those changes with the committee, beginning with 

the FBI’s analytical program. 

To give new focus to analysis, last year I created an Analysis 

Branch in the Counterterrorism Division and assigned it the mission of producing strategic assessments of the terrorist threat to 

the United States. To date, the Analysis Branch has produced 

nearly 30 in-depth analytical assessments. 

Since 9/11, the FBI has increased the number of 

counterterrorism analysts by 61 percent. And through fiscal year 

2004, our proposed increase will result in the quadrupling of the 

number of analysts beyond that or those that we had prior to September 11th. Recognizing in the short term that we could not get 

to where we needed to be overnight, Director Tenet detailed 25 of 

his analysts to the FBI to provide an immediate infusion of expertise into our program while our hiring initiative was underway. 

We have also implemented a number of initiatives aimed at enhancing training for our analytic work force, including the creation 

of the College of Analytical Studies, which, in conjunction with the 

CIA, has begun training our new intelligence analysts. 

Now, these improvements to our analytic program had to be 

made as quickly as possible to address our immediate needs. I now 

want to ensure our ability to collect and analyze this intelligence 

for the long term. 

15

The centerpiece of this effort is the establishment of an Executive 

Assistant Director for Intelligence who will have direct authority 

and responsibility for the FBI’s national intelligence program. Specifically, this individual will be responsible for ensuring that the 

FBI has the optimum strategies, structure, and policies in place 

first and foremost for our counterterrorism mission. 

Furthermore, intelligence units staffed with reports officers will 

be established in every field office and will function under the authority of the Executive Assistant Director for Intelligence. And 

these reports officers will be responsible for identifying, extracting, 

and collecting intelligence from FBI investigations and sharing that 

information throughout the FBI and throughout the other law enforcement and intelligence entities. 

We have established since September 11th a number of specialized counterterrorism units, including what is called CT Watch, a 

24-hour counterterrorism watch center; a Communications Analysis 

Section; a Document Exploitation Unit; and enhanced the Special 

Technologies and Applications Unit to making it a section; and, finally, we have also set up a Terrorism Financing Operations Section. All of those entities assist us in addressing the 

counterterrorism mission. 

Let me turn for a moment to information sharing and our operational coordination initiatives. If we are to defeat terrorists and 

their supporters, a wide range of organizations must work together. 

And I am committed to the closest possible coordination with the 

intelligence community and other Federal Government agencies 

and our essential partners at the State and local level. 

We are taking steps to enhance our cooperation with Federal, 

State, and local agencies by expanding the number of Joint Terrorism Task Forces. Where we had 35 prior to September 11th, we 

now have 66 as of today. These task forces partner FBI personnel 

with hundreds of investigations from various Federal, State, and 

local agencies in field offices across the country and are important 

for multipliers aiding our fight against terrorism. 

We established here at headquarters the National Joint Terrorism Task Force staffed by representatives from 30 different Federal, State, and local agencies. 

And to strengthen our cooperation with State and local law enforcement, we are introducing counterterrorism training on a national level. And we are providing specialized counterterrorism 

training to in excess of 200 agents and training technicians from 

every field office in the country so that they in transparency can 

train the estimated 27,000 Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers, hopefully this year, training them in basic 

counterterrorism investigations. 

We also established an Office of Law Enforcement Coordination. 

This was created to enhance the ability of the FBI to forge cooperation and substantive relationships with all of our State and local 

law enforcement counterparts. I brought in a former chief of police 

to head up this particular office. 

Let me turn for a second to the reforms in the FISA process. 

Whatever problems—and there were problems in the FISA process 

prior to September 11th. We believe we have taken substantial 

steps to address those problems. We have created a FISA Unit reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Oct 07, 2003 Jkt 089325 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89325.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
16

sponsible for ensuring that FISA applications move expeditiously 

through the FISA process. This unit is developing and implementing an automated FISA management system, and it will oversee the expeditious distribution of FISA court orders and warrants 

to the appropriate field offices, telecommunications carriers, Internet service providers, and other specified persons. 

The FBI’s National Security Law Unit and the Department’s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review are collaborating on a number of procedural and legal initiatives that are streamlining and 

simplifying the process by which FBI agents obtain FISA authority. 

Since September 11th, attorneys from the National Security Law 

Unit have conducted approximately 70 training sessions on FISArelated issues. These sessions, which have been held at Quantico, 

at headquarters, and in the field, have been attended by agents 

and supervisors in groups as small as 20 and as large as several 

hundred. In addition, we are in the process of implementing the 

Deputy Attorney General’s mandate to establish a comprehensive 

training curriculum on FISA and related matters for all Justice Department lawyers and FBI agents who work on foreign intelligence 

and counterintelligence investigations. 

Since September 11th, we have made full and very productive 

use of the emergency FISA process whereby we can often establish 

electronic surveillance within hours of establishing probable cause 

that an individual is an appropriate FISA subject. Thanks to the 

efforts of our agents and the attorneys in the National Security 

Law Unit and the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, in the 

1-year period from September 11th to September 19, 2002, we have 

obtained more than double the number of emergency FISAs as 

compared to the total number of emergency FISAs we obtained in 

the prior 23-year history of the FISA statute. 

Let me spend a moment, if I might, Mr. Chairman, on information technology. We are also swiftly addressing the shortcomings of 

the Bureau’s information technology. Over the years, we have 

failed to develop a sufficient capacity to collect, store, search, retrieve, and, most particularly, analyze and share information. Mr. 

Chairman, you are aware of the problems the FBI has experienced 

because of outdated technology. Thanks to support from Congress, 

the FBI has embarked on a comprehensive overhaul and revitalization of our information technology infrastructure. That process is 

well under way, but our technological problems are complex and 

they will be remedied only through careful and methodical planning and implementation. We have made substantial progress in 

the past 18 months, and we have laid the groundwork for significant progress in the months and the years ahead. And I would be 

happy to explore that in more detail in response to questions. 

Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to pledge our support for the Terrorist Threat Integration 

Center. As you know, this center will merge and analyze terroristrelated information collected domestically and abroad. This initiative will be crucially important to the success of our mission in the 

FBI, and it will take us to the next level in being able to prevent 

another terrorist attack on our Nation. 

17

I have provided additional details in my prepared statement and 

would be happy to respond to any questions the committee may 

have on the FBI’s role in the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. 

Mr. Chairman, I have outlined for you just a few of the significant enhancements the FBI has implemented since the terrorist attacks of 2001. We have a far more in-depth briefing on these initiatives and others, as well as an online demonstration of our new analytical tools, that is available at FBI headquarters to all members 

of the committee. And I invite each of you to come to headquarters 

for this presentation at your earliest convenience. 

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying that the nature of the 

threats facing the United States homeland continues to evolve and 

so does the FBI. We have made significant strides toward enhancing our operations, and I appreciate the opportunity to explain 

some of them to the committee today. 

While we have come a long way in the past 18 months, we still 

have a long way yet to go. I look forward to working with the committee in the months ahead to further enhance our ability to combat terrorism and to ensure the strongest, most effective FBI possible? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make this 

statement today, and let me finally say that I look forward to whatever suggestions the committee may have. We certainly do not 

have a monopoly on how things can be improved, and we look forward to working with this committee to further improve the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mueller appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you. I think all three of your 

statements have been very informative, and I think the public at 

large will benefit greatly from hearing what you have had to say. 

In particular, Mr. Mueller, I am appreciative of your humble approach to things, because you have always said, ‘‘Help me to do my 

job better, if you can. We are open. We will listen.’’ And I personally appreciate that, and I have appreciated the service you have 

given. 

I appreciate you other two greater leaders as well. You have had 

a tiger by the tail, Senator Ashcroft, and we appreciate it. And now 

there is no question about the tigers you have by the tail, is all I 

can say. So you have a rough time. 

What we are going to do is we are going to go to Senator Kyl 

first, then to the ranking member, and then I am going to go to 

Senator Specter, and I will give him my time and he will take his 

time for 14 minutes, and then I will come to two, if they are available, over the Democrat side for 14 minutes, 7 minutes each. 

Now, given the interest in this hearing, I am going to ask, out 

of consideration for other members of the committee, that each 

member stay within the 7-minute allocation of time for questioning. 

If we do, then every member on the committee can get at least one 

round of questioning, and possibly more. Each minute any of you 

go over takes time from your fellow Senators. So I would like us 

all to be as courteous as we can to our fellow Senators by staying 

within that 7-minute time limit. So this little instrument here will 

tell me when 7 minutes is up. That one there, when the red light 

18

comes on, I hope you will stop because I will probably interrupt you 

so that we can give everybody a chance. 

We will turn to you, Senator Kyl, first and——

Audience Participant. Mr. Chairman——

Chairman HATCH. We are not going to have statements——

Audience Participant. On the matter of judiciary and courts, 

judges are used as a terrorist organization against us, not today, 

not yesterday, but 50 years, and with both administrations, Democratic and Republican Parties, and who is going to investigate this 

matter? 

Chairman HATCH. All right. We are going to have to—we will 

take that into consideration. We are going to have to move ahead 

with the committee hearing. I don’t want any further outbursts by 

anybody, and if there are, we will have you removed from the room. 

But if you will just relax and sit back, we will keep you in the 

room. If not, we will have to have you removed. 

Senator Kyl? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF ARIZONA 

Senator KYL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I very 

much appreciate your willingness to defer to me. As it sometimes 

occurs, we have commitments that require our presence elsewhere, 

and I must leave to focus on an issue that is of concern, especially, 

Secretary Ridge, to you, and that is the illegal immigration which 

results in huge costs both to our law enforcement community, State 

law enforcement community, and to, as it turns out, our hospitals 

which have to care for illegal immigrants and bear a cost of about 

$1.5 billion a year. That will take me away in just a moment, so 

I appreciate the Chair deferring to me. 

It frequently makes news when someone criticizes the law enforcement community when there are failures, and, of course, we 

can’t stop every attack. But it is always good to hear good news, 

and the exception to this, with the recent capture of Khalid Shaikh 

Mohammed, and General Ashcroft, your testimony containing a 

lengthy and impressive review of successes of law enforcement is 

welcome. And I commend all three of you for the efforts that you 

have engaged in and hope that you will convey to those who work 

with you our appreciation. 

Director Mueller, my first question is to you. There are a number 

of terrorist attacks that have been averted or prevented as a result 

of the cooperation of law enforcement agencies and our intelligence 

work, both here and abroad. Could you just give us an idea of the 

number of attacks that have been averted that we can’t talk about 

in terms of where they occurred, what was happening, and so on? 

But it is important at least to know that we have been successful. 

Mr. MUELLER. Senator, several months ago we tried to add up 

the number of terrorist attacks around the world that may have 

been averted by not only the efforts of the FBI and the CIA, but 

also the efforts of our counterparts overseas. And when we did so, 

it was well in excess—it was in excess of 100. We think by this 

time it is probably well in excess of 100 when you take into account 

arrests that have taken place, for instance, in Great Britain with 

regard to risin in the last few months, in Spain. We also are lookVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Oct 07, 2003 Jkt 089325 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89325.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
19

ing with some anticipation to determine what information we may 

obtain from whatever was seized with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 

in hopes of exploiting those materials with the expectation that we 

will be able to avert additional attacks with that exploitation. 

Senator KYL. The next question is both to Attorney General 

Ashcroft and to Director Mueller. It has to do with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which prevents the FBI from conducting 

surveillance unless there is probable cause to believe that the suspect is either a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, and 

as a result the FBI cannot get an order to surveil individual foreign 

terrorists, notwithstanding the fact that recent intelligence reports 

cite increased risk of lone wolf attacks. 

And Senator Schumer and I have a bill which will allow the FBI 

to monitor the lone wolf terrorist under FISA even if not linked to 

a foreign power, so long as the FBI has probable cause that the 

person is engaged in or preparing for international terrorism. 

This question is for both of you. FISA was originally passed in 

order to deal with Soviet spies in the rather hierarchical kind of 

terror groups that existed then like the Red Army faction and so 

on, whereas today we are dealing with a movement of Islamic terrorism that sometimes does not involve a membership card in a 

particular organization. Could both of you confirm the administration’s position on the bill that Senator Schumer and I have which 

permits the surveillance of even the lone wolf terrorist? General 

Ashcroft? 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. Well, first of all the administration 

believe that would be a step in the right direction. It is a good bill. 

It is what ought to be done. Right now we have the ability, if there 

are two or more involved, so the change in the law is not that 

great. But we do know that single, lone wolf terrorists act and can 

act in ways that are very, very damaging. Without referring to any 

case, for example, someone who decided on his or her own motive 

or involvement to begin an assault on a population with a weapon 

to disrupt say a train station is someone that could cause serious 

damage while acting alone. It is our judgment that the requirement 

that the person be involved in international terror is enough of a 

predicate to be a responsible basis for involving us in the kind of 

coverage that is available, and we believe the proposal is a good 

one and should be enacted. 

Senator KYL. And, Director Mueller, you are also concerned 

about the lone wolf terrorist? 

Mr. MUELLER. I support, quite obviously, what the Attorney General said in terms of the utility of this change in the bill. We have 

had problems in the past in attempting to identify sufficient information to link an individual to an agent of a foreign power, a particular terrorist group. And this would overcome some of those hurdles that we have had in the past. 

We have in our threat analyses, our summary of threats facing 

the United States, identified the lone wolf as an individual who we 

cannot dismiss, and one that we would have to look out for, particularly when we know that Al-Qaeda is a very loosely integrated 

organization, and quite often you cannot until some time down the 

road identify particular ties to that particular organization. 

Senator KYL. Thank you for that. 

20

Mr. Chairman, I think that the yellow light suggests that I am 

just about out of time, so could I request that the other three questions that I have for our panelists be accepted for the record, and 

I again very much appreciate your willingness to defer to me at 

this time. 

And again, I thank all of you, and I hope that you will express 

to your colleagues, the many people who work for you and for us, 

that we appreciate very much their hard work in protecting us. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Senator. 

We will turn to Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I start I might 

note that sometimes happens in some of these hearings, there are 

interruptions. I just want to commend you for the way you handled 

the most recent one, being respectful to those who are guests here, 

but also being very respectful to what has to be done in a hearing. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator. Appreciate that. 

Senator LEAHY. Governor Ridge, I mentioned earlier my concern 

about support, Federal support for State and local first responders. 

We have discussed this on other occasions. Before the National 

Governors Association President Bush, rather surprisingly, blamed 

the Republican controlled Congress for shortchanging the Homeland Security programs to guard against terrorism. He said he was 

disappointed that Congress did not respond to the $3–1/2 billion 

that we had asked for. Of course then the members of the President’s own party came back and said that the White House was intimately involved in negotiating the details of the omnibus spending bill and had signed off on every cent in there. 

Be that as it may, it did cut a billion dollars off the Federal program. We now have State and local authorities asking—I mention 

this because today is town meeting day in Vermont. It is an amazing part of democracy. And last night in one town, Middlebury had 

theirs in the evening. The long-term moderator has now been elected Governor of our State; he was still there to be moderator. And 

was treated no differently than anybody else at the town meeting. 

It works. 

But they are asking on some of the first responder questions they 

are getting, do we cut the school budget? Do we cut the snow removal budget? What do we cut to pay for our new requirements? 

A lot of fire departments in Vermont, are telling me and I am sure 

they are in other states, they are having members being called up 

by the National Guard to go to the Middle East, and they want to 

know where the money is. So, the President will have an emergency supplemental, and there can be money in there for law enforcement agencies, fire departments, EMS units. Should he include at least $5 billion in that supplemental? I mean a lot of people in the Congress have asked for it. Senator Daschle has. I have. 

Others. Should he include $5 billion in there? 

Secretary RIDGE. First of all, I would like to ask the Chairman 

if my entire text of my prior remarks could be included as part of 

the record? I edited. 

Chairman HATCH. Without objection, we will put the entire text 

in. 

Secretary RIDGE. Thank you very much. 

21

Senator first of all, we have, with the support of Congress, appro- priated $3.5 billion. While that did not meet the hopes and aspirations of a lot of people, it still is a substantial investment in first 

responder capacity. our job will be to get those dollars out the door 

as quickly as possible, hopefully beginning as early as the end of 

next week, the end of this week. Second, the President has said 

that we need to build this national capacity over a period of time. 

We are going to do that. The President has requested an additional 

$3.5 billion in the 2004 budget. 

I would say, in response to your question, that right now it is a 

little too early for me to determine what if anything we will ask 

for within the supplemental if it comes to the Hill. But I would say 

to the Senator that I hope, regardless of whether we ask for additional money in the supplemental or money in the 2004 budget, 

that we could provide the State and locals a little bit more flexibility than some of the earmarking would allow. 

One of the things the Department of Homeland Security is trying 

to do and to convince our colleagues in public service, the Governors and the mayors, is to develop local plans and statewide 

plans, and then allow us to fund those plans, so that they specifically earmark and delineate where those dollars are to go. 

Senator LEAHY. Let me ask you this, and actually you would be 

a good one to know about the needs. The needs of Pennsylvania 

when you were Governor, are different than the needs of Missouri 

when General Ashcroft was Governor, or the State of Vermont or 

Utah or anywhere else. And you know you have to have some flexibility. 

Secretary RIDGE. Correct. 

Senator LEAHY. But if you had $5 billion, could you use it? 

Secretary RIDGE. Well, I think if we have—any additional money 

could be used, to be determined. I would echo a hope and an aspiration that the 3.5 that we are going to get out the door as quickly 

as possible could be quickly joined by another 3.5 in the President’s 

2004 budget, which would get us $7 billion. 

Senator LEAHY. Let me ask you this. We have authorized increases in Immigration personnel at our northern border. Before 

the September 11th attacks I think it suffered a lot of neglect. 

Now, we have a two-way thing on the Northern border. Canada is 

our largest trading partner, and a strong, good ally of the United 

States. We want to have easy movement back and forth. I live an 

hour from the Canadian border. I know how important it is both 

for commerce and for families—a lot of us have relatives in Canada—to be able to move back and forth easily. But we also know 

we need stronger border personnel. The Attorney General, the Director of the FBI, they are concerned about what might come 

across a border that historically has been a very open one. In today’s Burlington Free Press in Vermont they talk about organized 

smuggling groups coming down in a low-flying helicopter. Our 

State’s public safety commissioner says our border is not secure. 

Professional smugglers can be smuggling any type of contraband. 

We know what happened on our Southern border. Heavily armed 

Cuban commandoes came in flying the flag, and actually landed, 

pulled ashore and walked up and down the street, finding out who 

they could turn themselves in to. 

22

Will you assure me, as you have in the past, will you assure me 

that we will start working very hard on this? We have one of your 

three major INS facilities in Vermont. If that was attacked it could 

create all kinds of havoc throughout, havoc that would affect every 

aspect of law enforcement. Will you work with us to make sure 

that we get more security at those borders? 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, you certainly have that pledge. Frankly, we are grateful for the support. I believe it was your amendment to the PATRIOT Act that provided the designation for additional complement to be added to the border patrol in the north 

and further inspectors. I think we are about three-quarters of the 

way there with the dollars we got in the 2003 budget. We are also 

in the process of continuing to develop a 21st century smart border 

agreement with our Canadian allies so that we can encourage and 

facilitate the flow of legitimate goods and people, but also use other 

means to apprehend and discourage the illegitimate flow of goods 

and people that we do not want into this country. 

So I think in the months and the years ahead, a combination of 

these good people, with the complement that you have authorized 

and supported, along with some new technology, we will do a much 

better job at facilitating that goal at our borders, both north and 

south. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I will submit my other question for the record. I 

would hope the Chairman would work with me to make sure the 

questions are responded to. 

Chairman HATCH. I would be glad to do so, Senator. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Chairman HATCH. We turn to Senator Grassley now for 7 minutes, and then to Senator Feinstein for 7 minutes, and then to Senator Specter. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. I hope I can get to each one of 

you with one question and then submit the rest of the questions 

for answer in writing. 

First of all, I want to compliment the Chairman for holding an 

oversight hearing. I hope this is the first of many oversight hearings because I think oversight is very, very important. 

Secretary Ridge, I will start with you. As you know, I recently 

held a Finance Committee hearing on border security that revealed 

several serious problems. Two of those problems really stick out. 

The first problem was that undercover agents got into the country 

at ports of entry using really unsophisticated fake IDs and other 

phony documents. The second problem is enforcement on public 

lands at the borders. More than 40 percent of the Southern border 

is park land, and the Northern border has more than 500 miles of 

public land. About a quarter of a million illegal aliens cross the 

Southern border every year, but only a handful of park rangers are 

out there to stop them. Who knows how many terrorists could join 

the smugglers and immigrants to get into the country. 

The day of the hearing that I held, you made a comment on the 

news that these issues needed to be resolved and that you would 

work with me. 

So first I want to ask about the park lands at the borders. The 

National Park Service is just not equipped, staffed or trained to 

23

protect the borders enough. Security is a big, big priority right now 

with everybody. The Park Service needs the help of Homeland Security. You have got ports of entry pretty well secured, at least I 

hope you do, and I think that you are working hard in that direction. But what can your department do to help stem the flow of illegal aliens on the rural public lands along our borders? 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, the collaboration that has historically 

existed between the Border Patrol and other departments and 

units that come into the new Department of Homeland Security 

has been good. We believe, however, that our ability to reconfigure 

the border units, the border bureaus, one dealing with protection, 

the other dealing with enforcement, will give us some additional 

personnel that we can apply to the borders and to work with the 

Park Service to cover what heretofore has been uncovered or rarely 

covered territory. 

One of the meetings I have later on this week is with the Director of the Park Service. We recognize that there is a gap there, and 

it is our responsibility in the Department of Homeland Security to 

find ways to fill the gaps. One will be, obviously, more personnel, 

we believe through the reorganization that we are developing. But 

in time, we think detection technology should be deployed in some 

of these less inhabited or uninhabited areas. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Director Mueller, I know that you are working hard to transform 

the FBI. Unlike many of my colleagues floating new ideas, I still 

think that the FBI should be in charge of counterterrorism. What 

concerns me today is the FBI’s internal cultural problems that you 

have heard me talk so much about. The FBI cannot reform, I think, 

unless these problems get fixed. These are the same issues that 

have stopped the FBI in the past from being effective in 

counterterrorism. You inherited many problems. You have an opportunity and, as I know, you feel a duty to fix them. The example 

of this that troubles me, there is just one example that troubles me 

right now, is your Assistant Director at OPR, Mr. Jordan, and Unit 

Chief John Roberts. As you know, I have been concerned that Bob 

Jordan retaliated against John Roberts after Mr. Roberts went on 

60 Minutes to talk about longstanding problems, especially the 

double standard in discipline. You have told me that you will not 

allow retaliation, and I have your memo here from November 2001, 

that says exactly that. But I also happen to have with me the Inspector General’s report about the case involving Jordan and Roberts. The way I see it, an accounting is needed. This is an opportunity for you to declare an end to the double standard by holding 

Mr. Jordan accountable for a violation at least in spirit of the 

memo that you issued November 2001. Otherwise, the double 

standard will be alive and well, and agents will fear retaliation for 

speaking the truth about the problems. If that happens, I think my 

faith in the ability of the FBI to reform would erode because that 

atmosphere hurts the FBI’s overall effectiveness. 

I am also very troubled that Bruce Gephardt, the FBI’s Deputy 

Director, sent an e-mail that said Mr. Roberts had, quote, ‘‘brought 

discredit to the FBI badge.’’ In my letter to you last week I asked 

how someone who had done what Mr. Jordan has could still be in 

charge of the office or OPR. And now there is a story in the media, 

24

I think just yesterday, suggesting he misled me, misled Senator 

Leahy, misled Chairman Hatch in December. I am not saying that 

he lied, but I do not think he was forthcoming. You have had some 

time to think about this I hope, so I would like to hear what your 

plan is for Mr. Jordan and what you think of Mr. Gephardt’s email. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, Senator, quite obviously, I share your concern about a double standard and protections for whistleblowers. I 

think with regard to the issue of Mr. Jordan, when the issue arose, 

I did, as I have in the past, asked the Inspector General to look 

at that issue. And I have reviewed the Inspector General’s report, 

and I point out on the one hand it concludes that Jordan did not 

intentionally retaliate against Special Agent Roberts, but it did 

raise issues with regard to Mr. Jordan’s judgment in that context. 

Because of the seriousness of the issue, and because I am looking 

for guidance on what is the appropriate way to handle this, I had 

a meeting with the Inspector General yesterday, and I informed 

the Inspector General that in reviewing the report and looking at 

the issues relating to judgment, it was my belief that that in and 

of itself was not sufficient to take any action, but that I should look 

at that in the context of Director Jordan’s handling of the office, 

his record for integrity and judgment throughout his career, which 

is substantial, and to continue to look at that position and how he 

is operating that position, and that is what I intend to do. 

I will tell you also, Senator, that as you are aware, I know, that 

Mr. Roberts, who I respect and is respected by many agents in the 

FBI, also has indicated that Bob Jordan is making substantial 

changes to OPR that were long overdue. And if you look at Mr. Jordan’s record in OPR in the short time that he has been there, he 

has reduced the backlog substantially. He has made substantial 

improvements to make our OPR better, and not only better across 

the board, but also to eliminate the appearance of a double standard. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I think that is a slap on the wrist and that 

you are sending a very bad message to everybody else, that there 

is going to be a double standard continued. Thank you. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Senator Grassley. We will 

turn to Senator Kohl then. Let me get this lineup. Senator Kohl 

will go for 7 minutes, and then we are going to go to Senator Specter for 14. He has my time as well as his. And then we will go to 

Senator Feinstein for 7, then Senator Feingold for 7. So you will 

have 14 minutes on that side. And I have to leave for a few minutes to take a phone call, so if either of you will continue to operate 

that way. 

We will go to Senator Kohl, then Senator Specter. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to talk about the Homeland Security Advisory System, gentlemen. When a decision is made, as it was recently, to 

raise the alert level from yellow to orange, that determination puts 

the entire country on a heightened state of alert. News reports at 

that time suggested that prompting the change were serious 

threats to New York and Washington, D.C. And yet there may 

have been entire areas of the country where the danger level of terrorist activity had really not changed at all. Surely one cannot sugVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Oct 07, 2003 Jkt 089325 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89325.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
25

gest that every part of the country has the same level of risk. In 

fact, it is likely that more than half the country live in areas that 

did not need to go on a heightened state of alert at all. The threat 

level certainly varies depending upon whether you live, for example, in rural Wisconsin or in a major urban area. 

So I ask what can be done to improve the advisory system so 

that we know which regions of the country are truly at risk and 

which regions are not? 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, thank you for your inquiry, because as 

you know, the decision itself to raise the threat level and to give 

the law enforcement community and security personnel around the 

country a warning based on our threat analysis is a very difficult 

and complex one, as it is. It is not a decision that is undertaken 

based upon a single piece of information, and it has not historically 

been done on a given day. It is really something that occurs after 

multiple sources, credible sources are reviewed, plot lines are examined, and then once the President’s Homeland Security Council 

has had an opportunity to review it, to make a recommendation, 

and then we made that decision. 

There is an ability within the existing advisory system to regionalize, either in terms of geography or economic sectors or the like, 

the threats. Literally there is that flexibility within the system, 

and we will certainly—it is coming close to its first year anniversary—take a look at the system itself, see how it has been utilized 

during the past year—we think it has been utilized rather effectively—to determine what additional flexibility we could create 

within the system to respond to the concerns that you have expressed and many others have expressed, including your colleague 

to your right. Senator Biden expressed a concern about regionalization in more specificity with regard to the use of the warning system. 

I will tell you 2 weeks ago, 3 weeks ago, there was enough general information from credible sources about potential targets that 

we would interpret as being national in nature, warranted our taking the warning system from yellow to orange, and not regionalizing it. In the past we have sent out specific warnings, you will 

recall, not through the threat system, but we did identify some 

credible threats to the financial sector many, many months ago, 

and dealt with that specifically. 

So the flexibility is there. We have had the system up and operating for about a year. We obviously want to go back and take a 

look and see if we can build more flexibility, but it is threat-driven, 

information-driven. Unless we have that kind of specificity that 

drives us to a specific decision and a specific determination, our instinct is to put out the general warning rather than a specific one. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Ashcroft? 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. Thank you, Senator. I would like to 

just add that the purpose for the threat advisory system is to prevent terrorism. And one of the things that we have learned is that 

those individuals who many not be at the focus of the attack are 

in a position to sometimes participate in preventing an attack. We 

know that individuals first got on airplanes in Maine, and then 

transferred to airplanes that eventually were part of the tragedy in 

New York. We watched as individuals took flight training and did 

26

other things all across the country. So in terms of prevention, we 

have found that individuals are all across the country who have 

represented a part of a threat that is very serious. While I think 

it is fair to say that some part of the country be as vulnerable to 

the specific attack for prevention purposes, a high level of alert can 

be very helpful to us. 

Second, I think it is pretty clear that when we put the alerts out, 

that various parts of the country respond in different ways to meet 

the local needs. So the Director of Homeland Security has very appropriately indicated that we have the ability to tailor the threats. 

We also want to make sure we are always enlisting the aid of the 

entire Nation, for frequently those who perpetrate attacks stage, 

plan, develop, train and take actions in settings that are not the 

focal point of the attack. And so that we find yes there is a differential risk. We hope that even by making the announcement we 

drive the risk down by having an alert public, which we know from 

intelligence the terrorists, when they see alertness and vigilance 

and a high level of security, they defer, default or abandon their 

plans. 

I think we can ask for help from citizens all across the Nation, 

and it has been helpful. That is one of the reasons that it sometimes, even for areas that are not likely perhaps to be the subject 

of attack, they can help in preventing an attack. That is our No. 

1 priority. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Mueller, do you have a comment? 

Mr. MUELLER. No. I would follow with what the Attorney General and Secretary Ridge said. 

Senator KOHL. One more question, gentlemen. Most Americans 

live in communities that do not have important national landmarks 

like the Sears Tower or Golden Gate Bridge, and yet they are concerned about the chance of a terrorist attack against their water 

sources, power plants and bridges. When I surveyed Wisconsin 

sheriffs and chiefs of police, 40 percent reported that they feel that 

risk of a terrorist attack in their jurisdiction. But they report that 

they are unsure how to evaluate the risk to their local infrastructure and how to protect their skills, for example, or the shopping 

malls. And if they conclude that their communities are at risk, they 

tell us they cannot afford to pay for the protection that is necessary. 

These are real concerns I believe that impact our communities on 

a daily basis. So how can we help them protect their population? 

Does the Federal Government need to do perhaps a better job of 

informing, educating, and when appropriate, funding our State and 

our local officials? 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, the President and the Congress have 

recognized that concern at the State and local level in the passage 

of the Homeland Security Act, when it included in the new department an Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Unit, 

whose precise mission is to map the critical infrastructure around 

the country, develop means of risk assessment, vulnerability assessment, come up with prescriptive measures when they deem appropriate. That process began in the Office of Homeland Security 

and resulted in the President’s National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure Protection, and part of the responsibility of the new deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Oct 07, 2003 Jkt 089325 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89325.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
27

partment will be working with your State and local leaders based 

on the theory of managing the most serious risks, those piece of infrastructure that have the greatest possibility of catastrophic damage and injury to a community, and then coming up with the 

means and methods to protect them if they are not already protected. 

But that concern that you have expressed and has been expressed by people across the country is part of the responsibility of 

the new department, and specifically the Infrastructure Protection 

Unit within the department. 

Senator GRASSLEY. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Kohl. 

Now, Senator Specter. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General Ashcroft, there was a considerable amount of 

publicity given recently in the past 10 days to a situation which 

arose when Pakistani aliens, who had overstayed their visits, 

sought to go to Canada, which they thought had a more lenient 

record on permitting them to stay. And the Canadian officials were 

so over burdened, that they could not accommodate the people and 

told them to come back in 2 weeks. And when they then returned 

to the United States, they were immediately arrested and deported 

to Pakistan, according to these news reports. The concern I have 

is if people who are here illegally are genuinely trying to get out 

of the country. What is the harm in letting them do so unless there 

is some specific reason that individuals involved might be terrorist 

suspects? Of course if they were terrorist suspects the action probably would have been taken by the Department of Justice, Immigration, which has been under your control until very, very recently. Is there any problem in letting people leave the country voluntarily like the Pakistanis who have overstayed their visas without subjecting them to arrest? 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. To my knowledge, we did not prevent them from leaving the country. They went to Canada and they 

were allowed to go to Canada. According to your report, the Canadians could not accommodate them, so it is not our position that 

people cannot leave the country. It is our position that people who 

have overstayed their visa cannot stay in the country, and that 

they should live within the rules provided for those who visit the 

United States, and if they overstay and fail to observe the law, we 

ask them to leave. That is what deportation is about. And if they 

do not leave or they find themselves incapable of leaving, then we 

assist them in leaving, and that is why we have moved forward in 

that respect. 

Senator SPECTER. Attorney General Ashcroft, I do not want to 

spend any more time on this because very limited time, and I want 

to devote my principle time to questions on Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Act with Director Mueller. But I would ask you to 

take a look at this very extensive article in the New York Times 

for February 25th. The facts they recite are at variance with what 

you have said. And I once found another newspaper article which 

was wrong, so the article may be incorrect, but I would like you 

to take a look at that, and let us have a response in writing as to 

whether their factual representations are wrong, because I am relieved to hear you say that if people want to leave and they are 

28

just coming back because they cannot be accommodated because of 

the press of business in Canada, that they will not be arrested or 

deported. 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. Well, let me just indicate I will be 

happy to review the article. If they are coming back with a view 

toward being gone, that is one thing. If they are coming back because they just need a place to stay, that is another. I have to say 

that this has been transferred from the Justice Department by and 

large now with the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the 

gentleman on my left. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, since you mention that, I am going to 

ask Secretary Ridge to read the article and do the same thing with 

respect to his perspective policy. 

But, Mr. Secretary, do you prefer to be called Governor or Secretary? Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary RIDGE. Governor. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Secretary, I would ask you to review the 

article too with respect to what policy you would have. 

Secretary RIDGE. Sure. Thank you. 

Senator SPECTER. Director Mueller, I have spoken extensively 

about the FBI’s attitudes, standards under the Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Act, and I had hoped to have a more extensive opportunity to discuss this with you today. Senator Hatch has said that 

we will have another hearing where you will be back on a more 

protracted basis. It is not hard, it is impossible in the course of 14 

minutes to really explore this subject, but I have been asked to cosponsor legislation to take away counterintelligence from the FBI. 

There is a growing school of thought in the Congress that the FBI 

is a super law enforcement agency, but when it comes to counterintelligence the FBI has not measured up, and I have declined 

these invitations to support that legislation, but I am considering 

it. 

When we had your oversight hearings, I questioned you extensively about congressional oversight because of my dissatisfaction 

when I co-chaired an oversight subcommittee on the Department of 

Justice. And you were effusive in your agreement that there ought 

to be oversight and response for the Federal agencies. 

When FBI Agent Coleen Rowley came in and blew the lid off of 

the practices of the Bureau on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 

Act with her 13-page letter, she then came in to testify with you 

on June the 6th, and testified that the standard which the FBI 

Field Office In Minneapolis was using was a 51 percent more likely 

than not, and we went through on that day, June 6th, a detailed 

examination with both you—I went through with you and Coleen 

Rowley, about the standards which are summarized in a Supreme 

Court decision by then Justice Rehnquist, now Chief Justice, that 

probable cause is established by, quote, ‘‘circumstances which warrant suspicion,’’ close quote, and then based on totality of the circumstances. That standard was not applied by the FBI on the application for the warrant for Zacarias Moussaoui under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And we now know from what has been 

gleaned, that had the FBI gotten into Moussaoui’s computer in 

combination with the Phoenix FBI memo which was lost in the 

29

shuffle at FBI Headquarters, with the FBI not knowing what it 

knew, that 9–11 might well have been prevented. 

After that hearing on June 6, we then convened closed-door hearings on July 9th, and on July 9th I questioned 7 individuals from 

the FBI, including attorneys, and they had not heard about the 

hearing of June 6th. They had never heard about the Gates case, 

and they were applying the wrong standards. 

And then I wrote you a letter on July 10th reciting the appropriate standard and then pointing out to you the very next day 

after the hearing, ‘‘In a closed-door hearing yesterday, 7 FBI personnel handling FISA warrant applications were questioned, including 4 attorneys. No one was familiar with Justice Rehnquist’s 

definition from Gates and no one articulated an accurate standard 

for probable cause.’’

I didn’t get any response until a nonresponsive letter came in 

from John Collingswood, which was received in my office more than 

2 months later, on September the 12th, which was a nonresponse, 

not dealing with my questions. 

My first question to you, Director Mueller, is, when you acknowledge the constitutional authority of congressional oversight and you 

get a letter on a matter of utmost importance where the FBI personnel responsible for getting warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which might cutoff another Zacarias 

Moussaoui, do you not feel you have an obligation to respond? 

Mr. MUELLER. I do, Senator, and I wish we had gotten a response to you sooner. We set about after that hearing looking at 

our definitions of probable cause, the definition that we teach down 

at Quantico, the definition that is in the legal handbook for special 

agents, and we reviewed that and believe that is consistent to what 

we find in Illinois v. Gates. There was a period of time in which 

we were going to put out a much larger missive to our agents to 

explore not only probable cause, but other aspects of the FISA process. We determined not to do that in August of that year and determined instead to expand, in response to your suggestion and your 

concern, to expand on the definition of probable cause as it is put 

forth in Illinois v. Gates. 

Senator SPECTER. Director Mueller, if you are saying that you 

wanted to put out a memorandum which covered other subjects, I 

find that unacceptable. What happened between June 6, when you 

and Agent Rowley came in, and July 10th when we interviewed 7 

of your key personnel, who apply the standard for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? Let me rephrase the question. Is it not 

entirely possible that there could have been something in transit 

like Zacarias Moussaoui, where these people who did not know the 

appropriate standard and did not know about Gates would be applying the wrong standard, and another Zacarias Moussaoui would 

slip through the cracks? 

Mr. MUELLER. Senator, at the hearing, I know you asked a number of attorneys whether they were aware of Illinois v. Gates, and 

I know you asked one of the attorneys to give the definition. Illinois v. Gates is a 1983 case. They may not have had on their mind 

that particular case. Nonetheless, it is important for every FBI 

agent and every FBI attorney to have the standard of probable 

cause as it is espoused in Illinois v. Gates. And in the legal handVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Oct 07, 2003 Jkt 089325 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89325.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
30

book for special agents at that time and afterwards there is the 

standard set forth according to Illinois v. Gates, No. 1. 

Second, in response to what had happened prior to September 

11th, it was important for us to assure that every time we get a 

request for a FISA warrant it is given due consideration. And I get 

briefed twice a day now since September 11th, and in those briefings I discuss what FISA warrants are outstanding and what response we have received from Department of Justice. And to the 

extent that there is any concern about the adequacy of probable 

cause, I look at it myself, along with advisers. So we have put into 

place procedures, since September 11th, to try to assure that what 

might have happened prior to September 11th does not happen 

again. 

Senator SPECTER. Director Mueller, you are wrong on the facts. 

Those agents who testified in the closed-door session—and you 

have had access to that transcript, and we published excerpts in 

the report which we filed last week, were applying a standard of 

more probable than not, 51 percent, and that is a wrong standard. 

That is not a standard of suspicion under the totality of the circumstances. They were applying the wrong standard. Do you disagree with that? I do not see how you can. It is there in black and 

white. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, in the dialog and the colloquy with the attorney, the attorney says ‘‘it is not a preponderance of the evidence, 

but it is more likely, more probable than not.’’ Query whether that 

is appropriate or not. It may well not be, but that has not been decided by the courts. 

Senator SPECTER. Why do you say it may well not be? More likely than not is not the standard. Rehnquist dealt with that specifically in Gates. 

Mr. MUELLER. I misstated. It is more probable than not, and 

there is some discussion as to whether or not more probable than 

not equates to a preponderance of the evidence. The attorney in 

your questioning said, it is not a preponderance of the evidence. He 

did say more probable than not. And if you look at Lafebre and you 

look at the treatises, there is some discussion as to whether more 

probable or not is the same as a preponderance of the evidence. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, let us talk about that for just a minute. 

More probable than not is exactly the same as preponderance of 

the evidence. In a civil case the standard is a preponderance of the 

evidence, and that is defined as more probable than not, distinguished from a criminal case which is proof beyond a reasonable 

doubt. And more probable than not and preponderance of the evidence was handled by your Minneapolis Field Office as being 51 

percent. 

Now, look here, I am not saying you are responsible for what 

happened with Zacarias Moussaoui because you became Director in 

September a few days before 9–11. But I am saying that you are 

responsible, when you appear before the Judiciary Committee in a 

hearing and you hear this discussion about your Minneapolis Field 

Office being wrong, and you do not personally take steps to correct 

it, and these come in more than a month later and they do not 

know the standard. And if you try to split a hair between more 

31

probable than not than preponderance of the evidence, I would like 

to hear it. 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not trying to split hairs, Senator. Prior to the 

hearings in the summer of last year, I had understood that we had 

to do a better job in our FISA process, and I had put into place procedures prior to the summer of last year to assure that whenever 

we have an issue relating to probable cause, it is addressed at the 

highest levels in the FBI. I am not trying to split hairs on this. I 

will tell you, as you know better than I perhaps, that in Illinois v. 

Gates they say that the probable cause standard—and I will 

quote—‘‘is a fluid concept, not readily or even usefully reduced to 

a neat set of legal rules.’’

And we could debate it. I invite you down. I would like to have 

an additional more extensive dialog on the probable cause standard, but I believe at the time in July that we had those hearings, 

we had in our legal handbook the appropriate standard under Illinois v. Gates. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, we are going to have a more extensive 

dialog because the Chairman has said that we are going to have 

another hearing. And when you quote Justice Rehnquist, then Justice Rehnquist, now Chief Justice, saying that it does not lend itself 

to any precise mathematical definition, that is true, but he goes 

back to the Cranche case in 1813, Chief Justice Marshall, on suspicion under the circumstances and the totality of the circumstances. 

One final word, Mr. Chairman. I had a situation when I was District Attorney in Philadelphia. On June 13th, 1966 Miranda v. Arizona came down, and every police interrogation put prosecutions at 

risk, and I had a 54-page slip opinion from Chief Justice Warren. 

And I put out guidance 4 days later, before Friday. I did not want 

the weekend to pass and had the Philadelphia police officers on the 

street questioning people without giving the Miranda warnings and 

getting the Miranda waivers. 

And you are the Director of the FBI, and when a Senator calls 

it to your personal attention in a hearing, and a month later they 

are applying the wrong standards, and I write you the next day, 

and it takes until September 16th for the Bureau to put out a 

memorandum which is hard to figure out and does not accurately 

quote Gates, I just think something is really fundamentally wrong, 

and it goes to the most important issue facing America today, and 

that is to apprehend terrorists. And I compliment what the Department of Justice and the FBI are doing generally on that, and what 

Secretary Ridge is doing. I think we are on the right track. But I 

think when you have a major gap as identified here, you are accountable, Mr. Director. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Do you care to respond? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I do not disagree, Senator, at all that I am 

accountable, and I can tell you that I do not mean to swap stories 

about district attorney versus prosecutor, but when I was a prosecutor in 1983, when Illinois v. Gates came out, and I was Chief 

of the Criminal Division, I am sure I put out a memo just the way 

you put out a memo because Illinois v. Gates did away with the 

32

Aguilar-Spinelli two-prong approach. I am sure I did at that point 

in time. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, did you put out a memo? I would like to 

swap that story. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I am sure I did back in 1983 when the case 

came out. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, I would like to see the memo. I will 

produce mine. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MUELLER. I will try to find mine. 

Senator SPECTER. We are a couple of public servants, Director 

Mueller, and I respect you, and you have perhaps the most important job in Washington today next to the President, but there has 

to be a sense of urgency on these matters. And we are dealing with 

life or death, and there is a gap of time when your people did not 

know the standard. 

Mr. MUELLER. Every night I go to bed, Senator, understanding 

that every day in this job I deal in life and death. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, let me just add that I think Senator 

Specter is doing all of us a favor in raising these important issues, 

but let us also understand that Director Mueller inherited a tremendously important job in a tremendously trying time with all 

kinds of problems that pre-existed, and I just do not know anybody 

who could have done a better job under the circumstances, and I 

think that what Senator Specter is saying here is, is that we want 

to do even better if we can. And I respect my dear colleague from 

Pennsylvania very much, but I also respect you, Director Mueller. 

I have watched what you have done won there, and you have 

brought about a sea change, which has been necessary, in my opinion, since 9–11, and you deserve an awful lot of credit for it. 

Now, I know that you are striving for perfection, but like all of 

us up here, I doubt seriously that you have reached that yet, so 

there is still room, and there is room for all of us too. For instance, 

we did not get the moneys to law enforcement. That is our job. We 

did not do that until about 3 weeks ago, so there are lots of ways 

we can find fault all the way around. But let me just say we are 

proud of what you are doing, and I am proud of what Senator Specter is doing in trying to make sure that we have the very best law 

going for us at every time. So let us just work together and see 

what we can do to make things work perfectly if we can. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, Senator, if I might respond, I am absolutely 

open to any suggestions. As I said in my opening statement, we 

have made substantial changes I believe, but we have got a long 

ways to go, and to the extent that there are suggestions, whether 

it be from the good Senator Specter or others on the committee, I 

welcome them. I look forward to working with each member of this 

committee to make the FBI a better organization, and will continue 

to do so. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, we appreciate that. 

Senator Kennedy has graciously agreed to allow Senator Feinstein to go next, and then we have another 7 minutes on that side. 

Senator Kennedy, do you want Senator Feingold, or do you want 

me to come back to you? 

Senator KENNEDY. Come back to me. 

33

Chairman HATCH. After Senator Feinstein, we will come back to 

Senator Kennedy, and we will take 14 minutes on this side. 

Senator Feinstein.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I have three quick questions, one somewhat off the subject, for 

the Attorney General, one on bioterrorism and one on port security. 

Let me begin if I may with you, General Ashcroft, and I think 

you know I am going to ask this question. On January 8th you 

were good enough to see me, and we had an opportunity to discuss 

reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban, which expires in September of 2004. As you know, I asked you this question in your 

confirmation hearing. You said you would be supportive of reauthorization. The President, in his campaign has said he was supportive of not only reauthorization but also legislation prohibiting 

the importation of large-capacity ammunition devices. 

The question that I want to ask you today is would you in fact, 

and would the administration in fact, be supportive of reauthorizing the assault weapons legislation, along with the clip ban first. 

Second, including your legislation which you proposed when you 

were a member of this committee, to prohibit juveniles from possessing assault weapons. And then third, and perhaps I should 

leave this for a second question but whether you would consider a 

strengthening of the legislation? 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. 

As the President stated in his campaign, the administration supports the current assault weapons ban. As you know, the original 

law required a study to determine the effects of the law in reducing 

crime. That study, conducted by the National Institute of Justice 

from 1994 to 1996, and released in March 1999, concluded that, 

and I quote, ‘‘The ban’s short-term impact on gun violence has been 

uncertain,’’ close quote. And then the study recommended further 

study, and we will continue to study what impact the ban has had 

on reducing crime. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. My question was a little different. My question was, will you be supportive of reauthorization with the ban on 

the importation of large-ammunition feeding devices, and of your 

proposed legislation to prohibit possession by juveniles of these 

weapons? 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. The administration supports the 

current law. Those proposals go beyond the current law, and we 

will have to review those proposals and any other proposals that 

go beyond the current law to determine their effect on gun crime. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

I would like now to turn to bioterrorism. When I was Chairman 

of the subcommittee, we played a role in the bioterrorism bill specifically, requiring that any lab that possesses dangerous agents 

like anthrax, smallpox, and 35 other agents, register to possess 

these agents, require background checks on lab scientists, and require a periodic update, actually every 2 years, of their possession 

of these deadly pathogens. 

My concern, Governor Ridge, is that the new rules put out by 

HHS do not require laboratories handling the world’s most dangerous pathogens, to fully upgrade their security until September 

12th of this year. And my question to you is, have you reviewed 

34

these rules? Do you believe security at research labs handling these 

agents is adequate? Bear in mind that we did have that one episode at Texas Tech, where you had, I think it was plague missing, 

which turned out to be destroyed, fortunately. But nonetheless we 

have a very weak system in place. 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, your initiative to, one, not only create 

a national registry, but also to assure that the facilities that do research on these agents and these pathogens are themselves secure, 

has led the Department of Homeland Security and the Department 

of Health and Human Services to have several discussions about 

this very important subject. The last discussion I had with Secretary Thompson and his team is that they in fact had been sending out teams from HHS to review the pathogens, to take a look 

at the facilities, and also to examine with their own eyes the security measures that had been recommended, put in place or need to 

be completed. I think the date of September of this year—and I am 

not familiar with the specific language of the regulation since it 

was promulgated by HHS—is a realistic assessment as to the time 

it will take for these universities and labs to complete the security 

precautions and meet the standards that HHS has set pursuant to 

your initiative. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Governor. As you know, and I 

think Mr. Mueller knows, when this committee held hearings following the anthrax situation, and I came down to FBI Headquarters, there is no specificity in terms of how many labs possess 

anthrax in this country. The estimates ran anywhere from 12 to 

over 20,000. Are we going to be able to narrow that down to know 

exactly, and do we know exactly, how many labs in this country 

utilize anthrax? 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, I believe the intent behind your initiative, and certainly the effort that has been undertaken by Secretary Thompson, is to identify with that kind of precision not only 

the number of labs, but the contents that they have within those 

labs regarding the pathogens and agents, that potentially abused 

could cause the kind of horror and death and destruction that everybody is concerned about. I mean that is the intent behind the 

initiative, and Secretary Thompson and his team are moving forward rather aggressively on it. 

Senator SPECTER. [Presiding.] Senator Feinstein, Senator Hatch 

has asked me to take the chair. He had to depart, and has asked 

me to be very close on time because we have to excuse the witnesses at 12:30, and there are other senators who will not be questioning. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right, fine. I will yield then. 

Senator SPECTER. I am sorry to interrupt, but that is the order 

of the day. 

Senator Kennedy now has 7 minutes, and then we will proceed 

to the other side of the aisle. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ridge, I want to just draw to your attention that we still 

have not developed in the vaccine program a compensation program. That has not been developed, and as a result there are very 

few people that are actually being vaccinated with anthrax and 

35

smallpox in the country. We have to do that. It can be done very 

easily and quickly. 

I have talked to Secretary Thompson. I have talked to the Chairman of our committee, Senator Gregg about it. We need to get ourselves together to pass one. 

As you know from what the military has done, there are very few 

side incidents as a result of this, but there have been some, and 

we have to give the assurance that if people are going to be vaccinated, if they are going to lose time at work and they are going 

to lose income, they are going to be compensated for it. 

Using traditional workman’s compensation isn’t going to work. 

We have got to get something that is going to work. We haven’t 

done it. It is essential if these programs are going to be brought 

and get done. So I would invite your active involvement. We want 

to work with the administration to get the job done, but it hasn’t 

gotten done yet and time is moving on. 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, I appreciate your observation and the 

sense of urgency that accompanies it. I think the single largest impediment to facilitating the immunization that we all think is important to inoculate those who would be called upon to inoculate 

is the compensation program. 

I know that Secretary Thompson has been working with OMB 

and others, and I was under the impression that either they had 

delivered or were close to delivering a compensation plan for review 

of the Congress. I will check on it and report back to you today. 

Senator KENNEDY. And it doesn’t have to be complicated. We 

have got other pieces of legislation that we could pattern legislation 

after and get it done. If others are trying to bring in other tangential issues, it is going to get complicated, but it is important. And 

then eventually in bio-shield, we will have to deal with this issue, 

but that is further down the road. Let’s try and get this done. 

Could I raise with General Ashcroft—and let me welcome all of 

you here—on the matter with asylum seekers the case which I 

think you have read about in the newspapers, the Guatemalan 

woman who fled severe human rights violations. Her husband was 

an ex-member of the Guatemalan military. She had been repeatedly raped and threatened with death. She sought the help of the 

Guatemalan government, but it failed to protect her. This is the 

matter of what they call the RA regulation. 

We had important protections under Attorney General Reno in 

terms of particularly women who had suffered the most egregious 

kinds of situations in terms of brutality. We understand now that 

your Department has taken a different position, or not, on these 

matters? 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. Let me see if I can recollect what 

I believe has transpired in that matter without commenting on the 

merits of the case because the matter is before me as Attorney 

General. 

Attorney General Reno brought the case out of the immigration 

appeals setting into her own authority for decision, during which 

time she began a process of reviewing the regulations. After regulations were reviewed, the case was sent back to the Board of Immigration Review and the regulations which were being formulated 

have been placed on hold, given the transfer of the authority in the 

36

Department of Justice to the Department of Homeland Security for 

handling immigration matters. 

I have, as a result, pulled this matter—before the transfer, I 

pulled this matter back for my own personal decisionmaking and 

the regulations are now under consideration at the Immigration 

and Naturalization successor in the Department of Homeland Security, with the assistance and collaboration, I believe, of the Justice 

Department on those regulations. 

The decision made regarding this specific case will be made by 

me as Attorney General in my responsibilities in handling appeals. 

The regulation is in the process of formulation and it is being developed by the Department of Homeland Security with the assistance of the Justice Department. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, just basically, as I understand it, cutting to the chase on this, she obtained asylum in 1996, but the 

Board of Immigration Appeals reversed that decision. The Board 

found that she did not meet the criteria for asylum because her 

abuse was not perpetrated by her government and because her 

husband’s abuse was directed at her individually rather than a 

larger social group. 

That was what was changed by Attorney General Reno, vacated, 

in order to protect her from being forced to return after she was 

able to escape the murder threats from her husband, the beatings 

that had taken place and the rest. That is what is going to be back 

before you, whether that position that was taken by the previous 

administration will be taken. 

I urge you to sustain the earlier—I know my colleague, Senator 

Leahy, and others are interested in it. It is, I think, an extraordinary matter, particularly when we have these kinds of situations 

that are—many women are the victims of these honor killings, sexual slavery, and domestic violence. If we are going to be denying 

them protection under the new policy, I think it is a dangerous alteration and change and we ought to know about it. 

Let me just ask you in a general way, between Secretary Ridge 

and Attorney General Ashcroft, who is in charge of our immigration policy now. 

Secretary RIDGE. As of March 1, Senator, that responsibility is 

transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. 

Senator KENNEDY. I notice that Attorney General Ashcroft, as I 

understand it, is still issuing regulations on immigration policy. 

Your Department has ceased now from any kind of regulations? 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. I think we are assisting by way of 

assistance in regulations. I don’t believe we will be promulgating 

regulations generally. There is a part of the appellate process for 

review of immigration decisions which stayed at the Department of 

Justice. 

The most recent of the regulations we have issued was a result 

of the disaggregation of the regulations, some which would stay Department of Justice regulations relating to those appeals, the others being the rest of the immigration regulations which would have 

followed the entire function, absent that appellate function, over to 

the Department of Homeland Security. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, as I understand it, last Friday the Justice Department issued a final rule asserting that it continued to 

37

have jurisdiction over substantial areas of immigration. I think it 

is going to be important to know where responsibility is going to 

lie in terms of the regulations. 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. Absolutely. 

Senator KENNEDY. Let me get to the——

Senator SPECTER. Senator Kennedy, your time has expired, too. 

Senator KENNEDY. I would like to submit questions, if that would 

be possible. 

Senator SPECTER. Of course, and I am reluctant to interrupt you 

and it may be that there will be extra time because there are no 

other Senators present. Senator Chambliss is next in line. 

In the absence of any other Senators, if you want to proceed with 

another question, why don’t you do that? 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I would, just on the Haitian refugees. I 

guess, General Ashcroft, if I could, just on this part, even in the 

areas of the Haitian refugees when they are found to have been 

granted asylum, even when there is no fear of their fleeing, they 

are continuously detained, unlike any other group. The question is 

why. 

To be honest about it, I haven’t given you the question before. 

It is a technical question, but enormously important. If you want 

to give me an answer, I would welcome it. If you want to give 

me——

Attorney General ASHCROFT. I can give you a general response, 

but then I will be pleased to followup in writing. 

Senator KENNEDY. All right. 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. The detention for those who are in 

violation is based upon a potential that they flee. When you have 

mass migrations and there are pending applications, from time to 

time our Government has decided that those who are the subject 

of pending applications provide such a risk of non-compliance in 

the event the application is denied that an unusual or a different 

policy is adopted. 

I will be pleased to respond to you fully in regard—I believe you 

are making reference to a group of Haitians that came about——

Senator KENNEDY. Haitians that have been actually granted asylum, and this matter is being appealed. It is many months in terms 

of appeal, and without any fear of fleeing, they are continually detained. It is the only group that we do that to. It seems to be to 

be unfair. 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. I will be happy to report back. 

Senator KENNEDY. I will followup with a question that will spell 

this out in detail, but if you could look at it, I would appreciate it. 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. Thank you. 

Senator KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Chambliss is up next and will be chairing in the last 

portion of the hearing. Senator Hatch had agreed with the witnesses to conclude the hearing by 12:30. 

Before I depart, Secretary Ridge, one inquiry about the coordination of analysis of intelligence information. I was pleased to see the 

President has issued an executive order coordinating all of those 

matters with the Central Intelligence Agency. 

38

You and I have had extensive discussions in the past, with my 

view having been and still is that the appropriate institution for 

that responsibility is the Office of Homeland Security. We are going 

to be considering that in the Governmental Affairs Committee, 

where I also serve. 

We will be taking a look at what the experience has been, and 

especially as to what the budget has been, so much of the budget 

controlled by the Defense Department, but we will be anxious to 

see how it all works out. Institutionally, you have got the responsibility and there are many of us who feel you ought to have the authority. 

Senator Chambliss, the floor is yours, and the presiding officership. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator. 

Gentlemen, let me first of all just say that as an oversight committee it is our job, of course, to look over your shoulder, to criticize 

you when you need to be criticized. We probably go overboard in 

doing that all too often, and I have certainly done my share of it. 

But when you have successes, we need to compliment you and 

the success we had over the weekend in fighting the war on terrorism was a joint effort on behalf of all of you, as well as Director 

Tenet. And I am sorry he is not here to hear this, too, because 

when you do have success, we need to thank you for the good job 

you are doing. 

I hope you will express to all the folks who are working under 

you our appreciation for their continuing efforts. They have got a 

long way to go, but this is the kind of success that sure makes all 

of us feel better, as I know it makes you and our Commander-inChief feel much better about the war that we are waging. 

All of you know that my main focus over the last year-and-a-half 

has been on the issue of information-sharing from a primary intelligence perspective. We have debated and argued over what should 

go into the bill creating, Secretary Ridge, your department, and I 

couldn’t be more pleased to have that department stood up than to 

have it done over the past weekend. I just wish it had been three 

or 4 months ago, but we are glad to get it up and going now, with 

the dragging on of the legislation that we had to go through. 

With respect to information-sharing, I want to direct this, Director Mueller, to you and to Secretary Ridge primarily. Bob, you 

know that I have had this problem regarding the stovepipe mentality within all agencies. Senator Specter has again reminded us 

this morning of some of the practical problems that we had regarding memos that were issued in your department. 

I want you to tell me how you are carrying out the fact of getting 

away from that stovepipe mentality, sharing information internally 

as well as horizontally with other agencies. 

Secretary Ridge, I have had some conversations with some of 

your folks about the establishment of a plan for sharing of information all the way down to the State and local level. I would like for 

you to tell us where you are with that, what is your time line on 

that. 

If I could hear from both of you, please. 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me go ahead and start and talk about what 

we are doing in the Bureau. One of the things we have not done 

39

in the past is take information we have and put it in reports. In 

the intelligence community, traditionally there have been reports 

officers. So you take information, bits of intelligence, strip off the 

sources and methods, and produce an intelligence product for the 

intelligence community. 

Since September 11, we have established a reports officer corps 

to do that, and we want to extend that all the way to the field so 

that we have in each of our field offices reports officers that can 

take information and put it in the format that will enable it to be 

distributed not just amongst the Federal agents, but also the State 

and local agents. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Are those reports officers still in the process 

of being established or have you already got that done? 

Mr. MUELLER. We already have, I think, 12 to 15. We have got 

another 20 back at headquarters that are in the background phase, 

and we hope to extend that throughout the country. 

We also have dramatically increased our analysts, taking in 25 

analysts from the CIA that have helped us since September 11. 

And with that analytical capability, with the reports officer capability, that gives us the individuals, the people, that can assist us 

in the flow of information. 

But what is critical to our success is to have the data base structure and the foundation so that our data base information goes into 

a modern data base that can be the foundation for not only exchanging information within the FBI, but disseminating information throughout the Federal law enforcement arena as well as the 

State and local arena. 

Hopefully, by the end of this year we will be in that position 

where we have a modern data base structure where most of the information can be made available to others in the intelligence arena 

or the law enforcement arena, and we by the same token can have 

access to other data bases. 

So a substantial portion of our success will be dependent on having an IT structure that enables us to share information horizontally, as opposed to doing it by paper vertically, which is our 

current situation. 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, we have been tasked in the Department of Homeland Security to develop a protocol to share with 

State and local law enforcement the kind of information that is inherent to our basic responsibility, and that is dealing with the vulnerability of critical infrastructure. The three individuals who primarily will be leading that department have been identified. They 

have not been publicly announced. They have been going through 

the process of being vetted so they can take on that position. 

We will work in conjunction with our colleagues at the FBI, with 

whom we have got a very close daily collaborative working relationship, to develop that protocol because there are times when we deal 

with the same groups, but provide information either to disrupt 

terrorist activity or information they need to secure a particular 

piece of infrastructure. 

So the responsibility to develop that plan and that protocol is 

ours. It will be also reflected in the kind of organization we ultimately set up. As we mentioned earlier in my remarks, we are 

talking about reconfiguring many of these agencies in a more reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Oct 07, 2003 Jkt 089325 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89325.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
40

gional approach as part of that consideration as to whether or not 

we would go to a regional approach, whether that facilitates our 

ability to collaborate with the State and local officials, including 

law enforcement officials, and our ability to facilitate the analysis 

of both information and the protection of critical infrastructure. 

So it is very much on our minds. It is one of the highest priorities 

of this unit. We have identified the individuals who will be leading 

the unit. We continue to work with our colleagues in the FBI to develop a protocol that will meet our mutual needs. 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. Senator, might I just add a couple 

of things? The number of joint terrorism task forces at the FBI has 

been expanded, and they are key to this information-sharing so 

that you have representatives of law enforcement working together 

all around the country. 

The second point that I would make that I think is very important about what the FBI is doing is that there is underway a program for training the FBI in sharing information and training local 

officials in receiving and exchanging information. Within the next 

18 months, I believe we will be on target for training about 40,000 

people in that exercise. 

So if you want to do something, you train for it and you put it 

in your institution, and Director Mueller has done that very, very 

thoroughly not just in the way the reports are configured and distilling the information to make it available for transmission, but 

actually training and using the structure to get the word out. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I want to go to Senator Feingold because my 

time is up, but let me ask you just a quick yes or no on that particular issue. 

Mr. Attorney General, is the funding for that training of those State and local officers over and above the $3.5 billion that has 

been allocated to our first responders? 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. I believe that it is. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Senator Feingold.

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first sincerely commend the three of you for many of the 

recent successes in the fight against terrorism, particularly the recent arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. I think it was a very 

heartening moment for all Americans. 

One of the most vital responsibilities of Congress is to ensure 

that the powerful tools we give to law enforcement are used effectively and appropriately. And while it is a start, one hearing with 

Attorney General Ashcroft, Secretary Ridge and Director Mueller 

does not end the Senate’s role of oversight. I just want to echo Senator Schumer’s, I think, very appropriate request that each of you, 

if at all possible, return for a separate hearing. I hope we can have 

a commitment to that effect. 

Let me also underline what Senator Leahy said about a sequel 

to the USA PATRIOT Act. At a hearing last year, I asked a deputy 

assistant attorney general at the Department about rumors that 

such a bill was being considered. She testified that various proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:45 Oct 07, 2003 Jkt 089325 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\89325.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
41

posals were being considered, but nothing concrete had been developed. 

She also did agree, General, that the Department would provide 

us with some sense of where you were heading on this. So I was 

concerned and really fairly disturbed to learn recently that a draft 

bill has been prepared and circulated within the administration. It 

is absolutely crucial that you consult with Congress in a timely 

manner in developing such legislation. 

As you know, I thought we moved too quickly even on the USA 

PATRIOT Act, but at least there was some justification for such 

unusual haste in that case. I think it is harder to argue that in this 

case, given the fact that we asked for an opportunity to participate 

months ago. So let me respectfully urge you to start communicating 

with us today if you have legislative proposals that you would like 

us to consider in this regard. 

Let me also comment briefly, General Ashcroft, on what you said 

about the Department’s successes in court. I just want to clarify a 

few points. You said the Department’s withholding the names of 

people detained for immigration violations after September 11 was 

sustained. In fact, a Federal court ruled that the Department 

should release the names of the immigration detainees and that decision is currently on appeal. 

On the issue of closing immigration hearings, there is, in fact, a 

split between the Federal appellate circuit courts. While the Third 

Circuit has upheld the Department’s closing of immigration hearings, the Sixth Circuit ruled against the Department, finding that 

a blanket policy of closing hearings without a particularlized showing of why an individual’s hearing should be closed is, quote, ‘‘odious to a democratic society,’’ unquote. So I remain troubled by the 

positions the Department has taken in these cases and I respectfully urge you to reconsider them. 

Secretary Ridge, I am glad you mentioned that prevention was 

the leading priority, as it must be. I am concerned that in our fight 

against terrorism, this administration is not doing enough for our 

Nation’s first responders, the men and women who work on the 

front line of our neighborhoods and communities. 

If our fight against terrorism is going to be effective, we need to 

ensure that the necessary resources are delivered to them, and I 

am extremely concerned that the new money we provided in the 

latest budget for first responders is only about $1.3 billion out of 

a budget of over $390 billion. That is not sufficient for a top priority; it is not enough to ensure that our first responders will be 

able to successfully confront the new challenges facing them. 

Let me turn to one other subject for my questions. The FBI and 

a few police departments have had a long and troubling history of 

spying on law-abiding Americans, like civil rights activists and 

anti-war protesters, Americans who were simply exercising their 

First Amendment rights to political expression. 

Police departments in cities like New York, Los Angeles, San 

Francisco and Seattle participated in these abusive surveillance 

tactics, and recently the Denver Police Department has joined the 

list. It has been revealed that the Denver police spied and maintained files on over 200 organizations and over 3,200 people. The 

police labeled nuns, peace activists and other activists as, quote, 

42

‘‘criminal extremists,’’ unquote, maintaining information in a computer data base that could be then shared with neighboring police 

departments. 

Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Mueller, as I hope you can appreciate, in an era of terrorism being labeled a criminal extremist, or 

even tagged as a suspicious person in the government data base, 

can have very serious consequences. Consent decrees played an important role with regard to these issues. They placed important restrictions on police spying activities, for example, requiring a police 

officer to have specific information about criminal activity before 

investigating a political group. 

General the draft of PATRIOT Act II, however, would automatically end these consent decrees that were put in place to protect 

Americans’ First Amendment rights. Mr. Attorney General, can you 

cite an example of a terrorist plan that went undetected because 

local police had their hands tied by a consent decree placing limits 

on their domestic spying capabilities? 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. Senator, with your permission, I 

would like to respond to the suggestion that there is a PATRIOT 

Act II. When individuals indicate to you that if there is a proposal, 

we will confer with you, I believe they are right. There is not a proposed Terrorist Act II from the Justice Department. No final discussion has been made with the Attorney General about proposals. 

No final discussion has been made with the administration about 

proposals. 

Now, let me just say that we constantly are thinking of things 

that ought to be considered, and we believe that it is in the interests of the country that we think expansively and that we have a 

thorough and clear debate about them, considering the pluses and 

the minuses. And we don’t believe that it is appropriate to never 

mention anything unless it has already been decided that it is totally OK. You can’t do that; consideration requires that. 

So if someone leaks the fact that there are items under consideration or that there is a matter of discussion, that doesn’t mean 

anything out of the ordinary. I hope that characterizes the fact that 

we are constantly considering how to improve. 

I want to assure you that there has been no bill decided on, no 

proposal decided on. I am keenly aware that the administration 

cannot pass legislation. Only Members of the Congress can pass 

legislation. It would be the height of absurdity for me to have a secret matter that I hoped to make a law without telling Congress. 

I mean, I simply don’t understand that. So we will confer, but I will 

prefer, if I can, to weed out things that I believe are inappropriate 

before I come to the Congress with an idea. 

Senator FEINGOLD. General, I would really urge you to do that, 

and let me just say that you know my view that the last time we 

had a USA PATRIOT Act that the kind of discussion and airing of 

the issue simply did not happen. There is a debate about whether 

it could have happened. I appreciate your commitment to it happening in this case. The fact is there are some specific proposals 

or possible proposals out there. I don’t think it is too early for people like you and me and others to start discussing whether they are 

a good idea. 

43

I am wondering if you could respond to my specific question in 

the few seconds I have, which is can you cite an example of a terrorist plot that went undetected because local police had their 

hands tied by a consent decree placing limits on their domestic spying capabilities? 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. I cannot. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, General. And, of course, I look 

forward to discussing these provisions and perhaps we could followup with a conversation about the items that we saw at least in 

this draft, whatever this draft is. There are enough items there 

that people are raising concerns about that the conversations and 

consultations should begin now, in my view. 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. Well, I don’t believe that I should 

start to consult and defend things which I believe are indefensible 

or are not a part of something that I would seek to propose. I guess 

that is my view. Until I have something that I think is appropriate, 

I don’t know that I should engage in some discussion about something that we don’t believe is appropriate. 

We could agree on a lot of these things that, hey, those don’t belong in our discussion. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I look forward to engaging in it as soon as 

possible. Thank you, General. 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. Thank you. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. We have got 14 minutes left and we have 

got two 7-minute questioners left. 

So, Senator Schumer. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, and I very much appreciate all 

three of you being here. I have a couple of questions I would like 

to ask. 

First, I want to followup on what Senator Feinstein had asked 

you, General Ashcroft. As you know, she authored the assault 

weapons ban in the Senate and I was the author in the House. You 

mentioned you support the current ban. Would the administration 

support reauthorizing that ban, extending it, because if not, it will 

expire? Will you work for that? What happens if in the House they 

decide to bottle it up? Three questions. Would you support reauthorizing it? 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. As the President stated during his 

campaign, the administration supports the current assault weapons 

ban. The original required a study. That study indicated that the 

results of the ban on gun violence were uncertain. We are continuing the study. The administration supports the current law. 

Senator SCHUMER. But you are not saying whether you would 

support a reauthorization bill that we hope we can pass? 

Attorney General ASHCROFT. The administration supports the 

current law. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK, thank you. Next question—and I am 

sorry to be quick here, but we don’t have much time. And Senator 

Hatch is not here, but I want to reiterate strongly my request to 

him earlier. This is one of the most important subjects we face. We 

have three of the most important gentlemen here and I would say 

that we simply don’t have enough time in 7 minutes to cover the 

waterfront on so many of these issues. 

44

To not only have all three together, but to limit the time to 

12:30, doesn’t really give justice to the importance of this. I am 

going to renew my request strongly, hopefully joined by others 

here, that we be allowed to have each of you come at your schedules—I don’t care if we have to do it in the evening—so that we 

can ask questions. 

I take it none of you would object to coming back. Is that fair 

to say? 

Secretary RIDGE. Correct. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. You won’t have any disagreement on our 

side, I am sure. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK, great. So let the record show all three 

have agreed that they would come back. Fair enough? 

Secretary RIDGE. Fair enough. 

Senator SCHUMER. Will whoever doesn’t want to come back raise 

their hand? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SCHUMER. Let the record show none of these three fine 

gentlemen has raised his hand. 

This one is for Secretary Ridge, and congratulations on your appointment. My question is about homeland security, where I have 

real worries, and let me just ask you one. I have been very concerned about nuclear weapons being smuggled into this country, 

not so much dirty bombs, although I am very concerned with 

that—that is harder to guard—but real nuclear material and 

bombs. 

Senator Warner and I, obviously in a bipartisan move, had put 

in first the homeland security bill and then in the supplemental appropriation a proposal to fund research for detection devices that 

could be placed on every crane that loads or unloads a container, 

on every toll booth where containers come through the Canadian 

and Mexican borders, to develop these detection devices, which can 

be done according to every expert. 

The administration didn’t oppose the language, but opposed putting any money in and we ended up with $15 million, which is not 

enough. And God forbid, one of these weapons is smuggled into our 

country. I wear this flag everyday in memory of the people who 

died in my city on 9/11 and elsewhere. This would even be worse. 

Can we get the administration’s support to find the dollars in the 

supplemental appropriation so that we can develop these kinds of 

detection devices? No one objects to it in substance; they just say 

there is no money for it. 

Secretary RIDGE. Well, Senator, first of all I am not familiar with 

the specifics of the legislation. I will certainly make myself familiar, but in the 2003 budget that we inherit in the Department of 

Homeland Security we do have several hundred million dollars that 

will be assigned to Science and Technology Unit. 

One of our highest priorities is examining some of the research 

that is being presently conducted either in the national labs or the 

university research labs to see if there is anything out there that 

we could prototype to address the concern that you have. 

So I will just make it a point of personal interaction to get back 

with you, one, to reexamine the legislation. I am not sure at this 

time we need more money. Because of the 2003 budget, we do have 

45

dollars in the Department of Homeland Security and we will see 

how they mesh, and if there is a concern, I will get back to you. 

Senator SCHUMER. I don’t want to carry on an argument here be- cause time is so limited. The experts say it will cost about $250 

million, total, to do this. The total budget for research for everything, I don’t think is that. And so I think, with all due respect, 

we need some more money for this. 

And it was not the Senate, not the House, not Democrats here, 

not Republicans here, but the administration in the personage of 

OMB who basically knocked out the dollars. I had an agreement. 

Ted Stevens supported our amendment and put it in the Senate 

bill. So I hope you would look at that. 

Secretary RIDGE. Let me review. We did get ample funding. We 

did get some dollars transferred, I think, from DoD and I think it 

is important for me to take a look at whether or not they are eligible to begin that very considerable research initiative that you are 

talking about. It is something that we have as one of the highest 

priorities within the department. Let me review it and get back to 

you. 

Senator SCHUMER. Could you get back to me in writing? 

Secretary RIDGE. Absolutely. 

Senator SCHUMER. One final question. I am very worried—I am 

worried about so many things these days, as we all here—about 

shoulder-held missiles that can shoot down an airplane, God forbid. 

And not only are hundreds killed, but commerce basically comes to 

a standstill. 

Some of us here, Senator Boxer and I, have proposed that we 

spend money—we propose taking it out of the anti-missile defense, 

which is a longer-range threat, but it could come from anywhere, 

and outfit every commercial airliner with the wherewithal to prevent the stinger from hitting. We do this in our military planes. El 

Al Airlines does this. Obviously, they are most concerned with security. 

I am wondering if the administration would support such a proposal to do this. It is expensive, but the alternative if, God forbid, 

it happens is even more expensive. 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, literally within hours, if not the next 

day after the failed effort to use the MANPADs overseas against 

the El Al airliner, we convened a group of representatives from all 

the agencies that had anything to do, knowledge or experience, 

with the MANPADs themselves, the broadest possible group of 

agencies to come up with counter-measures and to look at the existing technology, its cost, and to basically do some work to see 

whether or not—it is an extraordinarily expensive acquisition at 

this time, but to see whether or not there can be some modifications to the existing technology that might be deployed. 

So, again, that is an issue that as soon as it occurs we recognize 

the considerable impact on lives and on commercial aviation and on 

the economy and the catastrophic consequences. We have taken a 

look at some counter-measures and that is part of the internal discussion, but there has certainly been no commitment one way or 

the other to deploy them on commercial airliners. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would ask, 

No. 1, that I be allowed to submit questions in writing which the 

46

witnesses can answer. And, second, I would just reiterate to the Attorney General I am disappointed that the administration will not 

come out and say they will support an extension of the assault 

weapons ban and respectfully ask you to consider doing that. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Senator Edwards. 

Senator EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mueller, thank you for taking the time last week to—

we spent an afternoon together, you and some of your folks, and 

it was very useful and I appreciate it very much. I want to commend you and all the good people working hard at the FBI. You 

have a very good group of people there. They are dedicated and 

they care about what they are doing, and that was obvious in the 

time that I spent there. 

We still have a structural disagreement about the best way to do 

domestic intelligence, but I want to work with you. I want to continue to talk to you, and at least speaking from my side I found 

the afternoon we spent together very useful and thank you for 

doing that. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for coming down. 

Senator EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Secretary Ridge, I want to actually followup in a broader way on 

an area that Senator Schumer just asked about. As you know very 

well, there are thousands of these 40-ton containers coming 

through our ports everyday, any one of which can hold something 

that could do us great harm—a dirty bomb. Senator Schumer mentioned the possibility of a nuclear weapon. A minuscule number of 

those are actually inspected. 

The Coast Guard estimated this past December that in order to 

adequately strengthen the ports would cost—this is their estimate—$963 million right away. The budget passed, I think, included $250 million. In addition to that, there is a customs container security initiative to screen cargo in foreign ports, not our 

ports, but in foreign ports. President Bush’s Customs Commissioner asked for $57 million for that initiative. The administration, 

though, requested nothing and the program got just, I believe, $12 

million. 

With the Coast Guard and the Customs Commissioner saying we 

need a much bigger investment in port security, and with thousands of these big containers coming in through our ports everyday, with only, as you well know, a small percentage of them being 

actually inspected, are the Coast Guard and the Customs Commissioner wrong? 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, first of all, the cargo security initiative, I believe, ended up with the support of Congress getting additional dollars beyond the $12 million that you talked about. I have 

had a good conversation with Commissioner Bonner because we 

think this is one of the most effective ways to deal with commercial 

shipping and container traffic. And I am glad you are supportive 

of the program because we think it will make a considerable difference in the long run. 

There are various estimates as to the dollars we need to secure 

our ports. I will not second-guess the amount of money that either 

Rob Bonner or Commandant Collins have suggested. We do have 

some flexibility that you have given us in the new Department of 

47

Homeland Security to move some money around some of the individual line items. 

Again, it is a matter of going about the business of building capacity not in a single year but over the next several years, and I 

am confident that we can get it done. The measure that Congress 

passed at the end of last session—I think the Maritime Transportation Security Act—vested in the Coast Guard the responsibility 

to do vulnerability assessments and come up with protective measures. That is a process that is ongoing so we can confirm the cost 

associated with those protective measures. 

At an appropriate time, if we can’t fund the kind of effort that 

we think is needed, then it would be the appropriate time to make 

a specific inquiry back to you. I am not going to suggest that their 

preliminary assessments are inaccurate, but we haven’t done the 

complete vulnerability assessment that Congress directed yet. 

Senator EDWARDS. Well, you understand our concern. 

Secretary RIDGE. Sure. 

Senator EDWARDS. You know this as well as anybody, better than 

most. The threat exists today and we are concerned about making 

sure we do everything today. 

Can I ask you a specific question about this? Would you support 

a supplemental request for more funding for port security? 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, we are going to support a request for 

additional dollars to assist us. I am confident once we have completed vulnerability assessments and what we think is the appropriate Federal role to secure those various ports—and we have 

begun that process, Senator. We began that in the Office of Homeland Security. 

The President has just released a critical infrastructure protection strategy that calls on the Coast Guard and the new department to make these assessments, to see what the costs are, and 

then a decision is to be made at that time. 

In the meantime, the Coast Guard has considerably enhanced 

the number of patrols. The collaboration at the local ports has been 

substantially enhanced and it is certainly far better security than 

ever before. The cargo security initiative is in here. We are working 

with our friends in Canada and Mexico at a couple of ports on a 

pilot program. 

So we have many initiatives dealing with port security, the ultimate cost of which is to be determined. We will have determine 

whether we can absorb it in the Department of Homeland Security 

and, if it is an appropriate Federal cost, come back to you for a specific amount. 

Senator EDWARDS. Can you tell me today what percentage of 

these 40-ton containers are being inspected? 

Secretary RIDGE. I think Commissioner Bonner, I believe, probably testified 3 percent, 4 percent, and the Coast Guard did that 

as well. But I think it is very important, Senator, to emphasize 

that these are not random searches, that there is an algorithm, 

there is a method by which these specific vessels are targeted. And 

so it is not as if they are randomly targeted. They are targeted for 

very specific reasons. So you take the targeting initiative, the cargo 

security initiative and some of the other enhancements at our ports 

and we continue to enhance our security. I just need to disabuse 

48

everyone of the notion of just randomly boarding ships. They board 

them for very specific reasons and it is based on targeting information. 

Senator EDWARDS. Let me ask about one other area very quickly. 

I know our time is about to run out. This is about border security, 

if I can shift subjects just briefly. 

Secretary RIDGE. Sure. 

Senator EDWARDS. I have read some reports, at least, that we 

have one Border Patrol agent for every five miles on the northern 

border. As you know, we have also had serious problems with visa 

over-stays both before and after 9/11. Various people have complained about both of those problems and concerns about both 

those problems, and I know you are also concerned about both of 

those issues. 

First, I am working on and have legislation to address the issue 

of more Border Patrol agents and more INS agents, both inspectors 

and investigators, so that we can deal with both the issue of patrolling our border and the issue of making sure we identify those who 

are over-staying and do something about them. 

Can you tell me whether you think we are doing enough and how 

much money we should be spending to deal with those two specific 

issues dealing with our border security? 

Secretary RIDGE. Senator, the Congress has been very supportive 

the past two budgets in assisting the new department in ramping 

up and increasing the number of both inspectors and Border Patrol 

agents. I think in the PATRIOT Act your colleague, Senator Leahy, 

called for a substantial increase of Border Patrol agents particularly on the northern border. I think with your financial support 

in the 2003 budget, once we get those people hired, we will be 

about 80 percent there. 

I think if you take a look at the reorganization plan that we have 

just began discussing and putting into effect as of March 1, the opportunity to blend some of the Customs inspectors and the INS inspectors and some of the Customs investigators and Border Patrol 

investigators gives us an enhanced capacity to do the kinds of 

things that you are worried about. 

One of the advantages of the flexibility that Congress gave us in 

the bill to reorganize in the Department of Homeland Security is 

we think we can put more people working with the Border Patrol 

to considerably enhance their capacity to do their job. 

Again, you have been very supportive; Congress has been very 

supportive with the resources we need to hire new people. And I 

look forward to the opportunity to talk to you about how the reorganization affects our ability to do a better job at the borders. 

Senator EDWARDS. Well, my time is up, and thank you very 

much for coming. I continue to be concerned about whether we are 

doing enough on both fronts, both port security and border security, 

but we will continue to work with you to make sure that we are 

doing what we need to do to provide the funding that needs to be 

done in both those areas. 

Secretary RIDGE. Thank you. 

Senator EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary RIDGE. Thank you. 

49

Senator CHAMBLISS. Gentlemen, we are getting you out almost 

on time. We thank you for being here. As Senator Schumer said, 

I expect we will see you again and we will look forward to that. 

Thanks, guys, for the great job you are doing. 

I ask unanimous consent to enter Senator Kohl’s statement in 

the record. Without objection, that is done. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Kohl appears as a submission for the record.] 

The record will remain open for 7 days for any written questions 

that are to be submitted to these three gentlemen. 

With that, the hearing is concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.] 

[Additional material is being retained in the Committee files.]

50


89325.001
51


89325.002
52


89325.003
53


89325.004
54


89325.005
55


89325.006
56


89325.007
57


89325.008
58


89325.009
59


89325.010
60


89325.011
61


89325.012
62


89325.013
63


89325.014
64


89325.015
65


89325.016
66

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT KOHL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE

OF WISCONSIN

Even with the good news of this weekend’s arrest of Al Qaeda leader, Khalid 

Sheikh Mohammed, some have predicted that another major terrorist attack is inevitable. Preventing the seemingly inevitable is a daunting task and yet we need to 

do all we can to succeed. Today we will assess the progress we have made to prevent 

a future attack and discuss ways to make this country a safer place. 

For example, we need to do a better job helping state and local government protect our communities. These agencies are responding by coordinating their infrastructures, forming task forces, and upgrading their communications capabilities. 

But we all know that state governments across the country are facing serious budget crises. Wisconsin is one of those states and officials there are wondering how the 

federal government plans to help the state prepare for a possible terrorist strike. 

Another ways to assist state and local law enforcement is to provide them with 

more targeted information under the Homeland Security Advisory System. Different 

regions of the country will face different threats at different times. We can help 

them prepared accordingly to assess threats and targets if the federal government 

gives them more specific information and the training to use it effectively. 

In addition it is far too easy for terrorists to obtain certain chemicals and poisons—such as ammonium nitrate or cyanide—that can be used to launch a devastating terrorist attack. We need to do more to ensure that the wrong people do 

not get a hold of these substances. I look forward to working with this panel to get 

it right. 

Finally, while we pass more laws, we must be mindful that our best intentions 

will lead to failure if we do not consider the impact of these new laws and regulations on our freedoms. 

Thank you.

67


89325.017
68


89325.018
69


89325.019
70


89325.020
71


89325.021
72


89325.022
73


89325.023
74


89325.024
75


89325.025
76


89325.026
77


89325.027
78


89325.028
79


89325.029
80


89325.030
81


89325.031
82


89325.032
83


89325.033
84


89325.034
85


89325.035