Hearing of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee

SEN. COLLINS: Senator Pryor.

SEN. PRYOR: Thank you, Madam Chair, I just have a few short questions. This is a fascinating discussion because it gives us the opportunity to establish something new that theoretically we could do an extremely good job of setting up, that could be very, very beneficial to this country and to the world. In all of the discussions and the proposals and the I don't want to say arguments, back and forth about this, but in the -- even some of the genuine disagreements that we have about this, where do the two of you see the major point of weakness in any proposal? I mean, in other words, we've talked a lot about really who has control over this, and what is the job description of this entity, but what do you two see as the major point of weakness, the one thing that we need to make sure that we get right or the one thing that we really need to work on the most to make sure this is an effective organization?

MR. STEINBERG: If I could start, I think that in many ways the challenge we face on homeland security is a little bit like the challenge we faced at the beginning of the Cold War, at the end of World War II. When we really had to rethink our national strategy. And that meant both the substance of our strategy, we developed the doctrine of containment and it had a powerful impact on the organization of our government --

SEN. PRYOR: And I agree with you on that, I think that's a good point.

MR. STEINBERG: And so I think that's the challenge here now, that there's a tremendous temptation to do this in a piecemeal fashion. And it's hard to make big change in government, you know that, this is the governmental affairs committee. So the temptation is to make incremental changes, to say, well, the FBI should do a little more here, the CIA will do a little bit more here, and there are always resistances, always inertia, there are always costs to change. I think that what the Congress has done in this area has really pushed the administration, both on the strategy in the organization to say, think about this as a fresh problem, recognize it.

We just really have never thought about the vulnerability of the United States as a core part of what we do. It affects our military, it affects our police, it affects the relationships between state and local government, of the private sector and government, these are profound changes. And we need to have a vision and a strategy that's equal to the profundity of this change.

MR. SMITH: I agree completely, I think that I mentioned the British a moment ago, we don't need to necessarily adopt MI5 as the perfect model, but they start and are charged by the prime minister with that very question, what are the threats to the United Kingdom, whether they originate within the UK or outside of the UK, that will ultimately manifest themselves within the United Kingdom? And it is their responsibility to figure out what to do about them. They collect, they analyze and ultimately work with law enforcement officials to act. The strategy is vitally important. Another issue that I worry about is confusion and who's in charge. The issue of the unity of command that I mentioned at the outset, Mr. Steinberg mentioned Goldwater-Nichols. Congress made an enormous step forward in giving, in linking authority with responsibility with resources, and that's very important.

A Marine general one time put it more bluntly, which is, I want a designated neck. By which he meant a neck around which I can get my hands. And that's a very useful concept, and as we organize ourselves we ought to designate necks that the president and the Congress can get their hands around when things go wrong.

SEN. PRYOR: Let's talk about MI5 for just a second. I'll be the first to admit that I do not know a lot about MI5, but you have mentioned it. My perception of MI5, and maybe I'm wrong, but my perception is that it is much more integrated than the United States counterpart. And obviously there are differences in Great Britain and the United States, they have a much smaller geographical area, smaller population, and they don't have the constitution and the bill of rights like we do, so there's clearly some differences, but you've mentioned MI5 a couple of times. Is my perception correct, that they are more integrated and as you said earlier, the bobby on the corner is much more in touch with the central office than anybody here in the United States, and is that a good model and is that what we should shoot for?

MR. SMITH: Let me talk about that for a moment. It's been my privilege to work with the British over the years and so I have some acquaintance with it. As I say, they begin with this fundamental question -- they report, by the way, to the Home secretary, so in that sense they fit ultimately with having this whole function report to the secretary of Homeland Security. They developed a criteria for collection, they participate in the process of what is it that British intelligence agencies should collect, MI6, the military services and so on. They also then have -- they do not have law -- they do not have arrest authority. They are purely a collection and analytical body. Nor do I think any of us who favor a domestic security service here, none of us want this new service to have arrest authority.

SEN. PRYOR: Right. But then they collect and analyze, but they also have the authority to disseminate to the --

MR. SMITH: Absolutely, and that's a key point. I mean, I don't know what happened yesterday at Heathrow but my guess is that MI5 was very directly involved in the decisions that led to -- that had been -- that have involved the security around Heathrow. What they do is they have then in each local municipality in the United Kingdom, designated police officers who work with them. They are given clearances, they are given secure communications, they are brought to London periodically for briefings on what's going on, there's a flow of information back and forth between London and the local police forces with respect to what is it that MI5 is interested in.

So literally then the body on the beat is informed in turn by this core of people in Manchester or wherever, Glasgow, on what is it that MI5 is worried about. He doesn't have a clearance but he knows that -- he knows what they're looking for and he knows then how to report and he reports it back to that group which then reports it back to London. And it's a two-way street and it works quite well.

Ultimately then they're very closely tied to Special Branch and Scotland Yard who actually do the police work, carry out the arrests and ultimately testify in court if need be. It's not a perfect model and there are certainly frictions and there are problems there as well and it can't be imported directly here, but I do believe it's worth looking at, and as I say, I'm very pleased that there are now serious proposals here in Congress to consider this.

SEN. PRYOR: May I ask one more question?

SEN. COLLINS: Certainly.

SEN. PRYOR: And that is are both of you all advocating that this joint venture, this agency, whatever we want to call it, be housed in the Department of Homeland Security?

MR. STEINBERG: I certainly am. I think it's really consistent with the idea of, as Jeff said, creating a net. And I think that the secretary of Homeland Security ought to have that role. I'm very concerned that we're having a diffusion of authority. We have a secretary of Homeland Security, we have an Office of Homeland Security in the White House which also has responsibilities in this area. We're now giving the DCI new responsibilities in this area and it's the diffusion that concerns me.

MR. SMITH: Senator, I differ with Mr. Steinberg only on that point. It may be a temporal disagreement. I think for the moment it does belong under the DCI in part because he's got the experience, he's got the manpower to do it, and I think it makes a lot of sense there, it will be independent and so on. I also worry a great deal about the confusion that's associated with the startup of Homeland Security. I think we may be underestimating how difficult this is going to be to do. So I would leave it there for the moment and, as I say, it may ultimately be wise to move it to Homeland Security but I think for the moment it belongs where it is.

SEN. PRYOR: Thank you.