gray hair, when you see that," he said, "that means wisdom. And so it would have been fascinating for me to be in one of your meetings, your deliberations from time to time, and listen to all the wisdom that that white hair has given you both. So I thank you both for how gracious both of you have been.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Watts, I hate to inform you of this, and Mr. Armey, but both of you are retiring and it takes unanimous consent to do that, and I object.

Chairman ARMEY. Thank you so much. I do see our next panel is here. Thank you.

I should mention as we are changing panels to the very important Intelligence panel, it is with a flurry of activities going on around us; we have prevailed upon so many committees to testify before this committee. It is the intention of this chairman to stay with the process until we complete our hearings. I know some may have to come and go, and some may even switch sides on us for a moment. But I should say we do intend to proceed.

We want to recognize the chairman and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Goss. It is our purpose here to, by unanimous consent, put your prepared statement in the record, except under the 5-minute rule, the points you would like to make before the committee. Ms. Pelosi knows the routine quite well. And we will, after your statements, proceed under the 5-minute rule, and we appreciate you being with us today.

So we will recognize Mr. Goss to proceed.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PORTER J. GOSS, CHAIRMAN, PERMANANT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE Mr. Goss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you and share the work product of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on this matter. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security is recognition that the Federal Government understands the types of threats that terrorism brings to our homeland and that these threats call for a different expanded approach to protecting our national security that was what we needed during World War II and ensuing years.

Mr. Chairman, our Ranking Member Mrs. Pelosi and I have submitted to the committee a recommended amendment to title II of H.R. 5005 that covers the area of information analysis and infrastructure protection. I am pleased to report that the Intelligence Committee passed this amendment out by a vote of 17 to 1 after a lot of hard work and discussion.

The committee also held two hearings on H.R. 5005 with the Director of Central Intelligence, Mr. George Tenet; the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller; and Governor Ridge. Since HPSCI's markup of 5005 last Thursday, committee staff have discussed our recommendations in some detail with relevant White House staff and others in the administration. We found the administration to be generally supportive of our analysis and information sharing proposals, but there are some areas that they want to have further discussion and we will try and make the benefit of those discussions available to you on a timely basis.

Moreover, there is a unique quality to the analytical portion of the new Department in that this is the only point where all the disparate pieces of information come together. By that I mean that this is where presumably foreign intelligence, Federal law enforcement, and State and local information all come together to be analyzed collectively in order to best understand threats specifically to our homeland and to properly evaluate the weakness in our defenses.

The HPSCI recommendations for the select committee provides for the establishment of an all-source collaborative Intelligence Analysis Center that will fuse intelligence and information from the Intelligence Community as well as from Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and the private sector with respect to threats of terrorist acts against the United States. This is something that we do not have right now.

An equally important duty of the DHS Intelligence Analysis Center will be to integrate intelligence and other information to produce and disseminate strategic and tactical vulnerability assessments with respect to terrorist threats. Committee members were concerned that DHS not simply be a department of counterterrorism. Protecting the Nation's infrastructure will require a much broader focus.

For example, vulnerability assessments developed by DHS will not address the insider threat to steal secrets or other information on national resources or infrastructure, for example, nor as the administration's bill specifically addressed, the cyberthreat, terroristrelated or otherwise. Additionally, terrorists' involvement in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the financing of terrorist operations themselves, the relationship between narco-trafficking and terrorism, all are missing in the administration's bill and we feel should be dealt with.

The committee's proposal to establish an all-source intelligence fusion center within DHS seeks to fill these national threat and vulnerability analysis gaps. The Center would be charged with developing a comprehensive national plan to provide for the security of key national resources and critical infrastructures. The Intelligence Analysis Center would review and recommend improvements in law, policy, and procedure for sharing intelligence and other information within the Federal Government and between Federal, State, and local governments, an area that needs a lot of work.

The Intelligence Analysis Center is designed to not only support the new Department's intelligence requirements. As important, the Center will establish requirements for the collection and coordination of information and intelligence relating to threats of terrorism against the United States.

The committee believes the proposed Intelligence Analysis Center should be made an element of the Intelligence Community and be a funded program within the national foreign intelligence program in accordance with the National Security Act of 47. Making the center an NFIP element like this will ensure that the Secretary of DHS has full and timely access, which is critical, to all the relevant intelligence pertaining to terrorist threats against the United States, as well to ensure proper coordination between DHS and the

Federal intelligence and the law enforcement agencies of our country.

And rather than transferring Intelligence Community agencies to DHS, the committee has recommended that some intelligence analysts from the civilian and Defense Department components of the Intelligence Community be detailed on a reimbursable basis to the Intelligence Analysis Center for up to 2 years. The specific number of detailees will be determined through cooperative agreements between the DHS Secretary and the Director of CIA, the Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and other related agencies.

During the testimony before HPSCI on 5005, Governor Ridge, Director Tenet, and Director Mueller each offered their personal commitments that the new Department would have access to intelligence pertaining to terrorist threats against the United States. And although their stated willingness to share intelligence is appreciated, and I believe they will because of the chemistry that exists between those people, the committee felt so strongly about the issue of the DHS's access to intelligence that it included mandatory language to ensure the immediate provision to the DHS Secretary of all intelligence or other information that is collected by any U.S. Government agency relating to terrorism and infrastructure vulnerability.

The HPSCI language creates a mechanism whereby the President can resolve any disputes between DHS and the Intelligence Community concerning timely access to intelligence. These are very important gaps to fill.

And finally in closing, the Intelligence Committee's proposal envisions an Intelligence Analysis Center that is actual in terms of personnel and infrastructure; appropriately flexible in terms of its authorities and its capacity to address rapidly changing threats to the United States and the nature of terrorism; is unique to our government in that it incorporates the best analytical practices and capabilities that are found both in government and the private sector to defend our country and our people. That is using all of our assets and talents and skills to the best we can bring them together and I think is a timely and important suggestion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DELAY. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The statement of Mr. Goss follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PORTER J. GOSS, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE PERMANANT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to address this distinguished committee on an area of great importance to our national security. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security is recognition that the Federal Government understands the types of threats that terrorism brings to our homeland, and that these threats call for a different, expanded approach to protecting our national security than what was needed during and since World War II. It is indeed unfortunate and ironic that it took a World War II type event, once again, to make the country understand that the world contains individuals who would attack our way of life our values, our livelihood and our principles—in ways that are anathema to civilized society.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the world hasn't changed that much since September 11th. What has changed is the audience. And it is this same audience, the American people, which appears to be supportive of making such a significant change to our government's structure. But with that support, is the requirement to

make sure that we do this right; that national security is enhanced at the end of the day and that we are positioned to reduce the risks to our security-to our way of life as best as possible. It is with that charge that I am honored to appear before you Today to discuss those portions of the bill that relate to the jurisdictional responsibilities of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Chairman, our Ranking member, Ms. Pelosi, and I have submitted to the Committee a recommended amendment to Title II of H.R. 5005, that covers the area of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. I am pleased to report that the Intelligence Committee passed this amendment by a vote of 17 to 1, with the one dissenting vote being cast in relationship to the overall process of Congress' proceedings on the establishment of this new department rather than on any substantive differences with the Intelligence Committee's product. This amendment is the result of a significant amount of work by our very experienced and professional staff and our members who have been very significantly involved in these issues through our normal oversight process and as they participate in the bicameral inquiry into September 11th. The Committee also held two hearings on H.R. 5005, with the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, and with Governor Ridge. Since HPSCI's mark-up of HR. 5005 last Thursday, Committee staff have discussed our recommendations in some detail with relevant White House staff and have found the Administration to be generally supportive of our intelligence analysis and information sharing proposals for the new Department. There are one or two areas where we will have further discussions, and it is possible that we may offer additional thoughts in the very near future.

Before I summarize the Amendment, let me first give you an idea of why the Committee took such actions. Mr. Chairman, if you look at the overall structure of the new department, you will notice that the vast majority of the organization has to do with planning, implementation, protection and response to terrorist threats and actions. The successful integration and operation of this portion of the department is very important to strengthening our borders, our infrastructure, and our security. This is a critical step in ensuring that federal, state, and local entities are coordinated and effective. What we also know, however, is that combating terrorism relies very much on information and intelligence. We have seen this time and again both in combating the threats posed during the Millennium and during our operations in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and other areas where we are fighting this war. This makes the analysis and proper handling of information and intelligence related to the threats critical to the success of any other actions we may take. I would submit that if the analytical portion of the department doesn't work, the rest of the department's operations and functions are somewhat academic. Moreover, there is unique quality to the analytical portion of the new department in that this is the only point where all the disparate pieces of information come together. By that I mean that this is where, presumably, foreign intelligence, federal law enforcement, and state and local information will all come together to be analyzed collectively in order to best understand threats, specifically to our homeland, and to properly evaluate the weaknesses in our defenses.

This, again, makes having the right analytical approach critical. Such resources must be a priority from the beginning and must be robust and dynamic, and this where I will begin my summary of the HPSCI actions. The Administration's proposed legislation lacks a provision for establishing a robust analytic cadre to do terrorism threat analysis. Without an all-source analytic capability to validate and make sense of threat information, the Secretary will have to rely only on Intelligence Community analysis that may be fractious, contradictory, parochial and incomplete, and will have to make critical analytical judgments in a vacuum.

Information sharing is also an issue of concern for the Intelligence Committee. The Administration's proposal leaves unclear the circumstances under which "raw" intelligence will be made available to the Department. Given that the Secretary doesn't know what he doesn't know, decisions on what DHS needs to know will be entirely left to the various agency heads at CIA and FBI, with the risk that key information will not always be shared, or not shared promptly or with enough detail. And under the Administration's current information analysis construct, it is unclear whether intelligence and law enforcement sources and methods will be adequately protected and whether certain information can be shared with the depart

ment.

It is also not clear how or whether DHS will task the Intelligence Community with collection requirements, and how conflicting requirements will be adjudicated or otherwise prioritized. Given that DHS will be the first US Government entity to do vulnerability assessments of infrastructure, there will necessarily be both analytic and collection gaps from the outset. And during a 9-11 type of national crisis, DHS will presumably play a key role, but, as currently envisioned, without the ben

efit of a mechanism to input knowledge and requirements into the intelligence and law enforcement communities' systems.

The HPSCI recommendations to the Select Committee provide for the establishment of an all-source, collaborative Intelligence Analysis Center that will fuse intelligence and information from the Intelligence Community as well as federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and the private sector with respect to threats of terrorist acts against the United States.

An equally important duty of the DHS Intelligence Analysis Center will be to integrate intelligence and other information to produce and disseminate strategic and tactical vulnerability assessments with respect to terrorist threats. Committee Members were concerned that DHS not simply be a Department of Counterterrorism— protecting the nation's infrastructure will require a much broader focus. For example, vulnerability assessments developed by DHS will not address the insider threat to steal secrets or other sensitive information on national resources or infrastructure. Nor has the Administration's bill specifically addressed the cyber-threat, terrorist-related or otherwise. Terrorist involvement in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the financing of terrorist operations, and the relationship between narcotics trafficking and terrorism are also missing in the Administration's bill. The Committee's proposal to establish an all-source intelligence fusion center within the DHS seeks to fill these national threat and vulnerability analysis gaps.

The Intelligence Analysis Center would be charged with developing a comprehensive national plan to provide for the security of key national resources and critical infrastructures. The Intelligence Analysis Center would review and recommend improvements in law, policy, and procedure for sharing intelligence and other information within the federal government and between the federal, state, and local governments. The Intelligence Analysis Center is designed to not only support the new Department's intelligence requirements. As important, the Intelligence Analysis Center will establish requirements for the collection and coordination of information and intelligence relating to threats of terrorism against the United States.

The Committee strongly believes that the proposed Intelligence Analysis Center should be made an element of the Intelligence Community and be a funded program within the National Foreign Intelligence Program in accordance with the National Security Act of 1947. Making the Intelligence Analysis Center an NFIP element will ensure that the Secretary of DHS has full and timely access to all relevant intelligence pertaining to terrorist threats against the United States, well as to ensure proper coordination between DHS and federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Rather than transferring Intelligence Community agencies to DHS, the Committee has recommended that some intelligence analysts from the civilian and Defense Department components of the IC be detailed, on a reimbursable basis, to the Intelligence Analysis Center for up to two years. The specific number of detailees will be determined through cooperative agreements between the DHS Secretary and the Director of Central Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State.

During testimony before HPSCI on H.R. 5005, Governor Ridge, DCI Tenet and Director Mueller each offered their personal commitments that the new Department would have access to intelligence pertaining to terrorist threats against the United States. Although their stated willingness to share intelligence is appreciated, the Committee felt so strongly about the issue of DHS's access to intelligence that it included mandatory language to ensure the immediate provision to the DHS Secretary of all intelligence or other information that is collected by any U.S. Government agency relating to terrorism and infrastructure vulnerabilities. The HPSCI language creates a mechanism whereby the President can resolve any disputes between DHS andthe intelligence and law enforcement communities concerning timely access to intelligence.

The Intelligence Committee's proposal envisions an Intelligence Analysis Center that is agile in terms of personnel and infrastructure, appropriately flexible in terms of its authorities and its capacity to address rapidly changing threats to the United States, and unique to our government in that it incorporates the best analytical practices and capabilities found in both the government and the private sector to defend our country and our people. Our proposal integrates the traditional mission of intelligence analysis with new sources of information and sophisticated information tools. As important, our proposal views information and intelligence sharing as a two-way street-with data moving up from localities and the private sector to states and then torelevant federal authorities as well as national data flowing down to states, localities and, when necessary, to the American public.

In closing, I think that we all agree that developing effective information analysis and dissemination functions within DHS is a very complex and nuanced requirement. It is critical that timely intelligence informs our homeland security strategy