is that it is much more integrated than the U.S. counterpart. Obviously there are differences in Great Britain and the United States. They have a much smaller geographical area, a smaller population, and they do not have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights like we do. So there are clearly some differences.

But you have mentioned MI5 a couple of times. Is my perception correct that they are more integrated and, as you said earlier, the agent 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 has been my privilege to work with the British over the years 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 develop criteria for collection, they participate in the process of what is it that British intelligence agencies should collect, MI5, the military services and so

on.

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.

Senator PRYOR. Right, but then they collect and analyze, but they also have the authority to disseminate to the proper

Mr. SMITH. Absolutely. That is a key point. I do not know what happened yesterday at Heathrow but my guess is that MI5 was very directly involved in the decisions involving the security around Heathrow.

They have 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 is going on. There is a flow of information back and forth between London and the local police forces with respect to what it is that MI5 is interested in. So literally then, the bobby on the beat is informed in turn by this core of people in Manchester or wherever, Glasgow, on what it is that MI5 is worried about. He does not have a clearance but he knows what they are looking for, and he knows then how to report it. He reports it back to that group which then reports it back to London. It is a two-way street and it works quite well.

Ultimately then they are very closely tied to the Special Branch and Scotland Yard, who actually do the police work, carry out the arrests and ultimately testify in court if need be. It is not a perfect model and there certainly are frictions and there are problems there as well, and it cannot be imported directly here, but I do believe it is worth looking at. As I say, I am very pleased that there are now serious proposals here in Congress to consider this. Senator PRYOR. May I ask one more question? Chairman COLLINS. Certainly.

Senator PRYOR. That is, are both of you advocating that this joint venture be housed in the Department of Homeland Security?

Mr. STEINBERG. I certainly am. I think it is really consistent with the idea of, as Jeff said, creating a responsible authority. I think

that the Secretary of Homeland Security ought to have that role. I am very concerned that we are 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 are now giving the DCI new responsibilities in this area. It is 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 has got the experience, he has 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 is associated with the start-up 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.

Senator PRYOR. Thank you.

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Steinberg, just to follow up on the issue of where the center should be located. That is an issue on which we have heard diverse opinions today and I have not yet reached a conclusion. One of the arguments that I have heard against locating it in the Department of Homeland Security is that the department's role is focused on security within the borders of United States and the center's role is going to be broader than that. It would be collecting information about terrorist threats against our embassies or forces abroad, for example.

What is your response to those who would argue that it does not make sense to put it within the Department of Homeland Security because the center's focus is so much broader?

Mr. STEINBERG. I think that you have to look at the overall structure of what everyone will be doing in this effort. The CIA is going to be focused on events abroad and terrorist threats not only to the United States but terrorist threats to friendly countries, to stability of countries that are not friendly, so there will continue to be within the CIA a responsibility to look at what is going on overseas.

The question is where do you bring it all together, and is the better balance to bring it together in the context of the DCI, who is mostly looking overseas, or importing that information that is being developed by the CIA and other overseas collectors into an agency who is trying to link that aspect of the terrorist threat to domestic rules?

So for example, at least for the moment, we do not believe that Hamas is a threat to the United States. It does not have a history of either targeting Americans or the United States. We are still going to have somebody in the CIA who is collecting on them. But if we keep the responsibility for homeland security at the CIA, as I believe it will be under this joint venture, then I think that there is a danger that too much of this will be focused away from the homeland mission and not sensitive enough to the needs of the people who are actually carrying out the mission.

So inevitably you are going to have to make a choice as to where the balance goes because this will need to be an all-source center.

I think the question is, who is going to pull out that part of the foreign terrorist intelligence that is directly related to the homeland and understand best how to take that foreign intelligence and relate it to threats here?

I believe that on balance, though obviously there is no perfect answer to this, that the right division is to say, of course the CIA will still be looking at terrorism abroad but this new center will still be involved in tasking. I agree with Jeff, that, when I say that the new domestic security agency should be involved in tasking, I do not mean that they should have their hands on the satellite apertures but they should be tasking the foreign collectors to look into, what al Qaeda is doing in Afghanistan that may be relevant to the United States. But I think that the weight of where their focus should be is to be able to look at the foreign intelligence and see how it affects threats against us here at home.

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. Smith, in addition to the argument that Mr. Steinberg just made, an argument has been made against locating the new center under the control of the CIA director, that then the center will just once again become a creature of the CIA. That you will lose the whole intent of this center. What is your response to that?

Mr. SMITH. It is very much a function of leadership. It is a question of who is put in charge. It is a question of the quality of people who are assigned there. There is a risk if it is housed at Langley that it will take on the character of a foreign intelligence center.

I think, however, that there will be the people who are assigned there from the Bureau or from Homeland Security, or Customs or Immigration, wherever, will have as their responsibility to worry about their home agencies. There is no doubt that George Tenet is personally focused on this to make it work and to make it work to support Governor Ridge. I think that as long as that is the case there is some, but not much risk, that it will be captured by the intrigue of foreign intelligence. In my judgment, it will remain focused.

Mr. STEINBERG. If I could just add, Madam Chairman, I think obviously there are trade-offs here. The other risk in placing responsibility under the DCI, is that, as several Members of the Committee pointed out, as serious as the threat to the homeland is, we have other things we have to worry about. We have to worry about weapons of mass destruction. We have to worry about turmoil abroad. Director Tenet has a lot of responsibilities, so he cannot afford to wake up every day and only worry about the homeland.

The advantage of what you have done by creating a Secretary of Homeland Security is that somebody who can wake up every day and only think about it. That I think is my worry. I have the same worry about the FBI. That while I am sure they will try to do a good job as they move into this area, the question is, do you want somebody who has to wake up and worry about all of these things or is this such a central function that you really do want one person who organizes everything around that mission?

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, both.

Senator Pryor, do you have any further questions you would like to ask?

Senator PRYOR. I do not. Thank you.

Chairman COLLINS. I want to thank both of you for testifying before us today. I think this hearing has been very helpful to hear a variety of views on the new center. We look forward to also having a second hearing at which administration witnesses will be testifying as well.

I want to also thank my staff for putting together this hearing. It is the first hearing on the concept that the President revealed during his State of the Union address. So thank you for your assistance and this hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]