Page images
PDF
EPUB

One approach would be to create a “Terrorism Czar" who is charged with the oversight of the counter terrorism mission, both internationally and domestically. This job should be under the direct control of the White House and should be in charge of identifying and monitoring the various counter terrorism missions and capabilities. I think the current "lead agency system❞—which puts the Department of State in charge of coordinating international terrorism and the FBI in charge of coordinating domestic terrorism—is basically sound. Yet, neither agency has the power to set budget priorities or assign clearly defined missions. Someone, somewhere in the process needs such power if they are to be effective in coordinating the process. There must be accountability built in to this process. You should not simply commission one or more departments to handle a potential threat, such as thwarting chemical and biological terrorism, without also ensuring that they are required to give an account of their efforts.

Third, I believe we need a national budget line item for combating terrorism, which encompasses both the domestic and the international components. The problem is not one of too little money, rather I think too much money is being spent ill-advisedly. For example, the Department of Energy does not need to have a NEST and a JTOT. These units should be merged and scaled down. I also think it is foolish to assign various parts of the mission for dealing with threats from weapons of mass destruction to different military units. One unit could perform the tasks currently assigned to Army's Technical Escort Unit and the Marine Corps' Chemical Biological Incident Response Force, for example. Someone in the process needs to have the budget authority to match resources to policies. Under the current system there is no such thing as budget item for counter terrorism policy, either domestic or international. I think we are poorly served as a nation by relying on an ad hoc system of budgeting money to deal with this problem. We should consider instead a more disciplined approach where we identify needs and policies and clearly define required to meet these.

Finally, we need to take a hard look at how to obtain better human intelligence against non-governmental organizations, such as a radical religious sect. Targeting such groups raises legitimate concerns about civil liberties, particularly if these groups are in the United States. Instead of enacting a law granting the Executive Branch broad authority in this regard, we should look at using something akin to the Presidential Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. A small group of distinguished men and women charged with providing the lead agencies for combating terrorism and collecting intelligence with specific guidance on a case-by-case basis. We are not talking about the need to penetrate hundreds of groups. Practically speaking, we are looking at a handful. We should also look at putting in place new mechanisms to bridge the gaps between the domestic and international arenas. Ultimately, such a mechanism should probably reside in the White House rather than being put in one of the major departments. These mechanisms should address procedures to share intelligence information and to conduct planning and training for multi-agency crisis response.

Conclusion

Let me reiterate in closing that I remain optimistic about our national capabilities to combat terrorism. Prevention and preparation can pay important dividends when the unexpected occurs.

Whatever we do we must safeguard our best defense against terrorists-freedom. Earlier this year FBI agents in Las Vegas rushed to hold a press conference announcing the arrest of two men who were allegedly plotting to produce a deadly biological agent. TV and newspapers seized on the news of this diabolical plot and helped fuel the belief that we are on the verge of a biological Armageddon. A few days later, a sheepish FBI released both men from jail after tests revealed the substance was a harmless vaccine and no such plot existed.

I believe we should be proactive in handling such threats and preparing for such contingencies. But our government's response must be tempered with reason and prudence. We should insist that our security and law enforcement policies reflect the values and the vision that are enshrined in the constitution. A nation that respects the views of the minority, a government that defends the weak, a people that seek justice for all, and a faith that entrusts individuals with the right and duty to be free-these things are our ultimate protection against terrorism.

I want to thank this committee for taking the time to explore this issue and for working to ensure the safety and well being of the citizens of the United States.

[subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][subsumed][graphic]

US Domestic Terrorist Attacks, Suspected, and Prevented

[graphic]

Number of Incidents

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1962 1963 1984 1985 1988 1987 1968 1989 1900 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1998 Year

INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST INCIDENTS BY REGION 1980-1997

3

[graphic][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »