Mr. SOUDER. I want to ask one followup question and I would like Mr. Johnson's comments on this discussion. I would assume and I believe that I've seen that the bulk of anti-terrorism money goes to the Department of Defense. Partly that's because it's confusing how people report. And, it's clear that the FBI has a big boost up for domestic anti-terrorism. Is that assumption correct? And if so, could you give me some idea of the ratios?

One of the problems that-and I want to put this out there so Mr. Johnson can respond to this too-while the concept of a drug czar sounds good, it really depends on the influence and how much the President is backing an individual, and how much in the same wavelength, it can easily be politicalized or ignored. Since most of the budget lies in other places, there is not, necessarily, a lot of modified behavior because the drug czar said something. How do you avoid those types of things? And, one of the things I wondered is if most of the money is in one place, it seems like that may be where responsibility should be too.

Mr. DAVIS. OK. Regarding the question you asked about the money. When we reported in December and you pointed out in your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, nobody in the Federal Government knew how much money was being spent on counter-terrorism. We went out and asked the seven major agencies that had counterterrorism responsibilities. And, the answer that we got back for 1997 was roughly $6.7 billion; 54 percent, almost 55 percent, was spent by the Department of Defense. The Department of Energy spent another 21 percent. So, those two agencies alone had three-quarters of the money-Defense and Energy. As you also mentioned, the amount of money that you claim was being spent for counterterrorism is in large measure driven by the definition that one uses.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Johnson. Do you want to comment on a number of these things.

Mr. JOHNSON. The word "czar" may be an ill-chosen word on my part. I'm not trying to replicate ONDCP because I think that while General McCaffrey has done a very good job, nonetheless, he doesn't have a lot of power and clout. And what you need in this process is someone who can force the money to go where it's needed and get right in the middle of the budget process.

I may sound like the man from La Moncha, at that point, expecting Department of Justice, Department of Defense, and Department of State to sit down and let someone from the White House tell them how much money they're going to have. But, you get dif ferent motivations out there. When you talk to Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and FBI, in particular, they're very smart in the budget process. They have learned that when you package it with terrorism you get money. Department of State is much more parochial and I witnessed several attempts, internally in the building, to try to get a single line item budget for the terrorism fund. Which is very, very small in the overall budget. And, the seventh floor was scared to death of letting that happen. For one reason. Because they knew that if it got up to the Hill, Congress would give the money for that and may not give the money for other things that were State Department priorities.

So, when I'm talking about a "czar" I'm talking about someone who can come in and try to help put some clout in the budget process. Because it is not managed properly.

As an illustration, in the wake of TWA 800 when the Clinton administration proposed the $1 billion, most of that money went to agencies that were Department of Justice that you would expect. Department of State, again I'm not being paid anything by the Department of State to represent this, but they have absolutely nothing in the process. At least the ones who are responsible for coordinating international terrorism. It became a Christmas tree. I heard it described as such by some even in the administration. So, you're looking for someone who can bring some reason to this, but at the same time it's not at the same scale in terms of a real problem that confronts America, as is the drug problem. But, they are bumping up against each other.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Mr. Mica.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Mr. Davis. I'm not sure if I missed this. Do you take a position on the drug czar? I mean. I'm sorry, drug czar i.e., what we are talking about here terrorismcounterterrorism czar. [Laughter.]

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. At this point and time.
Mr. MICA. You don't support it.

Mr. DAVIS. We don't support it for the reasons that I said before. But I also could add another observation. And that is this: as we were doing our first job and looking at how the government is organized and how different organizations were supposed to coordinate, different people and numerous people around town told us that, please whatever you do, don't recommend another czar like we have for drugs.

Mr. MICA. Well, one of the problems with a drug czar is that though, as Mr. Johnson pointed out is he does not have real authority and you have more than a dozen agencies dealing in the narcotics issue in a somewhat disorganized, disjointed fashion, just like it. I mean it is pretty analygous, so when you look at it to I remember Mr. Zeliff who chaired our subcommittee several years ago when he took over and I got involved in the drug war back in the early 1980's as a Senate staffer, he says well all we have to do is look at the line item and we'll adjust it upward, or something, I think was his first reaction. And, I said, “Bill, oh, my God. Do you realize how many agencies, how much turf is involved?" Then we began a series of 40 some hearings in the last 36 months on the drug issue. Now we are continuing our efforts in trying to reorganize, or re-focus our counterterrorism efforts.

I looked through a number of the documents, and excuse me gentlemen and ladies if I've missed it. I've got all the documents on incidents and things like that. There is $6.5 billion being spent. Is that broken down? Do you have a good breakdown by agency? Have I missed that?

Mr. DAVIS. Right. In fact, the report that the OMB just issued shows the numbers. Our report shows the numbers that agencies provided us for fiscal year 1997.

Mr. MICA. So, you have Defense taking the bulk of it.

Mr. DAVIS. That's correct.

Mr. MICA. Energy is the second big hit.

Mr. DAVIS. That's right.

Mr. MICA. Quite a bit of money

Mr. SOUDER. Will the gentleman yield for just a second. I think it might be helpful for those that read the future hearing records if we can have that xeroxed and put it in the record.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman. I move that page 6 and 7 of the GAO report to Congress on Combatting Terrorism be made a part of the record.

Mr. SOUDER. With no objection. So ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]