CONTENTS Boyd, General Charles G., USAF(Ret.), Executive Director, U.S. Commission Clapper, Lieutenant General James, Jr., USAF(Ret.), Vice Chairman, Advi- Cilluffo, Frank J., Center for Strategic and International Studies Decker, Raymond J., Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Team, U.S. General Accounting Office, accompanied by Steve Caldwell, Assistant Ellis, William W., Senior Specialist in American National Government and Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne, a Representative in Congress from Maryland 8 9 COMBATING TERRORISM: OPTIONS TO APRIL 24, 2001 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON Eco- Washington, DC. The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Shays, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security presiding. Mr. LATOURETTE. The subcommittees will come to order. Today's hearing is the first held by my subcommittee during this Congress. First, I would like to thank my fellow co-chairman of this hearing, Congressman Chris Shays, for working with me to put this hearing together. I am very pleased to be working with the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations, of which I am a member, on this issue. I would also like to thank all of our witnesses for their participation in this important hearing to discuss proposals for improving the Federal response to terrorism. Work accomplished by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee during the last Congress has shown that in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing we have taken great strides to improve the Federal efforts to combat terrorism. Unfortunately, we still have a long road ahead before we will achieve preparedness. Last week marked the passing of 6 years since 168 Americans were killed and many more injured in the heinous attack. It is my hope that through this hearing and our continued efforts in this area we can prevent future attacks or at the very least, minimize the injuries and disruption caused by terrorist attacks, including those with chemical, biological or radiological agents. Since the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the Murrah Federal Building in 1995, Federal spending for terrorism programs has increased without control. More than $11 billion will be spent in fiscal year 2001 by at least 40 departments and agencies administering counter-terrorism and preparedness programs. This figure is nearly double the amount spent 3 years ago. And yet, there is no single Federal entity in charge of this effort, no single person who can be brought before Congress to discuss an overall approach to combating or responding to terrorism, and no comprehensive strategy to guide this massive spending effort. In fact, the Federal Government does not even know what programs exist or what they are designed to accomplish. Each of the proposals we will examine today is aimed at defending our country and communities against terrorist attacks. The first proposal, H.R. 525, was introduced by Transportation Committee member Wayne Gilchrest. It would create a Presidential council to draft a national strategy and organize the Federal effort through the existing agency structure. It would eliminate duplication and fragmentation of Federal efforts by coordinating with agencies during the budget process to bring programs in line with the strategy. This proposal closely tracks a similar measure, H.R. 4210, introduced by former Representative Tillie Fowler, that passed the House unanimously last Congress. We will also address bills introduced by Congressman Ike Skelton, H.R. 1292, and Congressman Mac Thornberry, H.R. 1158. The Skelton bill would require the designation of a single individual within the Federal Government to be responsible for this effort. It would also require the drafting of a strategy to address terrorism. The Thornberry bill would transform FEMA into the "National Homeland Security Agency" which would include the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and Customs Service. This new agency would focus on operational planning and coordination. I look forward to hearing more about all of these proposals during the course of today's hearing. Today signifies another step toward adding some sense to this Federal spending spree. It is our duty to impose accountability and require a reasoned approach to this effort. We must determine the threats and risks that exist in our communities and spend our tax dollars addressing them. We simply can't wait another 6 years before we know that our local emergency personnel are prepared to respond to a terrorist attack. This hearing continues the process of reforming our counterterrorism effort. It is my hope that we can accomplish some significant reform during this session of Congress. Before we commence, I want to commend the gentleman on our first panel for introducing legislation to address this issue. I look forward to hearing the testimony from all of our witnesses and I'd now like to yield to the chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee, Mr. Shays, for any comments he would choose to make. Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A joint hearing on these important legislative proposals is particularly fitting, because terrorism crosses so many jurisdictional and substantive domains. Only a cross-cutting, unified approach will enhance Federal counterterrorism efforts and help us to avoid the false choices often posed by narrow legal and bureaucratic boundaries. For example, the bills we consider today would appear to present mutually exclusive options regarding the focal point of Federal counterterrorism policy. One approach would place that responsibility in the Executive Office of the President, leaving the current agency structure in place. The other would consolidate key homeland defense functions in a single cabinet level department. But for this hearing, these options would have been considered by separate committees. Instead, we asked our witnesses this afternoon to describe the relative merits and challenges of both concepts in the hope that overall executive branch coordination and the role of a lead homeland defense agency can be clarified and strengthened. In January, the subcommittee wrote to Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the President's National Security Advisor, concerning the need for stronger leadership and a more coordinated Federal effort against terrorism. She informed us a review of counterterrorism organization and policy is underway. But we needn't wait for the results of that review to begin consideration of proposals to correct longstanding and widely noted deficiencies in Federal structure and coordination. Previous subcommittee hearings led us to the conclusion the fight against terrorism remains fragmented and unfocused, because there is no one in charge to develop a coordinated threat and risk assessment, articulate a national strategy, measure progress toward defined goals or disciplined spending. Legislation to restructure the Federal effort to combat terrorism should address those weaknesses. Almost a decade after the dawn of a harsh new strategic reality, international terrorism aimed at our military and civilian personnel abroad and here at home, these bills address today's equally stark realities. As a Nation, we are not ready. As a Government, we are not prepared. Our witnesses this afternoon bring us the benefit of their substantive experience, substantial experience and expertise in this area. On behalf of the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations, I thank them for their time and their testimony. Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this joint hearing. Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you, Mr. Shays. Mr. Berry of Arkansas, filling in for the distinguished ranking member of our subcommittee, Mr. Costello, indicates he has no statement to make. I'd now yield to the ranking member of Mr. Shays' subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich. Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I want to welcome the distinguished members who will be discussing their respective bills today. Let me also welcome the other witnesses who took time out of their schedule to testify. I would like to briefly raise several points. First, GAO has stated in past hearings that Federal priorities in spending should be based on a comprehensive threat and risk assessment. The logic was that until we identify the threats, evaluate their likelihood and craft a strategy to address them, we have no basis upon which to build a national strategy, and we have no guarantee that spending is properly apportioned among various programs. I'd assume that such a threat and risk assessment would evaluate all terrorist threats, foreign and domestic, and prioritize all Federal counterterrorism programs. After reviewing the bills, however, it appears that some of the proposals are limited to domestic preparedness programs alone. I wonder, therefore, how these pro |