Federal agencies that they are sometimes more interested in what they are doing than in what's getting done on the general end of it."

I've been closely following this issue since our hearing in June. And I am surprised at how many people in the Federal agencies that are trying to administer these programs still do not understand or admit that there is a problem with the lack of coordination and inefficient use of resources. They are either in denial or they are too busy with their turf and funding battles to care.

Since 1997, the increase in funding for some agencies has been tremendous. I want to give you an example. The budget of just one program in the Department of Justice increased from zero in 1997 to a fiscal year 2000 budget request of $142 million and a fiscal year 2001 request of $175 million. Now, I want to tell all of these agencies that it is past time to get their act together. I do not want to spend any more money trying to figure out how many different ways you can, in essence, boil water. We have got to do something very soon to get this Federal family under control, or we will be endangering the public that we are trying to protect.

In fact, I am pleased to announce that Mr. Traficant and I will be introducing legislation today to eliminate the duplication and fragmentation that exists within the existing Federal programs. Our proposal will provide the necessary framework for effective coordination of Federal agencies responsible for preparing State and local responders against terrorist attacks. It requires the creation of a much-needed national strategy and identification of measurable objectives to reach an end stage of preparedness.

In addition, it will update the Stafford Act to bring it in line with today's threats. Our bill would empower an office within the Office of the President with the necessary authority to bring Federal programs in line with the needs of State and local responders. The office will function in a manner similar to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, thereby enabling it to coordinate all Federal assets and to eliminate fragmented and repetitive programs.

Although some areas of the country are now better prepared for a terrorist attack, there are still many communities that are not. And in fact, emergency response personnel in most of our suburban and outlying areas are not trained to handle such events. The individuals that serve these communities do not have access to the training programs and exercises that are available to larger communities. It's important that we will not forget these communities in our preparedness efforts.

So today we're going to hear from the people who are on the front lines, State and local officials who are obligated to respond when an attack occurs. In addition to these officials, we will receive testimony from a very knowledgeable individual, General James Clapper, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. General Clapper is currently the Vice Chairman of the Advisory Panel to assess domestic response capabilities for terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction. The Advisory Panel is a congressionally authorized panel established to address the threat of terrorism in the United States.

We will also hear from the General Accounting Office, which has

sponse team capabilities and Federal programs designed to enhance the preparedness of first responders against a weapon of mass destruction.

I look forward to hearing the testimony from all of our witnesses and working together to improve the capabilities of State and local responders. I hope that unlike the French in World War I, we do not need to be attacked before we learn it is better to be prepared than unprepared. And as I stated earlier, we will make the opening statements of Mr. Traficant a part of the record.

So I would like to call on Mr. Terry, our Vice Chairman, if you have an opening statement.

Mr. TERRY. I have some observations and some thoughts that I'd like to share for the record. And one is that, if you ask Americans and the general population of this country if they feel there will be a terrorist attack and if they feel they are at risk, probably with near unanimity, people would say yes. We do not have to look very past just to the New Years Eve celebrations, where Seattle canceled theirs, for fear of attacks.

And on that day, more people were concerned about possible bombings like what happened at the Atlanta Olympics than they were of whether their cars would stop running or computers would shut down. So this is very real.

And I'm not sure if the American public would be aghast at how disorganized the Federal Government is in response to this, or if they just think it's typical. Because you look at it, and it does look like a Keystone Cops operation.

So I'm proud to work with you, Madam Chairwoman, and this Committee, to try and, I guess it's kind of the buzz word of this election cycle, reform. Certainly, whether we're talking about prevention and interdiction, or investigation or dealing with the consequences, we, this Committee, has to define those roles. We have to force those roles and implement them in this Government so we can run as efficiently as possible if, and hopefully it's only if, and not when, one of these occurrences occur. People expect it from us, and we should.

But we also need to keep in mind that as we organize and streamline and learn our roles, whether it's quarter back or running back or tight end of the same team, that we have to remember that we will work with the first responders. In some of the earlier testimony from the June hearings, we found that in a continuation of battle for turf and ground that some of our Federal responders went in thinking they were going to supplant the local first responders, the ones that had already been there, the ones that were trying to find bodies in the destruction in Oklahoma City and trying to save lives. We can't do that.

So as we look to streamline the Federal Government's operations and make it efficient, so this can be a secure Nation, and the people can have some degree and confidence that the Federal Government is doing the right thing, and not just continuing to be the Keystone Cops in this area, that we remember that we're in a partnership with the local communities, that we're in a partnership with the firefighters and our police officers, and that we can't allow this to become a bill or, it's not, and that the right direction this

when we get to the site. And everybody needs to know their role. And in dealing with the consequences, it has to be one of support.

So that's where I will always work from. I appreciate you allowing me to share those thoughts today, and I'm anxious to hear the testimony.

Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. Terry. We're both former city council members, so we relate very closely to our local responders. Mr. TERRY. Yes.

Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you.

I'd like now to call today's first panel. The first panel consists of General James Clapper, the Vice Chairman, as I stated earlier, of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction. Accompanying the General this afternoon is Michael Wermuth of the Rand Corporation. If you would come forward.

Gentlemen, before we proceed with your testimony, before you sit down, we will swear you in, as we do all witnesses who testify before the Subcommittee. If you will stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? [Witnesses respond in the affirmative.]

Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you. If you would, be seated.

I think as you've been informed, we ask that if you could summarize your testimony in about five minutes, and then without objection, your full written statement will be included in the record. General Clapper, you can begin.

TESTIMONY OF GENERAL JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY PANEL TO ASSESS DOMESTIC RESPONSE CAPABILITIES FOR TERRORISM INVOLVING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, ACCOMPANIED BY MIKE WERMUTH, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, RAND CORPORATION, AND PAUL MANISCALCO, SENIOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, NEW YORK CITY

General CLAPPER. Madam Chairman, members of the Committee, I'm very, very pleased to be here today and have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction. I promise that's the last time I'll use the full title.

As I commented to you earlier, I've been in these hallowed halls before, when I was in the Government. And this is one occasion where I actually look forward to coming here, because of my conviction and belief about the importance of this subject. I certainly want to commend your leadership and your interest as well.

The panel chair, Governor Jim Gilmore of the Commonwealth of Virginia, is unable to be here today due to other commitments. But he and the rest of the panel deputized me, I guess, to be here with you today. I'm accompanied by Mr. Mike Wermuth, a senior policy analyst with the Rand Corporation, who provides our research and logistical support. Mike himself has a long history of public service and is an expert on the subject at hand. I'd also like to introduce, since he's with us today, Paul Maniscalco, Senior Emergency Management Services official from New York City, who has great expe

rience in this subject, and well represents the perspective of the first responders.

I'm particularly pleased to be a member of this panel, all of whom are dedicated, patriotic Americans from all parts of the country: New York to California, Maine to Florida, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Virginia and Massachusetts, with literally hundreds of years of experience in the areas of terrorism and domestic response.

One of the great strengths of this panel, which distinguishes it from the standard cottage industry beltway study group, is its intentional focus on the State and local first responder perspective. For my part, I was a member of the Commission appointed by the Secretary of Defense to investigate the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996. I can tell you, having seen the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack, it was a real epiphany experience for me.

Having had that experience, I am much more sensitive and concerned about the potential for terrorism, and was certainly relieved, as I know you were, when we navigated through Y2K without a terrorist act inside our borders, as many feared. We shouldn't, however, be resting on our laurels. This is no time to let our guard down.

There are, as I can personally attest, terrorists out there, both overseas and in this country, who oppose this country and its Government and will look for ways to attack U.S. citizens and interest at home and abroad. We as a Nation must continue to work hard and smart to prevent that, or failing that, to manage the consequences quickly and effectively. But, to be sure to do so in ways that are sensitive to our constitutional guarantees and which protect our liberties.

Our panel agrees that a lot has been done to address the terrorist threat. But we also feel there is a lot of room for improvement. I might mention we have copies of our first report with us, and would be happy to provide them to Committee staff for you.

We recently submitted this report. It's the first of three. We are required by the legislation that you mentioned to submit two more, in 2001 and 2002. And then, unlike many other such entities in Washington, we actually go out of business.

In our first report, among other things, we concluded that we will continue to face terrorist threats from a multitude of sources, both now and as far as we can see into the future. We concluded that the possibility that terrorists will use so-called weapons of mass destruction, or perhaps more aptly, as some would suggest, weapons of mass casualties, in this country as a genuine threat to the United States.

That the restraint on the use of such weapons by non-state actors may well be eroding, that such threats will, we believe, most likely come from fundamentalists or apocalyptic religious organizations, cults and extreme single issue groups, or other rogue members. That actually making and delivering a weapon that has the capability to cause mass casualties is certainly possible, but not without significant technical and resource obstacles, as we explain in our report.

That terrorists are more likely to continue to use conventional

tainly resort to smaller scale chemical, biological or radiological attack.

Our report raises the question whether the psychological preoccupation with the worst case mass casualty scenario has perhaps overshadowed the lesser consequence but more likely scenario. Nevertheless, we must prepare for potential terrorist attacks across the broad spectrum of potential threats in the full range of the results and consequences, whatever their magnitude.

In our report, we make several recommendations, but I want to highlight two for you today. We strongly recommend a coherent and comprehensive national level strategy for dealing with terrorist threats and attacks domestically that clearly distinguishes Federal, State and local roles and responsibilities, and that articulates clear direction for Federal priorities and programs to support State and local responders. It's our belief that such a national strategy does not yet exist below the level of the fairly cosmic presidential decision directive level.

An issue I feel particularly strongly about, given my background of 32 years in the intelligence community, is that we must find ways and there are ways-I am convinced, to improve the dissemination of information among agencies at all levels, not just law enforcement but across the whole range of the community that's involved in this. That is medical, health care, fire services and other first responders.

In conclusion, Madam Chairman, and members, just as we mounted a complex coordinated and in my view, highly successful, campaign to thwart Y2K disruptions, so must we now mount a similarly well-conceived campaign to thwart terrorism. To do less in my view is simply unacceptable.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to speak to this critical issue. I'd be happy to answer your questions.

Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, General Clapper.

We have been joined by our Ranking Member, Mr. Traficant. Before we go to questions, I'd like to yield to him for any statement he might want to make.

Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairwoman, I'd ask that the statement of our Ranking Member of the entire Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, be included in the record.

Mrs. FOWLER. Already ordered.

Mr. TRAFICANT. And unanimous consent that my official written remarks be included in this record.

Mrs. FOWLER. Without objection.

Mr. TRAFICANT. I'd also like to know that if I do not return because of Floor business, that I would like by unanimous consent that my questions be given to the respective panels and answered in writing in a reasonable time frame.

Mrs. FOWLER. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. TRAFICANT. I'd like to make a short statement. I want to compliment and commend the Chairwoman of this Committee. The major role of Congress is oversight, and we have forgotten that. And certainly, she hasn't. And she is bringing Congress, and setting an example for even other committees, as I hear that dis