Page images
PDF
EPUB

Stanford Law Library

3 6105 062 563 122 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York STEPHEN HORN, California

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

DC JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland MARSHALL “MARK” SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio Carolina

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois BOB BARR, Georgia

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois DAN MILLER, Florida

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

JIM TURNER, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
DOUG OSE, California
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

(Independent) HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director
DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian

CARLA J. MARTIN, Chief Clerk
PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

TOM LANTOS, California JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine MARSHALL “MARK” SANFORD, South EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York Carolina

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LEE TERRY, Nebraska

(Independent) JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

Ex OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
LAWRENCE J. HALLORAN, Staff Director and Counsel
MICHELE LANG, Professional Staff Member

JONATHAN WHARTON, Clerk
DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Counsel

(II)

GOVERNMENTWIDE SPENDING TO COMBAT TERRORISM: GENERAL ACCOUNTING OF. FICE VIEWS ON THE PRESIDENT'S ANNUAL REPORT

THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, VETERANS

AFFAIRS, AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 pm., in room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Shays, (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Shays, Blagojevich and Mica.

Also present: Lawrence J. Halloran, staff director and counsel; Michele Lang, professional staff member; Jonathan Wharton, clerk; Earley Green, minority staff assistant; and David Rapallo, minority counsel.

Mr. SHAYS. I'd like to call this hearing to order.

Events like the World Trade Center bombing and the release of poison gas in a Tokyo subway crystalize our fears and galvanize our determination to confront terrorism. In response to a threat that approaches our shores from many directions in many forms against many potential targets, more than 40 Federal departments, agencies and programs will spend $9.2 billion this year to combat terrorism.

Today we examine those governmentwide efforts to detect, deter, prevent and respond to terrorist attacks, continuing work begun by this subcommittee's previous chairman, Speaker Hastert. We ask how a sprawling and growing anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism program is being coordinated across the notoriously previously bureaucratic barriers.

We ask how priorities are set, how risks are measured and how responses are designed to augment, not duplicate or replace existing local, State and Federal capabilities.

These are not easy questions. By its very nature terrorism is unpredictable, even irrational, and may confound standard methods of risk analysis. For example, current threat assessments conclude conventional weapons, guns and bombs, remain the terrorists most likely choice, but the most unlikely threat, the use of biological or chemical weapons to inflict mass casualties would have the most devastating consequences.

(1)

« PreviousContinue »