Mr. BARRETT. There are 120 cities?

Mr. DAVIS. 120 cities.

Mr. BARRETT. Has each of these cities taken advantage of the program?

Mr. DAVIS. Well, by December this year, one-third of the cities will have received their training. The equipment is following the training. I'm sure there's only a handful of cities that have the actual equipment. They're beginning to get it in, but they don't have all the equipment today.

Mr. BARRETT. Am I correct in assuming that all 120 cities will take advantage of it?

Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely. In fact, the response that we're getting, for example, to our draft report that's out to the agencies for comments, which we also sent to the cities that we dealt with, came back favorably. They're supportive of the positions that we've taken and they're supportive of building on existing State and local structures. At the same time, they're saying we sure want that equipment, though; don't take that equipment from us.

Mr. BARRETT. Knowing my local officials, I'd be surprised if they didn't say that.

Mr. DAVIS. Right. [Laughter.]

Mr. BARRETT. I know Mr. Souder asked a couple of questions, so I apologize if these are redundant. There's a corresponding, if you will, program, Health and Human Services program. Can you tell me about that program?

Mr. DAVIS. Well, there's a program with Health and Human Services that's lead by the Public Health Service, that is also providing what they call Metropolitan Medical Strike Teams. They also want to be able to provide equipment to 120 local jurisdictions. Mr. BARRETT. The same 120 that's there for the use of

Mr. DAVIS. Right. And right now they provide a certain number of them; I don't know the exact amount. I think they're following the DOD in terms of the first 27 cities; then they're trying to build it up to 120 cities. First, they follow DOD with the first 27; then they want to get up to 120.

Some of the equipment components are overlapping. We talked about that earlier. But some of it is very different. The issues that we're dealing with at the State and local level are that they find that cumbersome in terms of having to deal with different agency people and to look at more lists. There's not, as they refer to it, one-stop shopping. They'd like to be able to have one-stop shopping. Mr. BARRETT. In the Department of Health and Human Services program, what's the amount that a city is eligible for?

Mr. DAVIS. Well, it's averaging about $350,000 a city. It's somewhat of a sliding scale, but it's an average.

Mr. BARRETT. And is that a program where each city is eligible to get the money, or will some cities not get it? In other words, will all 120 cities take advantage of that program?

Mr. DAVIS. Right, if it is expanded. It's a contract grant, unlike the DOD program which is basically a loan program.

Mr. BARRETT. OK.

Mr. DAVIS. One of the real issues that we're hearing from the locals and they used the term "unfunded mandate"-is that the legislation allows DOD to loan equipment to the cities for training

the-trainer; but now, the cities are responsible for maintaining, repairing, and replacing the equipment. Some of this equipment is going to wear out. As you use it, it's going to wear out-the protective suits, et cetera.

Mr. BARRETT. Do you really see the unfunded mandate with this program?

Mr. DAVIS. The people say they're not sure the loan agreement that they have with DOD right now calls for them to replace the equipment to repair, maintain, and replace it. There are no provisions right now in terms of the Federal Government providing that replacement.

Mr. BARRETT. Are they able to pay it back? In other words, rather than replace it, just say we don't want to do this program anymore? Is that something-I'm just surprised that I hear the unfunded mandate argument when this program is essentially a loan program.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, we haven't heard anybody who said they want to turn it back in DOD. They're out there with their hands out. They're willing to accept it and they want to take it. But they think that, by taking it, maybe someday later the Federal Government will come along and replace it for them. They told us they're fairly confident that training equipment is not going to get the priority to compete successfully against other demands on local budgets.

Mr. BARRETT. Anybody else want to comment on this program? Mr. Nesbitt.

Mr. NESBITT. Say the money is for training equipment. To actually equip a fire department that was properly trained to use this equipment, you're talking about a substantially larger amount of money. Some of this equipment is very expensive, and once you use it once, you can't use it again. It has to be disposed of and you have to replace it. So, it's a very expensive proposition.

To equip and train a fire department, for example, if you train them properly and you give them all the equipment for training, but then you say, OK, you're trained but now there's no equipment if you're going to respond, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to us.

Mr. BARRETT. And I understand that argument. I just don't understand how that would constitute unfunded mandate if it's a voluntary program. That was my point.

That's all I have right now, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank you for your time and your responsiveness, and if you have additional information you want to submit for the record we would like to have that.

The second panel could now come forward. The second panel consists of officials from three Federal departments. Representing the Department of Justice are Mr. Robert Blitzer, Section Chief, Domestic Terrorism/Counterterrorism Planning Section, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Mr. Michael Dalich, Chief of Staff, Office of Justice Program. Representing the Department of Defense is Mr. Charles L. Cragin, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, and Mr. James Q. Roberts, Principal Director of Policy and Missions, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. Mr. Robert

Knouss, Director, Office of Emergency Preparedness is from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Thank you all for coming and for your patience. Now that you're all comfortably settled, would you please stand again? Raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.

Mr. Blitzer, would you please proceed?

STATEMENTS OF ROBERT M. BLITZER, SECTION CHIEF, DOMESTIC TERRORISM/COUNTERTERRORISM PLANNING SECTION, NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL J. DALICH, CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; CHARLES L. CRAGIN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; JAMES Q. ROBERTS, PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR FOR POLICY AND MISSIONS, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS AND LOW-INTENSITY CONFLICT, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, AND ROBERT KNOUSS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Mr. BLITZER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Barrett, staff. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today regarding the FBI's role in the preparedness of this Nation to deal with terrorism, including that which involves weapons of mass destruction.

This morning I will focus on three specific areas: First, the domestic WMD threat and the threat posed to this country by international terrorists here. Second, I'll provide an overview of the current interagency initiatives to establish a National Domestic Preparedness Office. Finally, I'll comment on the Government Accounting Office report concerning the value of the threat and risk assess

ments.

During the past 2 years we have responded, along with our crisis and consequence management partners, to a growing number of domestic WMD threats and incidents. These incidents have been carried out primarily by two categories of violators which we identify as lone offenders and extremist elements of right-wing groups.

Typical lone offenders fit into one or more categories; for example, those seeking revenge; those who are mentally unstable; those who belong to violent extremist elements, usually splinters of those elements, and those who intend to disrupt our Government activities and our emergency response modes through the use of pranks or hoaxes.

Although most of the threats we've handled over the past 3 years have proven not to have endangered the public safety, investigative, emergency and medical personnel respond seriously to each and every incident. The impact of these responses is both costly and disruptive.

The current international terrorist threat really can be divided into three general categories. I think Mr. Johnson's definition was quite on the money. I would only add to his description that, al

though we're seeing fewer attacks, we're seeing a lot of people hurt during specific attacks. This is, of course, of great concern to us. The first category of threat stems from State sponsors. State sponsors include the countries of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea. Put simply, these nations view terrorism as a tool of foreign policy and many of these countries do have WMD capabilities, or at least are working hard on them.

The second category of international terrorist threat is made up of formalized terrorist organizations, such as the Hizballah, the Egyptian Al-Gama Al-Islamiyya, and the Palestinian Hamas. They're able to plan and mount terrorist campaigns on an international basis.

The third category of international terrorist threats stems from loosely affiliated extremists characterized by rogue terrorists such as Ramzi Ahmed Yousef of the World Trade Center and international terrorist financier Osama Bin Ladin. These loosely affiliated extremists may pose the most serious threat to the United States because they are often difficult for law enforcement and the intelligence community to penetrate or tract. They also can exploit the mobility, the technology, and rapid transportation, and a fluid organizational structure.

The FBI believes that the threat posed by international terrorists in each of these categories will continue for the foreseeable future. In the face of these threats, the Federal Government, through the Domestic Preparedness Program, has elevated the awareness of the Nation's first responders with the possibility of WMD terrorism. Federal, State, and local responders now participate in a cooperative dialog and have come to realize that an effective response to terrorism requires a unified approach by all relevant authorities.

Our Special Agents-in-Charge across the country-as you know, we're located in 56 different field divisions, as well as over 400 resident agencies-have undertaken new responsibilities to coordinate beyond the traditional law enforcement community efforts and to begin useful purposeful liaison with members of the fire/hazmat emergency medical and consequence planning community. Through the execution of this program, we and our interagency partners have placed the utmost importance upon delivering a program that will enhance capabilities of first responders to safely and effectively respond to a terrorist incident.

To specifically solicit first responder input-and this has been fairly recent-the Department of Justice convened a State and local stakeholders' forum here in Washington, DC. This was from the entire crisis and consequence management community-police, fire, Office of Emergency Preparedness, et cetera. More than 200 State and local emergency response planners and practitioners from across the Nation were invited to discuss current and Federal domestic preparedness efforts and to present their suggestions to the Attorney General. They asked that a single point of contact, onestop shopping, as someone on the prior panel mentioned, be designated for the various initiatives that provide training, equipment, or other assistance for terrorist and preparedness for both State and local authorities. They specifically proposed that the Department of Justice become responsible for the overall implementation of terrorism-related domestic preparedness programs and activities.

Because of the strong recommendations of the State and local stakeholders, the Attorney General, Secretary of Defense, and the Director of FEMA have personally engaged in a process to transition the responsibility for the Domestic Preparedness Program to the Department of Justice. Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget is working closely with all parties in support of this transition.

DOJ's proposed coordinating structure will incorporate input from the Federal agencies with responsibilities in WMD terrorism and create an informal advisory relationship with first responder stakeholders. The actual detail and structure in staffing of the proposed national office are being involved within the interagency community.

I've been requested to comment specifically on the value of conducting the threat and the risk assessments for cities or designated geographic areas prior to providing training and equipment loans. The FBI's response letter of March 4, 1998 to Mr. Davis of the GAO provides our position on the threat and risk assessment issue. In brief, threat and risk assessments will add value to the overall domestic preparedness effort. We think that a pilot project to test the threat and risk assessment process should be done. In the near future, we will attempt to adapt and test a model for use in the cities and other local areas, a threat and risk model.

Also, in association with other Federal, State, and local authorities, we intend to explore existing threat and risk methodologies that may be helpful in better determining the training and equipment requirements of our first responder community across the Nation. The mission of the FBI's counterterrorism preparedness program supports the U.S. counterterrorism effort by increasing the capacity of Federal, State, and local crisis and consequence management agencies, to respond to any threats or acts of terrorism in the United States. The FBI is confident that, through the National Domestic Preparedness Office, we can support this mission. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blitzer follows:]