This is an issue that goes beyond bureaucratic turf battles. We must find a way to bridge the gap between the way law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies view their respective tasks and collect and handle information. The law enforcement agencies are very good at investigating cases and bringing them to trial but lack expertise and analytical perspective that the national intelligence agencies can bring to bear on issues. A good example is the fact that the law enforcement community had information about Aum Shinryko activities in the U.S. to acquire material for chemical warfare but did not have a system in place for flagging this as a potential threat. That information never made its way in to the hands of the intelligence analysts who were better prepared to assess it and bring it to the attention of policy makers. Related to the problem of sharing information is the more difficult issue of tracking international terrorists who move their operations to the United States. There is a clear demarcation at the water's edge. Notwithstanding the Hollywood myth of intelligence agencies acting unfettered within the United States, the reality is quite different. The CIA operates overseas and the FBI is in control domestically. In my view this is as it should be, but we need to have a broader view than we have about groups and individuals operating domestically. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies collect information in field offices or, when there is an attack against Americans overseas, through the agents dispatched to investigate the crime scene. FBI analysts spend most of their time servicing the needs of the Special Agents in Charge in the field rather than combing through the information that is collected in case reports for strategic intelligence. At present there is neither the incentive nor system in place to routinely generate intelligence that could be used to warn policy makers about developing threats, such as groups like Aum Shinryko. I recognize that putting in place a system to collect and analyze domestic intelligence in the manner the rest of the intelligence community does raises some legitimate constitutional and civil rights concerns. I am not suggesting trampling on the rights of our citizens. However, our current system is clearly inadequate. International terrorist groups can exploit loopholes in our laws that essentially make them untouchable. How do we make the System Work? There is no magic bullet or program that can get this country fully prepared to face potential threats from terrorists. But I do believe that there are some practical steps we should take that will maintain and enhance our nation's overall level of readiness. First, we need to do a better job of coordinating our efforts to combat terrorism. We must go beyond saying that terrorism is a problem. We need a strategic vision that identifies essential capabilities and necessary programs to meet changing threats. We also need some accountability in the process to ensure the programs and resources are managed efficiently. Achieving better coordination, however, is a recipe for bureaucratic turf battles. Departments and agencies are reluctant to surrender their control over programs and policies to another agency. Accordingly, the direction for taking this kind of action must come from the President and from the Governors of the fifty states. It is foolish to think you can legislate away turf battles. As long as you have different agencies and departments you will have different missions and conflicts over who does what. One approach would be to create a “Terrorism Czar" who is charged with the oversight of the counter terrorism mission, both internationally and domestically. This job should be under the direct control of the White House and should be in charge of identifying and monitoring the various counter terrorism missions and capabilities. I think the current “lead agency system”—which puts the Department of State in charge of coordinating international terrorism and the FBI in charge of coordinating domestic terrorism—is basically sound. Yet, neither agency has the power to set budget priorities or assign clearly defined missions. Someone, somewhere in the process needs such power if they are to be effective in coordinating the process. There must be accountability built in to this process. You should not simply commission one or more departments to handle a potential threat, such as thwarting chemical and biological terrorism, without also ensuring that they are required to give an account of their efforts. Third, I believe we need a national budget line item for combating terrorism, which encompasses both the domestic and the international components. The problem is not one of too little money, rather I think too much money is being spent ill-advisedly. For example, the Department of Energy does not need to have a NEST and a JTOT. These units should be merged and scaled down. I also think it is foolish to assign various parts of the mission for dealing with threats from weapons of mass destruction to different military units. One unit could perform the tasks currently assigned to Army's Technical Escort Unit and the Marine Corps' Chemical Biological Incident Response Force, for example. Someone in the process needs to have the budget authority to match resources to policies. Under the current system there is no such thing as budget item for counter terrorism policy, either domestic or international. I think we are poorly served as a nation by relying on an ad hoc system of budgeting money to deal with this problem. We should consider instead a more disciplined approach where we identify needs and policies and clearly define required to meet these. Finally, we need to take a hard look at how to obtain better human intelligence against non-governmental organizations, such as a radical religious sect. Targeting such groups raises legitimate concerns about civil liberties, particularly if these groups are in the United States. Instead of enacting a law granting the Executive Branch broad authority in this regard, we should look at using something akin to the Presidential Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. A small group of distinguished men and women charged with providing the lead agencies for combating terrorism and collecting intelligence with specific guidance on a case-by-case basis. We are not talking about the need to penetrate hundreds of groups. Practically speaking, we are looking at a handful. We should also look at putting in place new mechanisms to bridge the gaps between the domestic and international arenas. Ultimately, such a mechanism should probably reside in the White House rather than being put in one of the major departments. These mechanisms should address procedures to share intelligence information and to conduct planning and training for multi-agency crisis response. Conclusion Let me reiterate in closing that I remain optimistic about our national capabilities to combat terrorism. Prevention and preparation can pay important dividends when the unexpected occurs. Whatever we do we must safeguard our best defense against terrorists-freedom. Earlier this year FBI agents in Las Vegas rushed to hold a press conference announcing the arrest of two men who were allegedly plotting to produce a deadly biological agent. TV and newspapers seized on the news of this diabolical plot and helped fuel the belief that we are on the verge of a biological Armageddon. A few days later, a sheepish FBI released both men from jail after tests revealed the substance was a harmless vaccine and no such plot existed. I believe we should be proactive in handling such threats and preparing for such contingencies. But our government's response must be tempered with reason and prudence. We should insist that our security and law enforcement policies reflect the values and the vision that are enshrined in the constitution. A nation that respects the views of the minority, a government that defends the weak, a people that seek justice for ali, and a faith that entrusts individuals with the right and duty to be free-these things are our ultimate protection against terrorism. I want to thank this committee for taking the time to explore this issue and for working to ensure the safety and well being of the citizens of the United States. |