the threat, there are serious questions as to how we organize and manage our Federal resources to combat terrorism.

I now yield to Mr. Barrett, our distinguished ranking minority member for an opening statement.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to Congressman Skelton and the other witnesses today. Two months ago we examined in a closed hearing the terrorist threats to our forces and our diplomatic personnel stationed abroad. Today's hearing, which will focus on the effectiveness of Federal Government programs, is part of a continuing review of our efforts to combat terrorism at home and overseas. The tragic bombing attacks on the World Trade Center and Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and the Sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway system highlight the need for continued work in this area.

Thanks to the leadership of Ike Skelton, and others in Congress, and the executive branch, the goal is to maximize the effectiveness of programs both to prevent terrorists attacks, and when such attacks do occur, most effectively deal with the resulting crisis and

consequences.

The Nunn-Lugar Domestic Preparedness Program is an important part of this effort. Led by the Department of Defense, the purpose of this program is to develop training for emergency response personnel in 120 cities, provide emergency equipment to each city, and create a data base on chemical and biological agents.

The GAO has highlighted several perceived problems with the program, including the failure of the Defense Department to perform threat and risk assessments to determine the most effective response to identify threats.

Although I am pleased that my home city of Milwaukee is among the first 27 cities scheduled to receive training and equipment this year, I have some concern that it and other cities in this program, may not be spending its scarce Federal dollars in the most effective way.

A central question appears to be over how we define the threat. Are we better served preparing for catastrophic events of relatively low probability, like a nuclear, biological or chemical attack, or preparing for conventional attacks that are more probable? Other questions center on how effectively Federal Government agencies are sharing responsibility for this important mission.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on this, and other related questions, and hope to hear the views of the relevant agencies at a later date. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Congressman Ike Skelton is our leadoff witness as the ranking member of the Committee on National Security and a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. Skelton has long-standing interests and efforts, and has contributed greatly to this timely discussion on U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. Mr. Skelton's contributions include legislatively mandating that the Office of Management and Budget establish a reporting system for the budgeting expenditure of funds for terrorism programs and activities to assist in the identification of priorities and duplication of efforts. I'm glad you could make it and appreciate your patience as we've gone through this statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. SKELTON. Chairman Souder and Mr. Barrett, I certainly appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today. It is important to speak about an important issue to our Nation. But it is also important to bring attention to a substantial body of work done by the General Accounting Office [GAO], which, by the way, I think is excellent work. This work in progress to date, in a series of four reports, will eventually produce the most comprehensive overview of our Nation's effort to combat terrorism.

As you all know too well, this is a daunting task. Without the leadership of this subcommittee we would have a far more vague picture of our government's activities and I compliment you, Mr. Souder and Mr. Barrett, on leading this charge.

Let me briefly review the recent finding of the four GAO works. The first, GAO released a July 1997 report entitled, "Combating Terrorism: Status of DOD Efforts to Protect its Forces Overseas." This report, dealing with anti-terrorism, concluded that uniformed security standards were necessary to assure the safety of Americans around the world.

Second, GAO released a September 1997 report entitled, "Combating Terrorism: Federal Agencies' Efforts to Implement National Security Policy and Strategy." Focused on counterterrorism as opposed to anti-terrorism for those offensive measures for deterring, resolving, and managing terrorist acts. This second report represents the first comprehensive examination of Federal activities to combat terrorism. It pointed out that there are more than 40 Federal departments, agencies, bureaus are involved in this activity. It also outlines specific roles and responsibilities of Federal agencies as well as their respective capabilities.

GAO released its third report in December 1997. It focused on total governmentwide spending levels to combat terrorism. This product and the process leading to its publication closely tracked with the congressional interest in this subject.

As many of you know, during floor consideration of the fiscal year 1998, defense authorization bill, my amendment was accepted to require the Office of Management and Budget [OMB], to disclose overall spending levels directed against terrorism, known as section 1051. And taken together with GÃO's third report, enough evidence surfaced to offer both encouragement and concern.

Although it seemed that a significant amount of resources were annually committed to combat terrorism, the following inefficiencies were exposed.

No regular governmentwide collection and review of funding data existed; no apparent governmentwide priorities were established; no assessment process existed to coordinate and focus government efforts; and no government office or entity maintained the authority to enforce coordination.

As a result of the third report, GAO recommended that the National Security Council, the NSC, the OMB, the departments' and agencies' heads, such as the State Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, build upon the new statutory requirement embodied in section 1051. I am also pleased to report that this remains an annual obligation requiring an annual overview, by

March of each year, of governmentwide efforts to combat terrorism around the globe.

Finally, at the request of Chairman Hastert and myself, GAO has recently released its fourth and latest product on the subject entitled, "Combating Terrorism: Threat and Risk Assessments Can Help Prioritize and Target Investments." Again, enough evidence has been provided to question the Federal Government's level of funding. The last report responsible for reviewing the implementation of the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Response Program, hopefully, will assist with the establishment of consistent national standards and priorities.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, in your mind's eye, join me and imagine what it was like, in 1995, for a senior airman in a remote location in a foreign land, relaxing after a long, hot, stressful day in the Arabian desert. Imagine too, what it was like, in 1996, for the Federal employee beginning the day in Oklahoma, pouring coffee, grabbing a breakfast snack, and preparing for morning briefings. Imagine what it was like, in 1993, for Americans, businesswomen, businessmen, diplomats, tourists, visitors milling innocently around in the heart of New York City, one of our Nation's busiest locations.

Imagine, if you can, what it was like for these individuals before these three locations became infamous for the catastrophic events that followed. To a person not expecting anything but a completion of an average day, all experienced a jolt, a shock, a sense of horror, as chaos and bedlam brought an abrupt halt to their respective routines.

The bombing victims at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, were trained military professionals in a foreign land. The bombing victims at the Oklahoma City Federal Building and the World Trade Center were average American citizens, civilians, at home in their communities, totally unprepared for the violence that they were forced to experience. Despite the different circumstances, all three events share in common one avoidable tell-tale truth. Americans died brutally, without warning, unnecessarily, and in a manner that will almost certainly be imitated in the future.

In 1995 and 1996, about one-fourth of all international terrorist acts were against U.S. targets and although the number of terrorist incidents both worldwide and in the United States has declined in recent years, the level of violence and lethality of attacks has increased.

Violent efforts in the past may encourage further attempts to strike American places such as our own yards, back home in our districts and other places where attacks might least be expected. Enemies of the United States have adopted effective methods and means to strike against our country. Surely, enemies of America, both foreign and domestic, recognize the military capabilities of the United States. It is hard to ignore our successes throughout history and around the globe. It is difficult not to marvel at our technological advancements and is nearly impossible to overlook our massive military might at sea, in the air, and on the ground. Our naval, air, ground, and Marine forces remain superior and unmatched in today's world.

Further, enemies of America both foreign and domestic, almost certainly recognize the capabilities of our domestic law enforcement and emergency response professionals. But what is the point at which the responsibilities of these two communities intersect? Do our domestic law enforcement capabilities effectively coordinate with those of the Department of Defense? In the case of another incident on American soil, are Defense Department officials prepared to effectively support local officials? Are existing programs, such as the Emergency Response System Program, and Rapid Response Information System, and the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici First Responder Training Program, adequately focused and adequately funded to handle a future incident, particularly one involving a weapon of mass destruction, such as a biological, chemical, or nuclear device? We had better be sure. Is the threat real? I believe wholeheartedly that it is. Are we in danger of overstating the threat? I'm not sure.

Let me share with you something about which there is no doubt. I implore you to consider two lists, one based on capabilities and another based on alleged activities. I ask you to first consider the lists of nations around the globe known as either possessing or nearly possessing the capability to produce chemical and biological weapons. You are, of course, familiar with the unclassified list: North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Russia.

Second, I ask you to consider the group of nations singled out by the State Department for engaging in State sponsored terrorism. Again, you are familiar with the list membership: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.

Finally, I ask you to look at the correlation between these two lists and ask you to decide, are you willing to risk the potential consequences of not being prepared?

To properly prepare for potential terrorist acts, we must set forth with a political commitment to attain both efficiency and adequate resource levels across the entire Federal Government. The recent past offers a bit of optimism. The relatively high level of congressional support has existed. But I am concerned about our Nation's ability of the next few years to attain efficiency or to sustain such commitment. The Defense Department, rightly assumes a supportive role during a terrorist incident within the United States, leaving the Department of Justice the primary responsibility for response and coordination.

Yet even a role, supportive in nature, has come at a great costs in both manpower and dollars. Much of the highly specialized expertise resides in the Department of Defense. Most of the highly trained individuals necessary for such tasks are also from the Department of Defense. Fortunately, for them, for their families, and for our Nation these same individuals are often needed elsewhere in overseas contingencies.

In these strict budgetary times, in support and training assistance to domestic authorities, defense personnel are placed under a very terrible strain. This year's budgetary constraint is particularly tight. I have not received information that would cause me to believe that anything might be different in the near future. Yet I am aware of the Department of Defense's budgetary struggle to meet

existing requirements. We must assume that this new effort might also find itself at risk receiving inadequate resources.

We should look closely at this recommendation before committing large sums of our precious and increasingly scarce financial resources. Also, we should recognize that this resource pool is declining further now that FEMA has recently decided to withdraw itself from any lead agency role. Without its assistance the Department of Defense must now find additional, previously unanticipated, budget authority over the next 4 years to support this requirement. This work of GAO has helped us discover our approach may be fundamentally flawed. Perhaps, too many different Federal agencies and local governments possess existing or emerging capabilities for responding to the weapons of mass destruction attack.

Mr. Chairman, there is a Chinese proverb that states, "May you live in interesting times," which, be thankful that we do. But we also live during challenging times. A time of budget cuts, forced drawdowns, streamlining and reductions in military personnel and strength levels. We are faced with a familiar threat that is growing in importance. To counter the terrorist threat, to provide as much safety to Americans at home and abroad, we must need not only to strengthen and reinforce existing capabilities but legislate additional resources. If we fail in this calling, we may face another day when, without warning, innocent Americans fall victim to such evil. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Ike Skelton follows:]