House Hearing, 108TH Congress - Combating Terrorism: A Proliferation of Strategies

COMBATING TERRORISM: A PROLIFERATION OF
STRATEGIES
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,

EMERGING THREATS AND INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MARCH 3, 2003
Serial No. 10820
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
(
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

87702 PDF WASHINGTON : 2003
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 204020001
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:05 Nov 05, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 D:\DOCS\87702.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan Columbia
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS BELL, Texas
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee (Independent)
PETER SIRH, Staff Director

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Deputy Staff Director
ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian
TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk
PHILIP M. SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING THREATS AND INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DAN BURTON, Indiana DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio TOM LANTOS, California
RON LEWIS, Kentucky BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania CHRIS BELL, Texas
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
EX OFFICIO
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
LAWRENCE J. HALLORAN, Staff Director and Counsel
R. NICHOLAS PALARINO, Senior Policy Advisor
THOMAS COSTA, Professional Staff Member
ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Clerk
DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Counsel
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held on March 3, 2003 .............................................................................. 1
Statement of:
Decker, Raymond, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Team,
U.S. General Accounting Office, accompanied by Stephen L. Caldwell,
Assistant Director, U.S. General Accounting Office .................................. 12
Gilmore, James S., III, chairman, Advisory Panel to Assess the Domestic
Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass De-
struction; Michael E. OHanlon, senior fellow, foreign policy studies,
the Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair, the Brookings Institution; John Newhouse,
senior fellow, Center for Defense Information; and Andrew F.
Krepinevich, executive director, Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments .................................................................................................. 58
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Decker, Raymond, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Team,
U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared statement of ............................ 15
Gilmore, James S., III, chairman, Advisory Panel to Assess the Domestic
Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass De-
struction, prepared statement of ................................................................. 62
Krepinevich, Andrew F., executive director, Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments, prepared statement of ........................................ 148
Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, prepared statement of .................................................................... 7
Newhouse, John, senior fellow, Center for Defense Information, prepared
statement of ................................................................................................... 119
OHanlon, Michael E., senior fellow, foreign policy studies, the Sydney
Stein, Jr. Chair, the Brookings Institution, prepared statement of ......... 102
Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Connecticut, prepared statement of ........................................................ 3
(III)
COMBATING TERRORISM: A PROLIFERATION
OF STRATEGIES
MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2003
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING
THREATS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Shays
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Shays, Turner, Murphy, Janklow,
Kucinich, and Bell.
Staff present: Lawrence Halloran, staff director and counsel; R.
Nicholas Palarino, Ph.D., senior policy advisor; Thomas Costa, pro-
fessional staff member; Robert A. Briggs, clerk; Mackenzie Eaglen,
fellow; David Rapallo, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority
assistant clerk.
Mr. SHAYS. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Na-
tional Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations
hearing entitled, Combating Terrorism: A Proliferation of Strate-
gies, is called to order.
Almost 2 years before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Ad-
visory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terror-
ism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, far more widely and
succinctly known as the Gilmore Commission, concluded the United
States lacked a coherent, functional national strategy to guide dis-
parate counterterrorism efforts. In testimony before the subcommit-
tee on March 26, 2001, the Commissions vice chairman said, a
truly comprehensive national strategy will contain a high-level
statement of national objectives coupled logically to a statement of
the means used to achieve these objectives.
The Bush administration inherited a loose collection of Presi-
dential directives and law enforcement planning documents used as
a strategic framework, but that fragile construct collapsed with the
World Trade Center on September 11th. The brutal nature of the
terrorist threat shattered naive assumptions terrorists would be de-
terred by geographic, political, or moral borders.
A new strategic paradigm was needed. Containment, deterrence,
reaction and mutually assured destruction no longer served to pro-
tect the fundamental security interest of the American people. The
threat demands detection, prevention, and a proactive, preemptive
approach to self-defense.
(1)
2
To meet the demands of a new, more dangerous world, the execu-

tive branch has promulgated strategy statements articulating na-
tional goals for various aspects of the war on terrorism. Subordi-
nate to the overarching national security and military strategies,
other plans guide efforts to secure the homeland, combat terrorism
abroad, integrate military response capabilities, combat weapons of
mass destruction, stanch terrorist funding, secure cyberspace and
protect critical national infrastructure.
A strategy famine has given way to a variable feast of high-level
statements of national objectives and tactics to defeat the multi-
faceted foe that is global terrorism. Today we ask how these strate-
gies link to form the national comprehensive policy recommended
by the Gilmore Commission. Are they dynamic to meet changing
adaptable threats? Do they guide the application of finite resources
to achieve critical objectives? And how do we know if they are
working?
Just as reorganizing the Federal Government to counterterrorism
will take time, reorienting the U.S. long-term strategic mindset will
require sustained effort and hard choices. Some fundamental ele-
ments of a fully integrated preparedness and response strategy are
not yet evident. State officials and local first responders are still
waiting to know how much will be expected of them in the event
of a major incident. What capabilities in terms of training and
equipment should be resident at the local level? When and how
should Federal capabilities be brought to bear?
To help us begin our consideration of these important questions
today, we welcome two panels of distinguished witnesses, including
former Governor James Gilmore, chairman of the advisory commis-
sion that has been and remains on the forefront of the national de-
bate on combating terrorism. In future hearings, we will hear from
administration representatives and others to address specific ele-
ments of the strategic bulwark against terrorism.
We welcome all our witnesses and look forward to their testi-
mony. At this point, the Chair would recognize the distinguished
gentleman, our ranking member, Mr. Kucinich.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]
3
4
5
Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would

like to extend a warm welcome to you and everyone connected with
the work of our committee and to let you know that I look forward
to working with you in this session.
Mr. SHAYS. Likewise.
Mr. KUCINICH. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we worked together
in the last Congress to conduct oversight over the administrations
efforts to secure our country against terrorist attacks. After the
awful events of September 11th, it became more evident than ever
that we needed a rational approach to protecting the American peo-
ple.
Officials from the U.S. General Accounting Office, who are ap-
pearing before us again today, testified that the No. 1 step in
crafting a national strategy was a comprehensive threat and risk
assessment. Before we reorganized ourselves or allocated additional
funding, we needed to understand and to prioritize the true threats
to our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, on October 15, 2001, you and I joined together
and we were accompanied by our counterparts on the full commit-
tee, Chairman Burton and Ranking Member Waxman, and the four
of us signed a letter to President Bush. We urged the President to
conduct exactly this type of assessment. In the spirit of bipartisan-
ship, we moved forward and asked the President to use the oppor-
tunity of Governor Ridges appointment to carefully examine all the
threats we face.
Unfortunately, President Bush was not responsive in regard to
our request. He did not respond to the committee. The administra-
tion moved ahead with the new Department of Homeland Security
and produced a new budget, all without taking the initial step of
completing a comprehensive threat, risk, and vulnerability assess-
ment.
What is the result of this? Todays hearing is aptly entitled, A
Proliferation of Strategies. The administration has been proliferat-
ing national security strategies, nearly a dozen by my count, with-
out any logical or demonstrable sense of priorities.
This lack of logic and the lack of priorities is exemplified by the
administrations push for a preemptive attack on Iraq. The admin-
istration has not been able to make any kind of a credible connec-
tion between Iraq and al Qaeda with regard to September 11th, nor
has the administration produced credible evidence connecting Iraq
and September 11th. Yet the administration is moving ahead with
the preemptive war despite the fact that Iraq poses no imminent
threat to the United States.
This rush to war, in the face of international opposition, threat-
ens to alienate the United States from the international community
at the very moment we need international cooperation to root out
terror. By pushing our Nation and the world to the verge of a his-
toric preemptive attack, we are making America far more dan-
gerous as a place to live.
I would suggest that whatever strategies we are discussing here
must take into account the impact of any preemptive action by the
United States against Iraq, because its quite likely that such ac-
tion, according to reports Ive heard, Mr. Chairman, from the FBI
that were published in the New York Times, its quite likely such
6
action could result in more terrorist attacks being directed against

this country. So thats why its important we have this hearing.
This weekends capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the sus-
pected mastermind behind numerous al Qaeda attacks by Pakistan,
the capture that was effected with the help of Pakistan, once again
demonstrates the great importance of international coalitions and
cooperation in our ongoing efforts to root out the terrorists. The ad-
ministrations rush to a historic preemptive war against Iraq, I be-
lieve, threatens to isolate our country and alienate allies that we
need in our efforts to disrupt, capture, and dismantle the al Qaeda
network.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich follows:]
7
8
9
10
Mr. SHAYS. At this time, the Chair would recognize Mr. Janklow,
former Governor of South Dakota, and then we will recognize Mr.
Murphy from Pennsylvania. This is our first hearing and were de-
lighted to welcome both of them. Mr. Janklow, you have the floor.
Mr. JANKLOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And I am
going to be very brief in my comments.
As I had an opportunity to review the strategies that were put
forth by staff, I believe there were eight in number, it becomes
really clear as its been suggested, that we have had a proliferation
of strategies enunciated and, at the same time, they are inter-
related in certain respects, overlapping in certain respects. What I
think we do lack is one clear overall strategy.
Now thats really not surprising. Notwithstanding political com-
ments any of us want to make, this President was President for 9
months when the World Trade Center was attacked and we were
subjected to the greatest terrorist attack in the history of this coun-
try. As a matter of fact, I believe it was the War of 1812 the last
time that America, in a substantive way, had enemy soldiers with-
in our borders operating.
Be that as it may, this administration inherited no strategic
plans at all; that occasionally cruise missiles would be launched
against some site in Afghanistan at an empty camp to enunciate
some kind of announcement. But other than that, there really
wasnt any clear cohesive strategy. But the important thing is now
we have thousands of dead people. We have enormous damage to
individuals lives, survivors lives. We have trauma the likes of
which this country has never known before. We have untold dam-
age to our economy totaling in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
And terrorists have figured out they have the ability to bring
America virtually to a standstill.
Five or six anthrax letters stopped the U.S. Postal Service, and,
for all practical purposes, most of the governments in America,
from being able to function for a period of time. The airlines were
shut down. Americas economy, for all practical purposes, was shut
down.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your leadership and
working with you and the other Members of the Congress, the ad-
ministration, and the American people to do what we can to come
up with an overall program, laying out the road map in a very
clearin very enunciated ways, specifically setting forth what it is
that we are trying to accomplish and the objectives by which we
mean to accomplish that.
I realize when I say that, it is not unlike a play book for a foot-
ball game; that you go into the football game with a play book and
by the time the second play is called, the other team intercepts
your ball and your play book is back to the drawing board for modi-
fication.
But we in this country have about 18,000 law enforcement units
that have never before had to work together in an absolutely co-
ordinated way. In my State of South Dakota, which is one of the
least populated in the Union and one of the largestas I tell peo-
ple in my congressional district, it is just slightly smaller than
Great Britain in terms of size; we have 534 fire departments within
the State of South Dakota, over 250 of which are in communities
11
of less than 1,000 people. So we can begin to understand the mag-

nitude on a national scale of what it is that we have to deal with
and how we have to address it.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you have been selected to
be our chairman, with respect to this subcommittee, and look for-
ward to working with you and others as we move forward to try
and get accomplishments done at the speed of light to better pro-
tect and secure the American people in this country.
Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much.
At this time we will call on Mr. Murphy from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first of all commend
you for calling this hearing. It is very important that if theres any-
thing that the Government Reform Committee should be doing dur-
ing this time, it is looking at ways to reform our strategies on na-
tional security; to make them more efficient, both in local emer-
gency services, as Congressman Janklow just alluded, but also at
the State and national level. We have to be united in our message,
united in our strategy, and then united in our means of implement-
ing that strategy during a time when people willand certainly the
terrorists will look for ways to divide us. They are counting on our
short memory of events, although they are burned in our memories
forever. They are counting on Americans to be fickle about their
memories and counting on us to be divisive in our politics as they
watch the news, and they mistake freedom of speech for disunity.
There may be times when this committee and other committees
may have people who do not agree, but I want them to also know
a message that as we iron out ways of making these strategies
more efficient, as well hear from testimony today, these are geared
toward working in a united way to take care of these problems
quickly and efficiently. So I look forward to the hearing, Mr. Chair-
man. Thank you.
We will call our first panel. Our panel is Mr. Raymond Decker,
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Team, U.S. Gen-
eral Accounting Office, accompanied by Stephen Caldwell, Assist-
ant Director of Defense Capabilities and Management. As is our
practice, we will ask you gentlemen to stand and we will swear you
in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentlemen. Note for the record that our
witnesses have responded in the affirmative. I think we only have
one statement. Thats from you Mr. Decker, correct?
Mr. DECKER. Thats correct.
Mr. SHAYS. And just let the record note, Mr. Decker, we have
worked with you for many years and we appreciate very sincerely
the work of the GAO and specifically your work. Thank you very
much. And, Mr. Caldwell, nice to have you here as well.
I am going to put the clock for 5 and rotate it another 5, so you
will have 10, and we will go from there.
12
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND DECKER, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CA-
PABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT TEAM, U.S. GENERAL AC-
COUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY STEPHEN L.
CALDWELL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNT-
ING OFFICE
Mr. DECKER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to participate in this
important hearing on national strategies relating to combating ter-
rorism.
More than 2 years ago, in July 2000, GAO testified before this
subcommittee on Combating Terrorism: The Need for a Strategy.
We had just completed our initial review of the Attorney Generals
Five Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology Crime
Plan, the closest document to a national strategy at that time, and
commented on its weaknesses. We stated at that time, there should
be only one national strategy to combat terrorism. We indicated
that additional planning guidance providing more detailed informa-
tion for specific functions should be integrated under this one over-
arching national strategy in a clear hierarchy.
At that time, Mr. Chairman, you were sponsoring a bill to estab-
lish an office that would, among other duties, coordinate a single
integrated strategy.
A lot has happened since then. My testimony today is based upon
GAOs comprehensive body of work in the area of combating terror-
ism over the past 6 years at the request of this subcommittee and
others. In our past work, we have stressed the importance of a na-
tional strategy to combat terrorism which should serve as a founda-
tion for defining what needs to be accomplished, identifying ap-
proaches to achieve desired outcomes, and determining how well
the goals are being met. It should not only define the roles and
missions of the Federal Government and agencies, but also those
of State and local government, the private sector and international
community. Finally, a national strategy must incorporate sound
management principles promoting information sharing and coordi-
nation in order to guide effective implementation.
Sir, Ill focus my comments on two areas, the current national
strategies and their implementation.
During the last year or so, the administration has developed sev-
eral new national strategies relating to combating terrorism. This
constellation of strategies generally replaces the 1998 Attorney
Generals Five Year Plan I mentioned earlier. We have identified
at least 10 national strategies relating to terrorism; 9 of the 10 are
approximately 14 months or younger; 3 are less than a month old.
As you can see from the chart on my right, which is also on page
11 of the written statement, we have attempted to portray the com-
plex relationships among these various strategies based on our re-
view of the strategies and discussions with executive branch offi-
cials. Please note that the National Drug Control Strategy isnt
shown on the chart since its relationship with combating terrorism
is mentioned in only one or two areas within that strategy. Also,
we are unaware of any national intelligence strategy to combat ter-
rorism tailored to support all of the strategies, although we recog-
nize intelligence and related activities as crucial for their success.
13
Overall, the strategies do generally form a national framework

for combating terrorism. Collectively they provide goals and objec-
tives on broad issues of national security and how combating ter-
rorism and homeland security fit into that larger realm. In addi-
tion, they offer more detailed goals and objectives in specific func-
tional areas to include military operations, weapons of mass de-
struction, money laundering, cyber security, and the protection of
physical infrastructure. Although we have not fully evaluated
whether the framework these strategies form is cohesive and com-
prehensive, there are some positive indications. The strategies are
organized in a general hierarchy; some share themes, and some ex-
plicitly refer to the other strategies. They are more comprehensive
in breadth, coverage, and actions needed to combat terrorism than
the Attorney Generals Five Year Plan. And consistent with our
earlier recommendations, the strategies include not just the Fed-
eral, but State, local, private, and international partners.
Since the administration has not adopted a single overarching
national strategy to combat terrorism and has stated that the Na-
tional Security and the National Homeland Security Strategy are
mutually supporting documents, its difficult to ascertain the real
hierarchy within its framework that may complicate implementa-
tion plans. For example, since different Federal agencies have a
role in many of these strategies, some confusion in setting prior-
ities and developing coordination mechanisms may exist without a
clear understanding of how the strategies are integrated within a
tiered framework.
Therefore, we believe that a better defined hierarchy among the
various strategies is needed. One approach that better explains the
precedence and the interrelationships of the strategies might be
with a basic pyramid configuration. Although some blocks might be
of different shape and size, a pyramid depiction is somewhat easier
to understand for all participants.
For example, might the National Security Strategy of the United
States occupy the top-most position on the pyramid and perhaps
the National Homeland Security Strategy and National Strategy to
Combat Terrorism sharing a tier below.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to briefly comment on implementation.
These national strategies, individually or collectively, no matter
how well crafted, will not prevent terrorism. However, these docu-
ments when implemented through intergovernmental, interagency,
and international programs that are seamlessly integrated, effec-
tively coordinated, appropriately resourced, and smartly led will
make the difference in the war on terrorism. While these strategies
must direct and guide programs, it should be noted that the strate-
gies reflect a host of preexisting initiatives that must be reviewed
to ensure proper focus and alignment with newly established goals,
objectives, and actions. A critical element for successful implemen-
tation is the need for clearly defined roles and responsibilities for
all players. If the Federal, State, local, private, and international
participants have a thorough understanding of the roles, respon-
sibilities, and capabilities of all involved, then coordination through
established mechanisms is greatly facilitated. Finally, leaders at all
levels must ensure that the implementation process is effectively
and efficiently carried out to achieve goals and objectives within
14
the time line set. Using essential tools like risk management to
guide decisionmaking and performance indicators to gauge
progress, leaders will be better able to focus attention and adjust
resources to move closer to goals and end states.
Due to the serious consequences of failure, GAO has designated
the implementation of homeland security as a high-risk Federal
area. This is a product that clearly delineates that challenge. Sir,
the leadership challenge is daunting but not impossible.
In closing, we believe the framework formed by these strategies,
if effectively implemented with the full involvement and commit-
ment of all partners, will result in significant progress toward our
stated goals on the war on terrorism. Congress will play an in-
creasingly important role in addressing the challenges facing this
process. In addition to recently passed legislation, reorganizing the
Federal Government to combat terrorism, and the appropriation of
significant funds to support the war on terrorism, Congress will
need to provide keen oversight through hearings like today to en-
sure all programs are well designed, developed, and executed to ac-
complish the national goals. Our success on terrorism depends on
the leadership and actions of the Federal Government and its do-
mestic and international partners.
Sir, this concludes my prepared statement and I will be pleased
to respond to any questions.
Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much, Mr. Decker.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Decker follows:]
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Mr. SHAYS. Just for the benefit of new Members hereand first
let me welcome Congressman Chris Bell from Texas, a new mem-
ber to the committee. We are delighted that you are a member of
this committee. I think you will find the work of this committee
quite meaningful and helpful to your district and our country. At
this time, Mr. Bell, I would be happy to recognize if you would like
to make an opening statement.
Mr. BELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very much ap-
preciate the opportunity to serve with you on this committee. And
I thank you for calling this hearing on what has obviously become
one of our Nations top priorities, finding a way to combat terror-
ism and securing the homeland. And I would like to thank Mr.
Decker and the others who will be testifying here today and offer
themselves to answer our questions.
I have some questions about the plan, but I will hold off on those
until it becomes my time, but I thank you for the opportunity. And
thanks for your welcoming remarks as well.
Mr. SHAYS. What we usually do in this committee is 10 minutes
if we have two or three members. But what well do is first do a
5-minute round and then well come back and if someone needs to
go over the 5 minutes or wants to do a second round, well do an-
other round. And I have a rusty staff that didnt turn on the clock
for you, Mr. Decker, but dont blame the clock. So here we go. Mr.
Decker, I want to ask you to describe in very short terms why a
strategy is important.
Mr. DECKER. Sir, very simply, this strategy is the foundation
piece in which you can go and implement particular plans and ac-
tions and make sure that they achieve some type of end state. I
have used strategies, and I think most professionals will look at
them as road maps or concept papers, that give you an idea of
what has to be accomplished, what is in the Nations best interest,
and, in a general way, how to go about doing that.
So if you have a good strategy, youre off to a good start, because
from that you can derive many other vehicles and tools that will
help you do what you need to do.
Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. You have come before this committee be-
fore September 11th, as have all three commissions dealing with
terrorism. And all three, the Gilmore, the Bremmer, the Hart-Rud-
man Commission, made these three points. They said theres a new
threat out there. They said you need to develop a new strategy.
And then they said that you need to reorganize your government
accordingly. And I think the only area they disagreed was on the
reorganization of government.
When we encountered an ally in the Soviet Unionformer ally
of the Soviet Union becoming our enemy, they wanted to destroy
us politically, socially, economically, as well as militarily, we
brought people in and President Truman and then President Eisen-
howerbut with President Eisenhower, he brought them into the
White House; and it was basically called the Solarium Project, and
they developed the fact that we needed a new strategy which was
basically one of containment and reactive and mutually assured de-
struction.
You accept the fact that strategy is no longer viable with todays
threat?
38
Mr. DECKER. Sir, its difficult to answer. I dont think weve

done
Mr. SHAYS. I am not asking you what it should be. Its not dif-
ficult to answer. Is that old strategy going to be effective against
this war on terrorism? This isnt a trick question.
Mr. DECKER. No, sir. I understand
Mr. SHAYS. Let me put it this way. Do you agree with all three
Commissions that said we needed a new strategy?
Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SHAYS. So the answer is, so the old strategy doesnt work;
correct?
Mr. DECKER. The old strategy may not be as applicable today.
Mr. SHAYS. Would you walk me throughyou have eight strate-
gies, it seems to me, notyou have nine strategies not eight, un-
less Im misreading it. And I would like to knowyou have the Na-
tional Security Strategy of the United States. Would you be able
to articulate that in a fairly coherent way, as to what that is?
Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir. The National Security Strategy of the
United States would be the top-most policy-driven piece that ex-
plains whats most important about this Nations security from the
international standpoint, from an economic standpoint, and from a
democratic standpoint. It covers all those aspects of what has to be
addressed to ensure our security for our way of life.
Mr. SHAYS. Now you blocked it out in the same size as the Na-
tional Strategy for Homeland Security. Is it equal to or supersede
the National Strategy for Homeland Security?
Mr. DECKER. Sir, that issue cameits confusing to us based on
our reading of the document, the Homeland Security Strategy,
which states that the National Security Strategy and the National
Homeland Security Strategy are mutually supporting documents
and represent the top-most tier of the strategies. In contrast, our
sense would be that theres only one National Security Strategy for
the United States and that encompasses many issues, to include
the threats we have from terrorism, and that the Homeland Secu-
rity Strategy and the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism
would be the two component pieces that deal with the problems of
terrorism. And so our position is that it is confusing.
If its confusing to us, and we happen to have done quite a bit
of work on this, it might be confusing to other agencies, inter-
national partners, and so on as they start to look at specific goals
and objectives.
Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.
Mr. Kucinich, we are going to do the 5-minute rule the first pass
and 10 the second, and you have the floor.
Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Decker as you stated, there are perhaps 10 national strate-
gies, more or less, each with overlapping and interrelated functions
and each with a set of priorities. Im concerned about the adminis-
trations conception of prioritization, however. The strategy has de-
scribed many broad goals as priorities, but the strategies really
dont involve any comparison. This is a priority, thats a priority,
everythings a priority. But the process of prioritization means
picking which comes first. It means choosing where the money will
go. Is that not correct?
39
Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir. Strategy should help guide where you put
resources against specific issues.
Mr. KUCINICH. Let me expand on this, if I may, and how they
relate. Can you tell me, from the text of these national strategies,
which is more important; for example, securing our ports or build-
ing missile defenses?
Mr. DECKER. Sir, I would like to answer that by saying that per-
haps the priorities that are articulated in the National Security
Strategy would be the big priorities for the Nation. But when you
get below into the specific strategies with critical infrastructure
protection, cyber issues, it gets a little bit more difficult to deter-
mine at that particular level which priorities are more important
between the strategies.
Mr. KUCINICH. Let me help you, then. We know the administra-
tion is spending $10 billion this year to defend the United States
or to try to create a defense against a missile carrying a nuclear
warhead, while spending less than a tenth of that amount to pre-
vent nuclear material from entering our ports. Isnt that right?
Mr. DECKER. Sir, Im not sure of the exact numbers.
Mr. KUCINICH. But you know theyre trying to build a national
missile defense on one hand andtheres a lot of money going to
thatand on the other hand, theres concern about protecting the
ports, and only a fraction of the money that is going to the national
missile defense would be going toward the ports; is that correct?
Mr. KUCINICH. Now at the same time, the Central Intelligence
Agency reported in its recent national intelligence estimate that
the threat of a national missile attack is actually less than that of
an attack on our ports. Are you familiar with that public estimate?
Mr. DECKER. National intelligence estimate?
Mr. KUCINICH. Right.
Mr. DECKER. Im familiar with some. I am not sure which one
youre referring to.
Mr. KUCINICH. Its in the national intelligence estimate. The Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency states that the threat of a missile attack
is actually less than that of an attack at our ports. Theyre saying
the ports may require more attention than building a missile de-
fense that may or may not work 10 years from now. Do you have
any comment on that in terms of priorities or how would you ex-
plain these anomalies?
Mr. DECKER. Sir, as we stated in previous testimony as well as
the statement today, threat assessments should drive your policies
and your strategies. At the national security strategy level, you
look at all threats and you have to consider what they represent
when youre trying to defend against them. My sense is that there
arenot just the threat of terrorism, but there are other threats
that the government has to address in different ways to ensure
that were prepared, that we can prevent if possible some of these
threats, and, if were not able to prevent them, to deal with the
consequences.
Mr. KUCINICH. For example, the administration has not yet been
able to make a case that Iraq represents an imminent threat to the
United States, but theres a lot of money going into that, to a pre-
emptive strike against Iraq; and on the other hand, theres not
40
money going for chemical and biological decontamination equip-

ment to our hospitals.
In terms of priorities, whats your role in trying to be able to cali-
brate the priorities and compare one against the other to see if
were actually putting the money where it needs to be put in order
to provide a measure of security for people in this country?
Mr. DECKER. Sir, we look at the strategies. We really do not cri-
tique the priorities per se. We have to assume that the government
when they draft the strategy are using threat assessments and
other tools to help them shape that strategy. And if they say that
the strategy will have four goals or four priorities and here is the
list of those priorities, we look at those in general way to ensure
that do they make sense and is the rest of the implementation driv-
en by those priorities.
Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the Chair and just point out that
in connection with this discussion that the administration appears
to be ready to spend about $500 billion in Iraq, but so far theres
only about $36 billion that is being offered for securing our own
country.
Mr. SHAYS. Well have disagreements on numbers, but well pro-
ceed.
Here we go, Mr. Janklow.
Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. JANKLOW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Decker, let me ask you, if I can, the National Strategy to Se-
cure Cyberspace, the Money Laundering Strategy, the Strategy to
Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, the Strategy for Homeland
Security, the Strategy Plan for the War on Terrorism, the Strategy
for Combating Terrorism, the Strategy for Cyberspace, the Strategy
for Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure, and the National
Security Strategy of the United Statesthat list that was pre-
pareddo you know any of those that, standing alone, arent im-
portant? You agree theyre all important.
Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir. I think they have elements that are in a
collective sense important.
Mr. JANKLOW. Am I correct, sir, that a part of your testimony
was were really not sure at this point in time that we have been
able to effectively tie them all together into one comprehensive
super-strategy, if I can call it thatI hate to keep using the word
strategyor policy or plan or whatever characterization you want
to give; but we really havent been able to effectively tie that into
one set of documents yet, have we?
Mr. DECKER. Sir, if I can paraphrase. If we looked at these 10
strategies, albeit the National Drug Control Strategy is a very
small pieceand this may not be the total list by the way, this is
what we have come acrossthey represent a collage, if you will, on
the governments attempt to deal with combating terrorism from a
very broad look on the national level down to a more focused, when
you are talking about money laundering or weapons of mass de-
struction.
Our sense is that because we havent had timesome of these
literally came out within the last couple of weeks, our sense is they
may not all be wired and cross-walked or integrated in a way that,
if you are that executive, in a Federal agency or a Governor or com-
41
pany or a CEO, that the pieces that really touch you, that you may
have an important role, you may not be able to tease that out.
Mr. JANKLOW. Two other things. One, we cant minimize, I think,
the whole question of drugs given the number of revelations that
have been made over the past couple of years of the number of ter-
rorist organizations that utilize drugs to raise money for their pur-
poses. So clearly that has a role in this, No. 1. And, two, what are
the institutional forces, what are the philosophical forces that pre-
vent our country from sitting down and coming up with a master
strategic plan thats debated and then becomes the plan, albeit it
may be modified at times; but whats preventing us from coming
up with a plan? Why do we have to keep issuing new documents.
There isnt any human being that can follow all these.
Mr. DECKER. Sir, I would agree with you. The National Security
Council, on behalf of the President, has responsibility to craft these
strategies.
Mr. JANKLOW. What is your sense that is preventing this from
happening? It cant be Republican-Democrat politics. Is it the bu-
reaucracy or just our inability to understand it? What is it thats
preventing this from happening?
Mr. DECKER. First, I think its a pretty complex issue. And when
you look at the partners that are involved, it makes it extremely
hard to craft, when you talk about the role of the Federal Govern-
ment, State, local, the private sector and the international, and
some of that domain you control and some of it you do not control.
And it becomes extremely hard when youre, say, with a task force
thats charged to build a document that has the ability to accom-
plishyou know, to set clear goals and objectives that are achiev-
able.
Mr. JANKLOW. It wasnt that hard during World War II after
Pearl Harbor. Why is it so difficult now?
Mr. DECKER. Sir, I dont have a good answer for you. I think part
of it may be if you look at the new Department of Homeland Secu-
rity, the challenge that Governor Ridge is going to have blending
22 agencies, 170,000 people. I heard a comment that one of the
major issues with some of the agencies was trying to determine
perhaps what color uniform would be used by all.
Mr. JANKLOW. God bless America.
At this time, the Chair would recognize Congressman Bell from
Texas.
Mr. BELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I understand
that the documents that you provided us today are intended, or I
assume theyre intended to offer a road map, if you will, from
where we are trying to go in this area in the war against terrorism
and overall national security. And in looking at the road map, a
couple of questions come to mind, some of them were already
touched on by my colleague, Mr. Kucinich, in terms of port secu-
rity. And I think, and I want to be clear that you agree with the
premise thatwell, the suggestion has been made that a terrorist
organization would be much more likely to smuggle a nuclear de-
vice into the United States via one of our ports rather than launch-
ing some kind of missile attack. Would you agree with that
premise?
42
Mr. DECKER. Sir, I think the Intelligence Community and law en-
forcement community would probably agree with that, and I think
that is more realistic.
Mr. BELL. And if you take that into considerationand you
didnt touch on specifics, but my understanding is that the budget
proposal seeks over $9 billion for missile defenses, while seeking
less than $1 billion for port security. And coming from Houston,
TX, where we have the second largest port in the Nation, thats of
obvious concern, and I am curious about the reason for that dis-
connect.
Mr. DECKER. Sir, I think the government tries to ensure that the
priorities are set right and that the resources to work on those pri-
orities is also linked. And this has to be driven by threat assess-
ment. I dont have a reason, an answer to give you, why theres a
difference between missile defense and port security. Why would
there be a difference, you know, between first responder training
issues, you know, and a vaccine? Its kind of like apples and or-
anges, if you will, and we are not privileged to understand some
of the reasoning behind
Mr. BELL. Let me interrupt, because its not completely apples
and oranges, because you all are setting the priorities. And if you
already said that port security is a priorityand I realize theres
not going to be a direct match-up in terms of dollars, but thats a
pretty significant disparity when youre looking at $9 billion com-
pared to less than $1 million, and really looking at the same kind
of threat. Im sure it is more expensive to develop missile defense
systems, but that seems like a paltry sum to be spending on port
security. And when you view a port like the Port of Houston, and
travel the waterway and see what a daunting task it is to try and
protect that amount of shoreline, it is obvious theres a tremendous
amount of expense involved. And if the administration is not will-
ing to make a more serious commitment to it, then its just going
to go unprotected.
Do you see any possibility for change or for it to be addressed
further in the future?
Mr. DECKER. You addressed one of the key issues we stated be-
fore, in that theres going to be an awful lot of vulnerabilities. Gov-
ernor Ridge, in his new responsibilities, is going to have to do a
balancing act with the resources and the people to address the var-
ious concerns that he will be handling as the head of the Depart-
ment of Homeland Security. Above him, the President is concerned
about many threats and issues; and again, theres not enough fund-
ing, resources, or energy to cover all the vulnerabilities to this
great Nation, so it comes down to making leadership decisions.
Those have to be driven by information. Some of it perhaps we are
privileged to know and see.
Mr. BELL. Can you touch on the coordination issue for just a mo-
ment as to who is going to be overseeing all of this, because thats
a rather significant question as well.
Mr. DECKER. Youre talking about the coordination
Mr. BELL. Well, all of these various efforts that we have been
presented with today.
Mr. DECKER. Sir, I suspect the newly formed committees of Con-
gress will have direct oversight, particularly when youre talking
43
about homeland security. But when you deal with some of the more
specific strategies, they touch a lot of different activities particu-
larly here on the Hill.
The money laundering, I think the Banking Committee will be
involved with aspects of that. When you talk about the National
Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism, the House and
Senate Armed Services. Within the administration, this isagain,
the oversight on whether these organizations are performing is
probably going to be driven to a certain degree by the heads of the
different agencies tasked to perform the duties under these dif-
ferent strategies. And the President and his team will have to de-
termine are all the agencies and departments that are being
tasked, are they coming together in a way that makes sense. And
they will report this out, by the way, through their annual report
to Congress on the results.
Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SHAYS. Its not my attempt at allIm sorry, Mr. Murphy.
Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your service on this com-
mittee, and sorry I got so eager. I didnt want to leave you out.
Mr. MURPHY. I appreciate you noticing me.
Mr. SHAYS. You have an extra minute because I simply blew it.
Mr. MURPHY. You know, as I look upon this chart and as I read
the many parts here, Im reminded of the book and also now the
movie, Gods and Generals, which featured a lot of Stonewall
Jackson, and he described his strategy with the enemy as mystify,
mislead and surprise.
I have to think in looking at this, any domestic and foreign en-
emies would look at this and they dont know how to make sense
of this system, although I am sure it makes sense to someone, and
I appreciate it has come out of a comprehensive look of setting
many, many goals to combat terrorism.
But just a couple of questions and we can get into more specifics
another time as to how this is done, but the key feature I see in
this is communication. Can you describe to us how communication
is set up between these strategies; for example, same agencies, dif-
ferent agencies, same people, different people? And I put that in
the context of what we found in post-September 11th and as de-
scribed by the folks up here, the difficulty in communicating be-
tween how many police forces did you say in this Nation18,000
police forces, its pretty massiveand how those strategies work at
that communication to improve upon that?
Mr. DECKER. Sir, let me make a comment or two and then I
would like to ask my colleague Steve Caldwell to address that.
First off, most of the strategies are under the aegis of the National
Security Council and many of the task forces, the working groups
that were put together, and mostthis is post-September 11th al-
though several of these strategies are pre-existing before Septem-
ber 11th and have been readjusted to consider the impact of terror-
ism. Different working groups representing different agencies, de-
partments, and sometimes its the same person that may flow be-
tween some working groupsnormally its notbut there are some
key members, participants that are the same. And they are given
a charge, if you will, to work and build a particular document.
Sometimes an agency will be given the lead for the document, pull-
44
ing in expertise from different agencies and departments as need-

ed. So the partnerships that are developed on these working groups
vary quite a bit depending upon the issue.
Ill ask Mr. Caldwell if he can provide a little bit more elabo-
ration on that because some of these obviously are very tailored
and some of them are very broad.
Mr. CALDWELL. Thank you. In terms of the coordination in gen-
eraland this will address one of the earlier questions as well
theres really two major mechanisms for coordinating here.
On the domestic side, youve got the Office of Homeland Security
at the level above the individual agencies, youve got the Depart-
ment of Homeland Security now, interagency working groups, and
some of these interagency working groups actually work putting
these plans together. And then youve got at the individual agency
level lead agencies which then have other cases where agencies
would support them, and in a few cases, for example, money laun-
dering, there may be a little bit of confusion about who is the lead
agency when youve got, say, Treasury and Justice both cited as
leads in the National Money Laundering Strategy. And thats pret-
ty much the domestic side.
On the overseas side you have the National Security Council,
and within that you have interagency groups as well. For example,
they had a specific interagency working group to come up with
strategies here, the National Strategy for Combatting Terrorism.
Then, again, youve got the lead agency concept.
Then you have the other partners, Ill call them. Those are with-
in just the Federal family. The big challenges, as several of you
have alluded to, on the domestic side is dealing with the State and
local governments and the hundreds of fire departments just within
a single State, as well as the 50 States and all of their subdivisions
in the State and local level.
And then, of course, on the international side, you have the inter-
national community where youre dealing with other countries,
youre dealing with international organizations and things like
that.
Now, the key is to keep the international side of our coordination
mechanism and our domestic side of the coordination mechanism
talking to each other, and I think if you look at the two top-level
strategies for both of thoseactually, I think within the two plans
there is a good deal of commonality.
For example, in what well call the overseas strategy, the Na-
tional Strategy for Combatting Terrorism, there is an explicit objec-
tive to implement the other strategy, the National Strategy for
Homeland Security. So I think those two strategies we look at as
the top-level strategies, one being offensive and overseas, one being
domestic and defensive under the top of the pyramid, as Mr. Deck-
er said, which would be the National Security Strategy.
Im sorry if our chart is a little bit mystifying. Hopefully the
enemy finds it that way. But this is how the administration had
portrayed those two strategies as being side by side, the National
Security Strategy and the National Strategy for Homeland Secu-
rity. But as Mr. Decker said, we see the National Strategy for
Homeland Security as being maybe a coequal with the National
45
Strategy for Combatting Terrorism, one being offensive, one defen-

sive; one domestic, one overseas.
And then the other strategies, a lot of them are really kind of
functional strategies within that. So we do see some kind of hier-
archy among these plans. Thank you.
Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back my time.
Mr. SHAYS. I want to just go throughand were going to have
a 10-minute cycle here. Im not saying that Members dont have to
use the 10 minutes, but I do want to make sure we cover some
things, and if we cover themand I know my colleagues may want
to do that as well.
I want to ask you four basic questions that I want on the record
that are part of your statement. I want to know what are the es-
sential components of a successful national strategy. That is one of
the questions I want. I want to know are these found within the
eight Bush administration strategies to combat terrorism. So that
is my first question.
Mr. DECKER. Sir, we would look for several key elements within
a national level strategy. Obviously one of the most important
things would be a vision, a mission statement, clear goals and ob-
jectives, roles and responsibilities delineated, a general scheme of
how to accomplish some of this, and then some performance meas-
urement issues so that you can measure your progress.
There also should be, when you talk about the mission and up
in the vision statement, a sense of end state.
Mr. SHAYS. WhatIm not clear whether you have attempted to
grade all of these eight strategies, and this is National Security
Strategy, National Strategy for Combatting Terrorism, the home-
land security, combatting weapons of mass destruction national
strategy, the National Money Laundering Strategy, securing cyber-
space, the physical protection of critical infrastructure. All of these,
have you attempted to evaluate and give a grade of whether it
meets the test of a good strategy?
Mr. DECKER. Sir, let me answer the question without grades. I
would say some of the strategy documents are well written. They
have most of the prerequisite pieces that we would expect, and this
is for implementation purposes.
The National Strategy for Combatting Terrorism is very well
written, has an excellent threat assessment linkage with why
youre doing what youre trying to do.
Mr. SHAYS. Im not going to ask you with my time to go through
each one. I just want to know
Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir. I was just going to give you the field goals,
if you would.
Mr. SHAYS. OK. That is fair.
Mr. DECKER. The one that I think I would send back to redo or
review would be the Strategy for Combatting Weapons of Mass De-
struction. I believe it is only eight pages in length. It really doesnt
do the issues that need to be done about the principles. It does talk
about some focus areas and the roles and responsibilities. It is
quite academic.
Mr. SHAYS. Have you seeneven those that are basically classi-
fied, youve gone through these strategies as well, correct?
46

Mr. SHAYS. OK. I would like you to look at each one based on
how you describe what a good strategy is, and I would like you to
provide a document to this committee that well distribute to both
sides, obviously, outlining on each of those tests how they measure
up. OK?
Mr. SHAYS. How will we know if the strategies are effective? I
want to know what performance measures are planned to gauge
the effectiveness of the strategies, and to what extent is the ab-
sence of a terrorist attack validation that our strategies have been
successful?
Mr. DECKER. Sir, a strategy by itself, as I indicated, is just a doc-
ument. It should have some pieces that would help guide the im-
plementation. The performance measures to gauge the progress of
whether youre succeeding against the war on terrorism by and
large, are still under development.
We approach the performance and progress against the war on
terrorism a little bit differently, and we wouldwe know how hard
this is for people to wrestle with, but if you consider the war
against terrorism or on terrorism much like the war on poverty, or
the war on crime, you may never succeed in eliminating it totally.
What you do have in the interim, you have positive operational
events that lead to larger positive outcomes.
For instance, when you eliminate the leadership of a terrorist
group, or you freeze their financial assets or you reduce the safe
havens that they enjoy, you have accomplished quite a bit that will
lead to an even greater outcome, which means perhaps lessfewer
attacks of significant measure.
In regards toIm basically asking a question that relates to the
first but are there aspects of combating terrorism that are over-
looked or any holes in these strategies. Im looking for the gaping
ones, not the final ones, and you started to do it with one response,
but when you look at these eight strategies, where do you see the
holes?
Mr. DECKER. Sir, that links back into the review that we will do,
looking at the integration to see where are those true fabrics. When
I asked the team to take a look at that, we did not come up with
any particular gap, except for the one on intelligence.
Mr. SHAYS. OK. How can the NSC, the National Security Coun-
cil, more effectively coordinate the implementation and oversight of
the eight national strategies? Is the Office of Homeland Security
coordinating and implementing the national strategies? Those are
my two questions. Do you want me to repeat them?
Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir, if you could paraphrase it just
Mr. SHAYS. I want to know how can the NSC more effectively co-
ordinate the implementation and oversight of the eight national
strategies?
Mr. DECKER. Sir, I think the first step would be to better articu-
late how they all relate to each other and put it in a way that ev-
eryonefrom the Secretary of the department down to a GS7
can understand how they are in some type of precedence.
Mr. SHAYS. Thats Congressman Janklows basic concern.
47
Mr. DECKER. Sir, that would be No. 1. Then once that is done,
then you have better success of trying to tease out whether some
of the implementation is really being effective and efficient and
how its being done.
My sense is thatand my team, I give them a lot of creditthey
looked at all the strategies. They talked to a lot of smart people,
and they asked during one meeting at the senior level, has the ex-
ecutive branch come up with a schematic, a graphic depiction of
this? And they said, its too hard. They had not.
As far as we know, this is the only depiction of how these kind
of hook together, and obviously its not perfect, and its very confus-
ing.
Mr. SHAYS. Now, the one strategy that you added, your ninth
strategy, is the National Military Strategy. So thats what you
added there.
The one areaI think that Mr. Kucinich and I disagree on some
statistics and numbers, and I happen to believe that preemptive is
absolutely essential. I believe that Iraq represents an imminent
threat, not something thats way off in the future. But the area
where we do agree is that before September 11th we talked about
what various commissions said, and particularly the Hart-Rudman
said there needs to be a Department of Security. In that Depart-
ment of Homeland Security, when I mentioned it to constituents
before September 11th, they said, what are we, Great Britain? It
seemed like a foreign thing.
Then September 11th happens. The President believes that he
can deal with this issue with a coordinator. A lot of my Democratic
colleagues and a few Republicans, and I was one of them, said we
need something more significant, we need a Department of Home-
land Security, and he ended up, I think, coming around to where
most Democrats were.
But the one area that Mr. Kucinich and I think had some real
problems was that while we knew we needed to reorganize, we
never felt that the strategythe threat was properly described. We
think it was more on an intuitive response, and that the strategy
was never fully described, and I want to be fair to Mr. Kucinich,
but I think on these two issues, we thought that should happen.
The difference is I felt we needed to get this Department moving,
and I think this is still a work in progress.
So Im happy we have a Department, but I am concerned that
the administration didnt really state in a sufficient way what the
threat was and what our strategy was to then begin this Depart-
ment of Homeland Security.
Im delighted youre here. Ill be recognizing other Members, and,
Mr. Kucinich, Ill start with you.
Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
National Security Strategy of the United States of America,
homeland security, physical protection of critical infrastructure and
key assets.
Sir, do you see the quandary which arises when preemption
could actually be counterproductive to assuring the security of the
United States of America, our home?
Mr. DECKER. Sir, I can only answer that the executive branch,
the President has a lot of challenges he has to address, and these
48
strategies do address significant issues that the administration is

trying to deal with.
Mr. KUCINICH. Im going to read from the National Security
Strategy: The United States has long maintained the action of pre-
emptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national secu-
rity. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction, and
the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to de-
fend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and
place of the enemys attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile
acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act
preemptively.
I think to have this hearing without discussing Iraq would be in-
appropriate, because we are talking about a preemptive action
against Iraq, and if the administrationand Im happy to have any
MemberIll gladly yield to any Member who can articulate a case
which says that Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons, has biologi-
cal and chemical weapons of mass destruction that are usable, has
missiles with the potential to strike at this country, has the inten-
tion to do so, because I havent seen anything on the public record
which indicates a case for preemptive action, and yet the day be-
fore our vote on the Iraq resolution, the Central Intelligence Agen-
cy in a letter to Senator Graham indicated that there did not ap-
pear to be an intention on the part of Iraq to attack the United
States. The New York Times last Sunday had a story that indi-
cated that a preemptive attack on the part of the United States
against Iraq could result in terrorism being visited upon our
shores.
Mr. SHAYS. Would the gentleman like to yield? Id be happy to
jump
Mr. KUCINICH. Sure, Mr. Chairman. I have a great respect for
you, and I think that this would be an excellent opportunity for a
colloquy on this, because Im having trouble for understanding
what the basis for preemptive action is.
Mr. SHAYS. Well, I think, frankly, it stems from a lot of the work
in this committee. We know that Saddam Hussein had a viable
chemical and biological program before the war in the Gulf. We
didnt know that he had a viable nuclear program, but he did. We
knew that he had a viable chemical and biological program after
the war in the Gulf. We didnt know at the time that he had a nu-
clear program until we had a defector who came before this com-
mittee and told us that our intelligence community said there is no
program and didnt accept his name or that he was in charge of it.
We then discovered where the nuclear program was when his
two sons-in-law came to Jordan. They were debriefed. I spoke with
one of the briefers. We were immediately able to send our col-
leagues the inspectors to those sites. They uncovered the nuclear
program. So we had a clear one then. We destroyed the systems
that he had, and then when we started to talk to the men and
women who were making those chemical, biological, nuclear pro-
grams, Saddam became very belligerent. He started to threaten the
inspectors, and we withdrew them. The fact is that he had one be-
fore the war, he had one after the war, and he kicked us out when
we started to tear out the roots, not just destroy the weapon sys-
tems.
49
So I really think that the burden is on Saddam to explain to us

what he did with those programs and what he did with the people.
He hasnt done that, and section 1441 makes it very clear he needs
to cooperate with the inspectors, and he needs to disarm. He has
not done either the disarming or the cooperation.
Just to give you another example, just finding the empty can-
isters, the rockets that were empty, we had testimony in our com-
mittee that made a point that you dont load your weapon system
with a chemical. You do it just before. Hans Blix pointed out they
were in a new facility.
I could keep going. I dont know how much longer you want to
yield to me, but our testimony before this committee was that we
know he has a nuclear program. Our allies know he has a nuclear
program. Our opponents know he has a nuclear program. The ques-
tion is do we wait until he actually has the weapons-grade mate-
rial? We had testimony before this committee that pointed out the
weapons-grade material is the size of a softball if it is plutonium
excuse me, the size of a baseball if it is plutonium, the size of a
softball
Mr. KUCINICH. So you are saying based on that we should launch
an attack against him?
Mr. SHAYS. No. Im saying that he is within months potentially
of getting nuclear weapons, and I dont even think Jimmy Carter
would allow Saddam Hussein to have nuclear weapons. So your de-
scription to me is answered by that, but I could go on.
Mr. KUCINICH. Wait. But this isand I appreciate the Chair
being willing to engage in this colloquy, because we need to explore
the ambiguities which exist. It is ambiguous that Saddam Hussein
has nuclear capability right now. I think that actually its less than
ambiguous. He has no nuclear capability at this moment. According
to information that has been made public from our own govern-
ment, hes at least 10 years away from developing any nuclear ca-
pability. However, North Korea, North Korea at this very moment,
North Korea is mentioned in a number of these security docu-
ments, and North Korea has the nuclear capability and is actually
rattling a nuclear saber, yet no one is talking about a preemptive
attack on North Korea.
Mr. SHAYS. Theres a reason.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I think youre right, there is a rea-
son, and the point is that if we are able to use diplomacy in dealing
with North Korea, which has nuclear weapons, which is rattling a
nuclear saber, we can do the same thing with Iraq which doesnt
have nuclear weapons, even if they have a program that might not
be viable for 10 years.
I want to add to this
Mr. SHAYS. Could the gentleman just yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. Of course, Mr. Chairman. I think this is impor-
tant that this debate take place.
Mr. SHAYS. Our CIA didnt even know he had a program and de-
nied any program. It was not until we had a defector and his two
sons-in-law pointed out that he had a very active program. It was
so your comment about the CIA suggesting or someone suggesting
that 10 years away, we had testimony before our committee that
50
said it could be 6 months away. So, I mean, this very

committee
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully suggest that
the Central Intelligence Agency, however its defects, is vastly more
equipped to make an assessment of the capabilities of another gov-
ernment than would be a defector whose very presence in a com-
mittee room suggests that theres some political motive to his par-
ticipation.
Now, I want to add this, and that isand just for the record, I
think that the Chair has made a case that inspections worked to
destroy weapons, and thats actually whats going on right now.
The inspections worked in the past to destroy Saddam Husseins
weaponmaking capability, and the U.N. inspectors are working to
continue to do that right now. And all that Im saying, Mr. Chair-
man, you know, with due respect, because I have the greatest re-
spect for you, is that this doctrine of preemption, it doesnt appear
that Iraq measures up to what would be the basis for preemptive
action, that they havent met that level, and on the other hand,
North Korea presents a greater challenge, and I would not advo-
cate a preemptive attack against North Korea, but Id be less in-
clined to advocate one against Iraq, because it hasnt met the test,
which would be the threshold of the national security doctrine of
preemption.
And a final point here on this, and that is that inasmuch as the
Federal Bureau of Investigation has had officials who have indi-
cated a concern that an attack in Iraq would bring about terrorism
to our shores, would create lone wolf attacks inside the United
States, then we have to make an assessment whether this doctrine
of national security runs actuallycalling for preemption runs ac-
tually contrary to this doctrine which calls for homeland security.
And, Mr. Decker, it goes back to the earlier question I asked you,
and that is we are prepared to spenddepending on the estimate
Lawrence Lindseys estimate, $200 billion, Professor Northouse of
Yale, anywhere from $99 billion to over $1 trillion for a war
against Iraq, a preemptive strike, occupation, reconstruction, all
that money involved, and yet were not devoting anywhere near the
amount of money to secure our borders, our ports against the kind
of attack which the FBI says is more likely if the United States
launches a preemptive attack.
So do you have any comment on that? I mean, in your work, do
you get a sense of proportion or priorities or anything like that, or
are you just counting beans? What are you doing?
Mr. DECKER. Sir, I really cant comment on what youve just
raised. I dont count beans. I look at issues, try to ensure that these
strategies make sense in the implementation, and that they have
the right component pieces to allow success.
Mr. KUCINICH. OK. Now, I raise this point, Mr. ChairmanI
know my time is expired. Ill make it quick. You would think that
these strategies would be integrated. I mean, I would think thats
optimum, to have the strategies integrated. It would seem to me
that an integrated strategy said that if you had to use preemption,
that would then be in the defense of our home; however, if you see
the possibility that the use of one strategy might run counter to an-
other strategy, its an opportunity for discussion.
51
I want to thank the Chair for engaging in this discussion. Thank

you.
Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for his yielding to me.
At this time, Mr. Janklow, Id love to ask if you would yield a
second.
Mr. JANKLOW. Yes, sir.
Just to put on the record, we may be looking at the FBI data
slightly differently. The FBI data that Ive seen basically has said
we will have terrorist attacks whether or not there is interaction
with Iraq, and that potentially, if anything, they may just wait, but
the attacks will still come.
Were not going to respond to the blackmail of Iraq, and I just
wanted to make sure that I corrected for the record the number.
I think its very legitimate to raise some real questions about the
amount of money that the military action will take, but the re-
building of Iraq, its very clear, the administration said will be
spent on Iraqi oil for the Iraqi people. We are feeding themthe
people have been starving; giving them medical helpthe people
hadnt been getting the medical help. And I just want to point out
that expense, which will not be small, will be paid for by the 10
percent of the worlds oil owned by the Iraqi people, just to make
sure thats part of the record.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. JANKLOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, other members of the committee, I hear people all
the time using data to run figures around and the comment that
theres some professor that thinks the wara prospective war
would cost $1 trillion. That professor must be in the English de-
partment writing fiction and couldnt possibly be a person that un-
derstands anything about the current world events.
You know, some people make the suggestion that in the event
that there were to be a war with Iraq, that America is going to be
attacked by terrorists. I dont know what America did to become
the recipients of the World Trade Center incidents. I clearly dont
know what we did to precipitate the individual that was coming
down from Canada that was apprehended at the border with the
attempt to blow up things in our country. I dont know what we
did to encourage the individual to get on the airplane and fly
across the ocean with explosives in his shoes so he would try to
blow up an airliner. I dont know what we did to precipitate the
Cole incident where they blew up one of our ships in Yemen, but
maybe someone could explain that to me at some point in time, and
I wont be quite so ignorant on the subject as I apparently am right
now.
But, Mr. Decker, if I can go back to questions with you, Im real-
ly concerned about the fact that all these documents are well
honed. People that sit and write them put a lot of thought and ef-
fort into them, but they do it in somewhat of an isolation within
the sphere where theyre working, and theyre not looking at the
big picture.
You know, its going to be terribly difficult in this country to
come up with an overall strategy, because of the nature of our Fed-
eral system, because of the nature of the way that this country is
52
structured and the division of responsibility and how we operate.

In any State, the Governor thinks that he or she is the chief ulti-
mate law enforcement official. The mayor of the city knows he or
she is. The chief of police really knows its in their department,
until you talk to the sheriff who says, its my jurisdiction, and the
States attorney says, no, youre all wrong, its my jurisdiction. The
county commission thinks that they have it, and we sit around
complaining about the way the Federal agencies try and interact
with each other.
Given the fact that these documents are drafted within the politi-
cal system, where no matter what you do, someone is going to pick
on you for not having done the right thing, for not having given the
right emphasis to something, for not having given the right focus,
wouldnt it be helpful if this wasthere was legislation passed that
basically mandated an overall document, if I could call it that, an
overall strategy, that once its prepared by the executive branch,
then will be picked apart, critiqued and analyzed by the American
people, by all of the various special interests, and by the Congress,
so that we can respond to it, because the way were doing it now,
were neverdo you think were ever going to bring it together into
one structure, given the way our system operates?
I realize thats a compound question, but I think yallby the
nodding of my head, you understand what Im getting at, sir.
Mr. DECKER. Sir, let me break your question into two parts. One
had to do with what legislation is needed, to pull this together to
make sure its integrated. The second part is whether this is mis-
sion impossible?
Regarding the first part, weve not done enough of the work that
we have to look atwe know its confusing, but where are the true
gaps in the integration of all these strategies, and does it make
sense to have one overarching national strategy to combat terror-
ism with key component pieces.
Mr. JANKLOW. Do you think it does?
Mr. DECKER. Well, I think what we did determineI think
theres a merit to having one strategy. However, if you look at that
one strategy and break it in two parts, like Mr. Caldwell men-
tioned, you have a homeland security piece, and you have the over-
seas combating terrorism piece. They represent the domestic and
international sections, if you will. Those two component pieces, in
my view, could be very nicely crafted into one combating terrorism
strategy with, obviously, the homeland security piece.
When you talk about money laundering, weapons of mass de-
struction, cyber and critical infrastructure protection and those
issues, those are more functional, strategies that would dovetail
into not just those two combating terrorism strategies, but perhaps
even some larger issues. For instance, the cyberprotection of crit-
ical infrastructure and the cyber piece, you have threats that come
from other countries, you know, not just from terrorist groups. So
that has to be a broader strategy to deal with things that come out
of the National Security Strategy.
When I talk about a pyramid, this is not a pyramid with nicely
shaped, equal-sized boxes and blocks that would look really pretty.
This might be, you know, a hybrid, if you will, of an Egyptian pyra-
mid, a Mayan pyramid and some other type
53
Mr. JANKLOW. But, sir, if we do that, if I can interrupt you for

a minute, if we have all these different structures, how is anybody
ever going to comprehend it? Who could pass the test on what it
all says and what it all means? Who is going to figure it out?
Mr. DECKER. Well, thats why theres a crosswalk that hasnt
happened, at least in our view, and that crosswalk, one of the indi-
cations we can tellmeaning has this document, this strategy,
been linked into this other strategysome of these key goals, objec-
tives and references to this is a support piece for this other strat-
egy, and weve only seen that in one oryou know, a couple of the
strategy documents.
There was one revealing anecdote that my team mentioned. Dur-
ing an interview with a department, they were talking to a detailee
from another major department that plays in combating terrorism,
and the mention was, did you know about this strategy which came
from the detailees parent department. He had no idea that strat-
egy was even being drafted.
Mr. JANKLOW. But isnt that always going to be the case the way
were doing it?
Mr. JANKLOW. So we need another method. This one has proven
to create a lot of nice documents, but theyre notthey may be
interrelated, but theyre not coordinated, and if people are never
going to figure it out
Mr. DECKER. Well, Ill say theyre not integrated. Thats for sure.
And if you have problems with integration with the documents,
youre going to definitely have problems with coordination and
Mr. JANKLOW. We talk about integrated working groups, inte-
grating working groups. Just the mere fact that weve got to bring
all these working groups together, you know, somebody once said
that God so loved the world, He didnt send a committee, and this
is what were dealing with with all these interagency working
groups all the time. When one member of the group quits and goes
and gets another job, youve got to start all over again in bringing
people up to speed.
Isnt there a better way to do it? When there was the old NATO
and the new NATO, there was a Supreme Allied Commander.
There was a person who was in charge. The military is a great
model for this pyramid of getting things done, albeit they have dif-
ficulty dealing sometimes with the Army, Navy, Air Force and Ma-
rine Corps coordinating, far less today than they used to because
the decision was made to really integrate these things into one op-
erating sphere.
Please tell me, if you can, why cant this be done with our Na-
tional Security Strategy as it pertains to terrorism?
Mr. DECKER. Sir, I think it can be done, and thats the role of
leadership, the President, the National Security Adviser getting the
team together and making sure that this constellation of strategies
can be understood.
Mr. JANKLOW. Without bringing in ego, is this a job for the exec-
utive branch, or is it a job for the legislative branch?
Mr. DECKER. Well, I think legislation of some sort may be very
useful in coming to closure on this issue. The actual degree, the
mandating of what that language would be, I think Id have to
54
think about that. The pressure, I mean, through our oversight, I

mean, having someone from the executive branch explain why this
cannot or is not being integrated or what would it take to integrate
would be very useful.
Mr. SHAYS. I might say that the gentlemans time is up, but we
certainly will make sure that the administration is, in fact, rep-
resented and testifies before the committee to point out how theyre
going to be integrating these; all of them being very important
strategies, but how are they integrated? And I thank the gen-
tleman for his questions.
At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Bell for 10 minutes.
Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think I share some of my colleagues frustration in that there
does seem to be somewhat of a grab-bag approach to fighting the
war on terrorism. Its everybodys responsibility, and then at the
end of the day if something happens, where are we to look? Who
is responsible?
And I want to take just one area, one of the strategies, and that
is the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, because in looking
at the document that was provided, the public-private partnership
has suggested it will be again sort of everybodys responsibility, the
Federal Government, the private sector, State governments, local
officials. Who is going to be responsible for implementing the Na-
tional Strategy to Secure Cyberspace?
Mr. DECKER. Sir, let me direct that question to Mr. Caldwell.
Mr. CALDWELL. Let me answer your question. In terms of the
cyberspace, we have difficulties in a lot of these areas, because
weve created a new department. There are incredible challenges
ahead for this department, and the infrastructure protection is one
of those responsibilities that has now shifted even within the Fed-
eral Government from the Presidents Critical Infrastructure Pro-
tection Board to a Cabinet-level department, and it has a division
within there that would look at those kinds of issues.
And the problem that you were talking about in terms of the pri-
vate partnerships, the partnerships with State and local govern-
ments as well, I mean, these are just things were going to have
to get used to in terms of the Federal system we live in, and the
sovereignty and autonomy of our State governments, and the au-
tonomy we give to the private sector, and rightly so. I dont think
we want to change some of our basic precepts here in terms of
what should be private and public in government and what
shouldnt, because of these other things. I think that there are in-
centives, and government will use the normal incentives it always
uses to try to get the private sector to do things, to do either tax-
ation, revenue, subsidization, other types of partnership thatto
try to get the government toor the private sector to
Mr. BELL. And thats fine. Let me interrupt, because thats all
well and good, but at the end of the day somebody has to be re-
sponsible, and it needs to make sense, and it needs to be logical.
And the area of cyberspace, if youre to believe the story in the
Washington Post, and it appeared to be quite credible, that ap-
peared several weeks ago, the Department of Defense is in the
process of engaging in massive plans and having regular discus-
sions about the ethics involved in cyberwarfare and mounting a
55
giant cyberwar effort, if you will. It seems that it would make

sense that the Department of Defense would actuallyor would
also head up the effort to decide how to best guard against
cyberwarfare in this country. Those who are developing the offense,
it seems logical, would be in a pretty good position to also design
a defense. Does that not make sense to you?
Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir, it does, and, in fact, I believe in the
cyberdefense area, there are quite a few participants that are in
the Federal area, some in the State, local, private. Some of the dif-
ferent institutions are involved. There are national security issues.
There are criminal issues. There are terrorism issues. There are
private citizen issues. I mean, there are a lot of participants in
that.
One comment I would make with what Mr. Caldwell said about
the strategy. When we looked at the strategy, there are some
things that are directed, and then there are some things that are
hoped, that are lessmore of a voluntary nature, and my sense is
that when youre dealing with Federal, State, local, private sector,
international partners, its a very delicate walk between what you
can direct and what you hope will be the outcome of voluntary par-
ticipation. I think thats one of the challenges with the critical in-
frastructure piece and the cyber piece is people have to be willing
to agree with your strategy and maybe the investment in those
areas that they have to allow for this comprehensive security
framework. Thats going to be the real big challenge.
I heard this when I was out in California last year, talking to
an audience of people that were involved with the port authority
at Los Angeles and Long Beach. The issue was how much funding
was the Federal Government going to give to help on port security.
There were partners in there from the union, from private owners,
from the State, local, the Federal Government. What came out of
the private sector was, you know, when we need to fix the security
here, were also going to need to fix a lot of the infrastructure
issues, because these ports were built back in World War II-era,
and the ships cant get close enough. There are a lot of issues.
So its very complicated when youre asking people to put invest-
ment in for, in this case, security, be it cyber or physical infrastruc-
ture, and theres other ramifications on that investment, and its
very difficult for a lot of entities outside the Federal Government
to know exactly what to do.
Mr. BELL. While theres still time, I want to touch on one other
area that I consider quite important. Obviously, as the Chair point-
ed out, Im a freshman member, so Ive just been here a couple
months. Most of the focus has been on Iraq. A tremendous amount
of the focus has been on international terrorism, and Ive always
felt that we have a very reactive government, and we tend to adopt
this mindset that yesterdays problem mattered yesterday. Now we
need to move on to todays problem and tomorrows problem, forget-
ting that yesterdays problem can very easily creep back and be-
come todays problem. And not too many years ago back in 1995,
1996, the major threat to many people or many people considered
one of the major threats on the terrorism front to be domestic ter-
rorism, fringe groups within our own borders.
56
Now, as I said, Ive been here 2 months, and Ive heard no talk
about domestic terrorism whatsoever or any efforts to infiltrate and
to make sure that those types of extremist groups are not going to
be creeping back into the forefront and doing the kind of damage
that we saw in Oklahoma City several years back. Im curious,
have we moved on? Are we just focusing on international tier and
threats from abroad? I understand obviously there will be some
overlap in these efforts that would not only be effective against
international terrorists, but would also be effective against those
types of efforts within our own borders, but it does seem that an
overwhelming amount of the concentration is on terrorists abroad,
and Im curious as to what thats doing to our focus here at home,
if you could comment on that.
Mr. DECKER. Sir, recently the FBI has released a national threat
assessment, which we have asked for and the committee has re-
quested that this be done as well going back to 1999, and weve not
had a chance to review it in its totality, but if its a good threat
assessment, it should have the domestic whether they are the
home-grown variety or farm variety threat, be it from terrorism, in
that document. My understanding is that it is a classified docu-
ment, and theres two versions, but theres a law enforcement sen-
sitive. We plan to review that document to better understand is it
a comprehensive assessment.
Mr. BELL. Just to humor us, if you all could start including some
of these domestic efforts in these overall plans, that would be great.
Mr. DECKER. Sir.
Mr. BELL. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much, Congressman Bell.
We are joined by Mr. Turner, who is the vice chairman of the
committee, and its kind of interesting for me to think that one of
our Members is a former Governor and had that kind of chief exec-
utive approach to his questions. And Mr. Turner is the chief execu-
tive in Dayton and helped balance budgets, and were just de-
lighted that youre the vice chair of the committee and just would
recognize you. And I think your wish is that we get on to the next
panel; is that correct?
I would just note for the record that last week we hadthis com-
mittee did have a briefing by the FBI on the threat assessment of
the FBI, and one of the challenges we have is thatand I say this
to you, Mr. Bellis that it is basically a classified document. Its
not something the press can talk about. But while some people are
focused on Iraq and some in Korea, weve got some who couldnt
tell you anything about Iraq or Korea, but can tell you a lot about
the threat assessment that were dealing with domestically. A lot
has happened. Its pretty impressive.
At this time I thank you, Mr. Decker and Mr. Caldwell. I think
the highlight for me was the question to you on the cyberspace
stuff, and I thank both of you for your very fine answers and for
the committees participation. Weve been keeping the other panel
waiting a bit longer than I thought, but its been very interesting
having you both testify.
57
At this time we will go to the next panel. Is there anything I

guess I should have said, Mr. Decker, that you want to put on the
record before we go?
Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir, if I could make one comment. I would hope
in a year from now when this issue is revisited, that it will have
been totally sorted out so that we are on an effective path for im-
plementation.
Mr. SHAYS. Guess what? Were going to have you here in 6
months, and were going to hope in 6 months its done. Is that a
deal?
Mr. SHAYS. And you guys will be pushing the administration,
and we will, and were kind of the catalyst, and theyll do their job,
too.
Mr. DECKER. Thank you.
Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much.
At this time the Chair will announce the second panel. Our sec-
ond panel is the Honorable James Gilmore III, former Governor of
Virginia; chairman, Advisory Panel to Assess the Domestic Re-
sponse Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass De-
struction. Thats why we call it the Gilmore Commission. I think
if you want to have a commission named after yourself, you just
give it a long title, and then they just decide to use the chairmans
name.
We have Dr. Michael O Hanlon, senior fellow, Foreign Policy
Studies, the Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair, the Brookings Institution.
We have Dr. Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of Center
for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment; and Mr. John Newhouse,
senior fellow, Center for Defense Information.
I welcome all four to the panel. Im going to have you stand up,
and stay standing, because Im going to swear you guys in. If youd
raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Well note for the record a response in
the affirmative.
Mr. Newhouse, Im going to have you move your chair over a lit-
tle slightly.
Dr. OHanlon, you can move yours over slightly, too.
OK. Were changing the batting order a bit. Were going to have
Governor Gilmore speak first, and then, Dr. OHanlon, youll be
second. Mr. Newhouse, were going to have you third, and were
going to have Mr. Krepinevich be the cleanup batter here.
Let me say to you first, Governor Gilmore, you have been before
our committee on a number of occasions, and if it hasnt been you,
its been someone else on the Gilmore Commission, and we appre-
ciate what you did before September 11th, and we appreciate what
youre doing now. I have read the testimony that was submitted
that was available to me last night, and this is an excellent panel.
Were really delighted you all are here. Looking forward to what
youll have to say.
Mr. GILMORE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much
Mr. SHAYS. Im going to have you turn that mic on. Let me just
do what I said before and ask unanimous consent that all members
of the subcommittee be permitted to place an opening statement in
58
the record, and that the record remain open for 3 days for that pur-
pose, and without objection, so ordered.
I ask further unanimous consent that all witnesses be permitted
to include their written statements in the record. Without objec-
tion, so ordered.
I would say to the witnesses that if you want to touch on any
of the questions that youve heard, we forced you to listen to the
first panel but if there are some points that you think need to be
addressed, feel free to do that. Regretfully, some of your statements
are even longer than 10 minutes, so I know youll have to summa-
rize, so we welcome that, but your statements were excellent.
Sorry for the interruption. Well start all over again, Governor.
STATEMENTS OF JAMES S. GILMORE III, CHAIRMAN, ADVI-
SORY PANEL TO ASSESS THE DOMESTIC RESPONSE CAPA-
BILITIES FOR TERRORISM INVOLVING WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION; MICHAEL E. OHANLON, SENIOR FELLOW,
FOREIGN POLICY STUDIES, THE SYDNEY STEIN, JR. CHAIR,
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION; JOHN NEWHOUSE, SENIOR
FELLOW, CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION; AND AN-
DREW F. KREPINEVICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER
FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS
Mr. GILMORE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I will
summarize, I believe, within the timeframe, maybe offer one or two
additional thoughts than are contained within the written presen-
tation.
Mr. Chairman, Im pleased to be here with you and with the oth-
ersnot only with the other Members of Congress. Thank you very
much, gentlemen, for the chance to be here with you, and particu-
larly my former colleague Governor Janklow, who is an old pal of
mine. So nice to see you, GovernorCongressman.
Ladies and gentlemen, the September 11th, of course, has
changed everything. It seems to me like that much of what we are
doing and what were thinking about and the way were evolving
as a Nation is simply being driven by the September 11th attack.
It certainly was traumatic and continues, in my judgment, to be
traumatic to this day, and as a result were dealing with issues we
previously have not dealt with, and we may even deal with them
in ways that we probablywould be different than the previous
time.
Our reportsas you know, we have now four reports. We are the
official advisory body to the U.S. Congress. We were established
through the House of Representatives. Congressman Curt Weldon,
I think, initiated it. The Congress passed it. The Senate did as
well, and were your official panel.
The Commission was accomplished in January 1999. At that
time there was no public commission involving this kind of issue.
We began to go to work on it. In the first year, in a somewhat aca-
demic way, we established a threat assessment. We called it a na-
tional strategy. We, I believe, appropriately assessed the threat,
and our most recent discussions have confirmed all that.
The second year we did major policy work, recommending an Of-
fice of Homeland Security; recommending the formation of a na-
tional strategy; focusing on the Federal, State and local involve-
59
ment, not just Federal involvement; focusing on the difficulty of in-

telligence stovepiping; and beginning to establish, I think, the
framework for debate. That was presented to the Congress and to
the President in December 2000.
In the year 2001 we focused on some major primary areas and
began to get ready to go to business on our 3-year Commission
when the September 11th attack occurred. This Congress then in
its wisdom extended our Commission 2 more years.
We have now completed our fourth Commission report. I believe
each of you has a copy of this report that has been delivered to
your offices. We are now beginning our 5th year ofthe 2-year ex-
tension for our 5th year of the Commission.
What are my opening remarks? No. 1, things have gotten a lot
better because we do have these strategies. I think that the com-
mittee here is doing a real service to the Congress, to the public,
by focusing on the plethora of the different groups of strategies and
how they interrelate with each other and how that bears upon our
national security. But at least we have strategies. We have the top-
ics being laid out. That is a judgment call in itself in key and im-
portant areas. It looks to me like were in large measure dealing
with the correct types of issues.
Our panel in its 3rd year focused our attention on the value and
the focus of State and local involvement within the national strat-
egy and how you engage State and local people; a major portion on
health care, which has been a primary focus of our Commission
through all of its 4 years, the importance of health care in the
health care system; the importance of border controls and begin-
ning to watch people going in and out and maybe protect our bor-
ders in an appropriate way; the appropriate use of the military, a
very profound issue at this time as we begin to key up the U.S.
military to operate within the homeland, an extremely sensitive
and important policy area; and cyberterrorism. These are the areas
that we focused on.
What are the national strategies focused on at this point? Theres
an overarching strategy for the defense of the United States of a
geopolitical position. There is a strategy to counter terrorism; a
military plan to operate overseas in order to interdict and disrupt
people who would attack us from foreign countries; a homeland se-
curity strategy; specific areas of weapons of mass destruction, a
strategy for that; money laundering in order to break up the fi-
nance for people who would conduct these kind of military oper-
ations such as those we saw on September 11th; a cyberterrorism
strategy; and a critical infrastructure protection strategy.
This is similar to the types of issues that we laid in over the last
4 years. And all of the topics are beginning in a rough way to come
together in the appropriate ways. The trick, it seems to me, is to
strive for focus in order to make sure that we come together to do
the right things. I think one of the earlier speakers said that we
need to get to the proper end state, and indeed we do. We need to
focus on what we are trying to get to with these proper strategies,
not just simply saying that the Nation shall be more secure, home-
land shall be more secure. What are we looking to achieve here?
What is the ultimate goal of all of these strategies?
60
One key, of course, is to continue to tie in the State and the local
authorities. Federal strategy alone will not do that, although most
of these strategies, I think, do make reference to the role of States
and locals within the respective strategies, and that is certainly a
positive point. But the truth of the matter is that you have to have
a national strategy, not a Federal strategy, and that means that
Governors and key mayors and key law enforcement officials all
across the 50 States have to be tied in and included within an over-
all national strategy. We have to determine from their point of
view what they need in their respective States, how it develops into
a statewide program, how that interacts with their localities, what
kinds of equipment and processes are needed in order to support
that kind of strategy, how does the Federal Government play that
kind of role, how do you develop the joint types of fundings, and
then how finally do you get into exercising and then measure the
results of what that end state is to be.
So, therefore, there has to be a compete focus on State and local
and with the Federal partnership, and that is the end state that
our Commission has focused on for several years.
And then I think we have to ask ourselves at the end, what is
the goal that we are trying to achieve here? Is absolute security an
obtainable goal? Is it attainable? Historically the answer is prob-
ably no. This is not a unique time that we face here today, al-
though the violence of the September 11th attack has created a
trauma that only replicates itself several times in American his-
tory. But we have seen the previous assassination of President
McKinley, and then so shortly thereafter, only a few years later,
the shooting of Theodore Roosevelt at a political event, the shooting
and killing of President Lincoln. One might argue that was, in fact,
a terrorist attack in and of itself here in the homeland, the Okla-
homa City bombing, a domestic catastrophe of tremendous propor-
tions, lead up of other areas as well. But this is not necessarily a
unique time, but we now have to gain the perspective to make sure
that as we react to it and we put together our strategies and pro-
grams, that we remember the longstanding values that we have as
Americans, and that we dont impinge upon any of those.
And that primarily, of course, leads me back to the theme that
we very frequently stress, and that is the civil liberties of the
American people.
It would be so easy to strive for absolute security and to try to
persuade the American people that we are going to reach for abso-
lute security and to ask them to surrender all their civil liberties
in order to attain that end. Our Commission believes that would
be the wrong approach, and that the goal here must be to gain the
maximum possible security within this country and then to tell the
American people in a straightforward and honest way that total
and absolute security is not possible; to get to the maximum level
of security we can reasonably do consistent with the values and
safety of the people of the United States, naturally spending a
great deal of focus on weapons of mass destruction, because that
would be the most terrible possible violation of the security that we
might have; but within all those goals, that we believe that the
eight strategies are a step in the right direction.
61
We congratulate this committee for going about the oversight

work now of determining how the eight could be harmonized best
together and work together for the national security, but I urge you
to think closely about the value of making sure the States and the
locals are contained within the national strategy.
Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Governor. Its a nice way to start this
panel. I had forgotten that Curt Weldon had led the charge on this.
He has been one of the heroes, I think, on the issue of terrorism
well before September 11th, and Im not sure he gets the credit he
deserves. He gets a lot of credit, but I think he deserves more.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilmore follows:]
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
Mr. SHAYS. At this time we would call on Dr. OHanlon.

Dr. OHANLON. Thank you, Congressman and Mr. Ranking Mem-
ber. It is an honor to be before this committee on this important
topic on this distinguished panel. I really want to just make three
broad sets of opening comments in keeping with your request that
we be brief. I have a longer statement, as you know, for the record.
Mr. SHAYS. I want to make sure, though, that you cover the terri-
tory that you need to.
Dr. OHANLON. OK. Thank you. I do want to respond, and that
is to yourto many of the questions that were posed to the first
panel, and just give a couple of quick thoughts on the issue of how
many strategies is too many and what kind of overall structure
should we have. And I just have a couple of observations.
It strikes me that you do need more than one strategy, because
there are so many aspects to the war on terror. And it is hard to
put all this into one document, and I fully agree with Congressman
Janklows comment that if you have too many, you lose track of
them all. But if you have too few, it would make, I think, for an
excessively dense document that might get weighty of its own sim-
ple detail.
And so what I would propose is thinking in terms of three prin-
ciple documents, and one is the National Security Strategy. And
that has to be the lead document, has to be seen as the integrating
document. Certainly in traditional terms that has been the first
document that has been produced before the military has done its
quadrennial reviews and its national military strategies. And then
below that, the National Military Strategy and the National Home-
land Security Strategy are the two natural next pillars.
And there are certain things that are going to be left out. Mili-
tary strategy and homeland security strategy, for example, dont
give a lot of time or attention to economic assistance toward devel-
oping countries. And we all know we need to worry about the prob-
lem of failed states, rescuing failed states, because they are a con-
cern in the war or terror. They can be sanctuaries for terrorist or-
ganizations, they can help provide resources to terrorist organiza-
tions.
But that is part of the National Security Strategy, and I think
President Bushspeaking of people who dont get enough credit,
President Bush does not get enough credit for his foreign aid initia-
tive, the millennium challenge account, which I think is a very
good idea and I think needs more attention and more reinforce-
ment, because we need to hold out hope to developing countries
that they will be brought into this globalization procession, and
that also we will prevent their territories from being used as sanc-
tuary or sources of income for terrorists. So I commend the Presi-
dent on that point.
I think there is more that has to be done dealing with failed
states, and Ive got some of that in my testimony. But the National
Security Strategy brings in economic assistance, brings in intel-
ligence operations, brings in broader economic strategy as well.
Those things are not part of the military strategy or the homeland
security strategy quite as much, but that is OK. You dont have to
emphasize each and every thing equally. At some point there is a
tradeoff between having 12 or 15 or 20 strategies and having clar-
99
ity. And I think the National Security Strategy can provide enough
detail on issues like economic policy toward developing countries
and intelligence that we dont need major additional documents.
So again, that pyramid of three separate documents, National
Security Strategy, Military Strategy, Homeland Security Strategy,
for me is enough.
Mr. SHAYS. I feel like Im in church.
Dr. OHANLON. And I will stick with the trinity theme and go on
now to my two other topics. One is on the issue of homeland secu-
rity and the homeland security strategy, and now I am getting
more specific.
Within this strategy I just want to make a couple of observations
about how well this one particular strategy is working. It is so new,
it is so important, and I think we have to spend a lot of time look-
ing at it in detail. I will just offer a couple of thoughts based large-
ly on the Brookings work that we have done in the last year and
influenced by the work of the Gilmore Commission and others who
preceded us with various studies.
And first of all, I want to commend the President and the Con-
gress again for a very good start after September 11th. It seems
to me there were a lot of very important things done immediately
after the tragic terrorist attacks to make sure those sorts of attacks
would be difficult to be carried out in the future against us; a lot
of work on airport security, a lot of work on bringing together intel-
ligence briefings for the President, a number of preparations on the
biological weapons front largely motivated by the anthrax attacks.
And I think a lot of that work was very good, but I think Congress
and the President got bogged down a little in 2002. I think the de-
bate over the Department of Homeland Security became seen as
the big issue. And it was a big issue, but it cant be the only issue.
We have to worry about our actual vulnerabilities, and we cant
wait for Secretary Ridge to, 1 or 2 or 3 years from now, when he
finally has his shop in order, get around to then addressing
vulnerabilities. We have to have a debate today on the homeland
security strategy and its specifics, what it does well, what it does
not do well.
I think what it does well is to try to prevent the last kind of at-
tack, try to prevent the last war, to use the old adage, about mili-
tary operations. You know, people tend to fight the last or refight
the last war. And I think we are getting pretty good at stopping
airplane attacks, at stopping biological attacks. We havent gotten
as good at a number of other things, and let me just tick off a cou-
ple, and you are very well aware of them in this committee, but
it is worth emphasizing.
For example, private sector infrastructure. There is this report
that just came out that tries to be remedial and talk about some
of the things we need to do, but it is not nearly enough. If you look
around this country, there are thousands of chemical production fa-
cilities which are vulnerable to attack, and if they were attacked,
they could produce clouds of toxic fumes that could produce threats
to population centers similar to the Bhopal tragedy in India in the
early 1980s. You could have thousands of people die from chemical
fumes if these facilities were not well protected.
100
After September 11th, we did a very good job of trying to im-

prove security at nuclear power plants, perhaps not enough, but we
put quite a bit of effort into that, because there are only 103 of
them, and we could focus on that problem. But meanwhile, you
need to have a longer-term strategy for protecting chemical infra-
structure. We have not really done that. So, the administration is
trusting the private sector to protect its own assets, but an individ-
ual private sector owner or businessman, that persons incentives
are different from societys because the individual owner is trying
to make a profit, trying to deal with a competitor, and not very
worried about a terrorist attack against his facility. The chances of
that are astronomically low. So that persons incentives are to com-
pete with his competitors; but as a society, our incentives are to
make sure were not vulnerable to catastrophic attack against our
chemical facilities, against the trucking that ships a lot of these fa-
cilities, against a lot of the ships going into Houston and other
ports that are carrying these sorts of chemicals.
Chemicals I just take as one example, but it is a very prominent
example, and one that does not get the attention of nuclear issues,
but probably should.
Another area within homeland security where we are not doing
enough is the area of bolstering Customs. I think there was a great
deal of good thinking done on Customs and the container security
initiative last year by Mr. Bonner and others. A very good idea: Put
American inspectors overseas and watch cargo being loaded before
it heads toward American shores. The problem is we are not giving
Mr. Bonner any resources to do this job more effectively. In the
2003 budget, there was no additional money, as I understand it, for
this effort, and in the 2004 budget, Customs is supposed to get
$60$62 million more, not nearly enough for the kind of broader,
more rigorous inspection regime we need.
We inspect 2 to 3 percent of all cargo entering this country. It
is not nearly a high enough percentage. You dont need to reach
100 percent, but you have to do much better than we are doing
today.
Another area within homeland security that is not getting
enough attention is the surface-to-air missile threat against air-
planes, and there has been a lot of discussion about this in the last
few months since the attempted attack against the Israeli airliner.
I think we need to consider government action to help airlines ei-
ther protect themselves with countermeasures, or at a minimum
help them and help airports patrol the grounds around the airport.
This is a threat that has become very plain, and if those missiles
had hit the airplane and brought it down, I am sure we would be
responding much more quickly to what is a real threat around the
world. And so we should not be taking great comfort in the fact
those two missiles happened to miss by a small distance. They
made the airplane feel a bump. How much more of a bump do we
need? Thats a pretty good impetus to policy right there, and yet
we seem to be waiting for the airplane to actually be brought down
before we make this a national priority.
One last area within homeland security, and then I will wrap up
on my final topic. Information technology is a very important area
to pursue and promote. As you know, Mr. Chairman, there is some
101
more money in the 2004 Homeland Security budget for information

technology, but it really is not nearly enough, because today we are
not able to integrate in a real-time basis State, Federal, local,
international players into data bases that would look to try to con-
nect dots. We can share information on suspicious individuals pret-
ty fast, and that is a big improvement since September 11th. We
can tell an airliner or somebody else, watch out for this individual,
A, B, or C. That individual is on a terrorist watch list. That is a
good improvement. However, we are not able to process informa-
tion, the kind that we saw before the attacks in 2001, Phoenix
memos, dots that need to be connected to discern patterns of terror-
ist behavior that may be emerging. We dont have the ability yet,
in other words, to tie together these information systems in a large
data base thats capable of processing and looking for patterns of
behavior.
So we can share names, but that is not good enough. That is a
very primitive level of information and infrastructure sharing of
data. We have to do better.
Finally, on another matter, and I will just stop here after briefly
mentioning the issue of preemption. And I know that time is out,
so let me just quickly say, the preemption strategy is the national
security strategy sort of benchmark or famous slogan that went
along with the national security strategy last fall. To me, it shows
that if you try too hard to make a splash with your national secu-
rity strategy, you may get yourself into more trouble than you
want. Sometimes its better if these documents are a little more
boring and understated, because I personally think the preemption
concept is a major mistake as an articulated matter of national se-
curity policy. I think its fine to find out
Mr. SHAYS. Why dont we debate that issue with you. OK?
Dr. OHANLON. OK. I will just quickly mention one last sentence,
please.
For me, the problem is on North Korea. North Korea seems to
have been influenced by this strategy. At least its one possible ex-
planation for the current crisis. And I worry that stating the doc-
trine so plainly has actually contributed to the crisis with North
Korea. I like the logic behind the preemption concept, but Im not
sure the U.S. Government ought to be stating it so boldly and so
plainly.
[The prepared statement of Dr. OHanlon follows:]
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
Mr. SHAYS. I was trying to figure out why I liked you, and then
reviewed your bio, and you were a former Peace Corps volunteer,
and so that speaks well of you, sir.
Dr. OHANLON. Thank you.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the op-
portunity.
Mr. SHAYS. If you could turn on your mic. Is it turning on? The
green light should do it. If its orange, watch out.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. I was about to say, I appreciate the opportunity
to offer a few thoughts with regard to this tough and complex sub-
ject you are dealing with.
Mr. SHAYS. Well, we appreciate you being here, sir.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. And I would like to make a few comments on
our governments approach to various sources of instability as I see
them since the attack of September 11th.
Huge opportunities were left in the wake of September 11th.
Stated simply, most of the world was ready and willing to accept
American leadership. We are all Americans, proclaimed the page 1
head line in Le Monde, on September 12th, a declaration of solidar-
ity from a most improbable source.
In seizing the moment, the administration could and should have
set about stabilizing the most serious sources of instability, the
Middle East, Southwest Asia, and Northeast Asia. In the Middle
East, they could have deployed their new leverage to push Israel
and the Palestine Liberation Organization into serious negotia-
tions. Quite clearly, Israels Likkud Government expected exactly
that to happen, especially when on October 2nd, Mr. Bush en-
dorsed the idea of a Palestinian State. Two days later, Prime Min-
ister Ariel Sharon warned Washington not to try to appease the
Arabs at our expense. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia, he said.
The administration listened. Regime change on the West Bank be-
came more attractive than taking on Israels Likkud Government
and its allies in Washington.
Since World War II, the Arab world has been largely shaped by
transient passions, notably anticolonialism, nationalism, socialism,
and Islamism. The single constant, apart from corrupt and/or in-
competent regimes has been the Arab-Israeli conflict, and a percep-
tion throughout the region and most of the world that Washington
shares responsibility with Israel for the plight of the Palestinian
people.
In his speech last week, Mr. Bush offered some hope saying that,
If the terror threat is removed and security improves, Israel, will
be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian State.
As progress toward peace develops, settlement activity in the occu-
pied territories must end.
Mr. SHAYS. Excuse me, Mr. Newhouse, Im going to have you
move the mic down a spec. Just bring it down a little bit. Its on.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. However, Mr. Bush provided no specifics. Who
will judge whether the terror threat has been removed or sufficient
progress toward peace has been made? A skeptic would say that if
the recent past is any guide, Israels Prime Minister Mr. Sharon
will make those calls.
116
On April 4 last year, Mr. Bush said, Enough is enough. And he

added, I ask Israel to halt its incursions into Palestinian-con-
trolled areas and to begin the withdrawal from those cities it has
recently occupied. Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories
must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to se-
cure and recognizable boundaries.
Mr. Bush also announced that he was sending Secretary Powell
to the Middle East to push for a political settlement. Two days
later Mr. Bush called Sharon and said: Israel must pull its forces
out of the West Bank, without delay. And the White House ap-
peared to support Secretary Powells idea of bringing the parties to-
gether in a peace conference. Then Mr. Powell left on a 6-day trip
to the region, and General Anthony Zinni, the Presidents special
envoy for the Middle East, conveyed to Sharon Mr. Bushs call for
Israel to withdraw at once from Palestinian cities.
On April 9th, 3 days after the call from the President, Mr. Shar-
on said that Israel would press on with its offensive in the West
Bank.
On April 17th, Powell returned without the cease-fire he had
been seeking and unable to secure a withdrawal of Israeli forces
from the West Bank. Meanwhile, Ari Fleischer, the White House
press spokesman, was stressing that Sharon was, a man of peace.
The tilt toward Mr. Sharon reached a peak of sorts on June 24,
2002, when Mr. Bush told the Palestinian people they would have
to replace Yasser Arafat as their leader before Washington would
support an independent Palestinian State. Without mentioning
Arafat by name, the President made his meaning clear, Peace re-
quires a new and different Palestinian leadership so that a Pal-
estinian State can be born. Until then, Mr. Bush has resisted the
Sharon position that no negotiations could take place until Arafat
was gone. Polls on the West Bank have shown that Arafats ap-
proval rating has steadily declined in recent years; it spikes, how-
ever, when he is attacked by Sharon. They appear to need each
other.
Again, in last weeks speech, Mr. Bush made the case that re-
gime change in Iraq would provide the conditions for weakening
terrorism and helping Palestinians achieve democracy. I disagree.
The case for and against attacking Iraq now is complex. It should
not be tied into the campaign against terrorism. The connection be-
tween Iraq and terrorism is, I think, tenuous at best. Most of the
people I know who have followed the affairs of the Middle East
over the years would argue that the single unchanging precondition
for regional peace and stability is measured but steady progress to-
ward a settlement of the Palestinian issue, starting with an end to
Israels occupation of the West Bank.
If the United States gets too far adrift from reality in the Middle
East, the sole beneficiary would be Usama bin Laden and his
legatees if he is dead. Their purpose, indeed their raison detre, is
to divide the West from Islam, starting with the Arab world.
In the Persian Gulf, the Iranian Government reacted to Septem-
ber 11th by authorizing American search and rescue operations on
its soil, the transit of humanitarian assistance and cooperation in
the formation of the new Afghan Government. In many Iranian cit-
ies there were meetings to express sympathy for the victims of the
117
attacks on the United States. Both hard-liners and reformers de-

nounced the attacks, and at that pivotal moment, Irans reformist
government would probably have been politically free to extend its
reach to America even further. The combination of sensible steps
by Washington on the Arab-Israeli front and improved U.S.-Iranian
relations would have further isolated Iraq politically within the re-
gion and, hence, appealed to all sides. But the administrations fail-
ure to respond and its harsh reaction, notably the Presidents axis
of evil remark, damaged prospects for beginning to repair a bilat-
eral relationship with Iran of surpassing strategic importance.
Pakistan, a nominal ally, is the country that most nearly fits the
Presidents profile of evil. Two of its provinces are controlled by
Taliban and al Qaeda sympathizers. Although the issues that di-
vide Iran and Pakistan have never reached the level of crisis, rela-
tions have worsened in recent years. Pakistans heavy involvement
with the Taliban is partly responsible. It is a bonethe Taliban is
a bone in Irans throat. Pakistans Islamic schools, the madrassas,
have become training grounds for terrorists and other radical
groups in much of the Muslim world.
For now there may be little that the Musharraf government can
do about the chaos and anarchy in parts of the country, but it can
and should be held to account for its remarkable decision to make
possible North Koreas highly enriched uranium program. Pakistan
is known to have provided much or most of the program, weapons
design, gas centrifuges, materials to make centrifuges, data of the
sort that would enable the customer to avoid having to test its de-
vices. The two-way traffic between Pakistan and North Korea in-
volving ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons technology could
have a dangerous ripple effect.
The campaign against terrorism generated a sense of common
purpose, but at another level also became divisive. Most of Mr.
Bushs advisors regard the first and best answer to threats to secu-
rity as lying in preponderant military force. European governments
along with most others see military force as a complementary tool
in the campaign against terrorism, less essential than a soft-power
mix of intelligence, law enforcement, border, and financial controls.
Terrorism is generally seen as part of a larger problem, not a sin-
gle problem. Thus far, however, the administrations concern with
the causes of terrorism has been minimal, in my view. Its focus in-
stead has been on identifying and destroying the terrorist threat,
before it reaches our borders, if necessary, acting alone and using
preemptive force. This thinking is contained in the novel doctrine
laid down by the administration last September.
Other governments assume, doubtless correctly, that in its reli-
ance on massive military power, the new doctrine downgrades alli-
ances. They also worry that the administration may not feel bound
by the body of international rules and restraints that developed
after World War II. Taken at face value, the new doctrine justifies
preventive war waged without allies and without U.N. Sanction.
A doctrine of preemption that relied on very high-quality intel-
ligence to identify an impending attack well in advance and then
head it off would not raise eyebrows, but the Bush doctrine is
based instead on prevention and preeminence; that is, taking mili-
tary power to a level never before seen, one that would so intimi-
118
date all parties that no one would even consider an attack of any
kind against the United States. Threats to American interests
would be not just discouraged, but precluded. Full spectrum domi-
nance, was a term for it in defense circles. Anticipatory self-de-
fense is a phrase that Secretary Rumsfeld has used.
In practice, such a doctrine harbors many risks. If I am banging
on too long, please cut me off, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SHAYS. Keep going.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. It exaggerates the role and utility of raw mili-
tary power. The government could find itself unable to carry out
programs in other realms, unable, for example, to cooperative effec-
tively with other governments to combat terrorism. Special Forces
and smart weapons can help in that battle, but other tools starting
with good intelligence and good police work are more important.
No matter how good the performance of the Intelligence Commu-
nity, surprises are probably unavoidable. Thus, measuring perform-
ance by the standard of prediction is unrealistic and can damage
the standing, morale, and performance of intelligence agencies.
They are engaged in not winning a war against terrorism, but in
managing it, restricting the activities and options of hostile forces.
The Bush doctrine, if taken seriously, would mean that prediction
would become the measure of performance, because a prevention-
based strategy would require sustained and timely collection of the
kind of intelligence that is rarely available, least of all in a form
that connects all the dots.
Effective intelligence collection must be conducted bilaterally, but
with a wide array of countries. After September 11th, offers of
help, large and small, poured into Washington from around the
world. They were rejected. Another opportunity lost. Accepting
these offers would have harmed nothing, generated enormous good-
will, and, most important, helped at another more important level.
What the United States has needed from other countries, then as
now, is information, a process through which intelligence may be
shared with countries best equipped to penetrate terrorist organi-
zations and cells. Many of these countries took part in the sanc-
tions against Iraq, and most of them have experienced serious dif-
ficulties of one kind or another with the terrorist groups located in
the extensive region they share.
Terrorism may be contained if intelligence services and police
agencies acquire the habit of cooperating closely with each other
and suppressing their competitive instincts and preference for act-
ing alone. The United States would be the chief beneficiary of such
activity, first because it appears to be the primary target of al
Qaeda and sibling terrorist groups; second, because it lacks ade-
quate human resources for gathering the intelligence it needs; and
third, because its ability to eavesdrop on global communications is
declining. The rapid growth of commercially available technology is
reported as allowing for the creation of all but unbreakable com-
puter codes. Fiber-optic lines give off no electronic signals that can
be monitored.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Newhouse follows:]
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
Mr. SHAYS. Dr. Krepinevich, you have a lot of pressure on you

because you really have three colleagues who preceded you who
have outstanding statements. But I am comfortably able to tell you
that I am sure you will do well, because I took your statement
home last night, and I thought it was a wonderful summary of the
issue. But we do need to get you the mic, dont we?
Dr. KREPINEVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like my colleagues,
I will summarize my remarks.
Mr. SHAYS. Like most of your colleagues.
Dr. KREPINEVICH. First, let me applaud the subcommittee, for
tackling this issue. It really is the missing link. Strategy is about
connecting ends and means. We know the ends we want to achieve:
the defeat of international terrorism. And we know the means that
we are going to apply, in the terms of the budget and the resources
and the capabilities that we are putting to the task. What we need
to worry about is that although the means are impressive, we only
get to spend them once. If we choose the wrong strategyor if we
choose the right strategy, but do not have sufficient resources to
implement itwhat we end up doing is not only wasting resources,
but also wasting time, neither of which can be recovered. With that
in mind, I would like to offer some comments on the administra-
tions set of strategies.
I do not believe that there is anything inherently wrong with
having a hierarchy of strategies as long as they are comprehensive,
consistent, and, of course, as long as the strategy is effective. What
I think is somewhat remarkable is that we actually have public
statements about strategy in wartime. For example, after Pearl
Harbor I dont recall President Roosevelt saying, its Germany first,
which was our grand strategy, going after Germany before Japan.
I dont remember anyone saying that General MacArthur would be
pursuing an island-hopping strategy, avoiding Japanese strong
points, as his approach to solving the problem of defeating Japan
in the Pacific. Football coaches dont advance or announce their
game plans in advance, nor do chess masters before a chess match.
So I do think thatand I would assume, and, quite frankly, I
would hope that there are some key aspects of our strategy for
waging war on terrorism that are not public, that are classified, to
include some of the capabilities and forces that support this strat-
egy.
On the other hand, we have to find some way of squaring the cir-
cle, because Congress is responsible for the power of the purse,
they are responsible for the war powers of this country. And so
Congress must identify a way to assess the administrations strat-
egy. I have no solution for this dilemma.
With respect to the strategies themselves, I think there is much
to applaud in terms of the effort on the part of the Bush adminis-
tration. We need to recognize that this is not just a variation of
former strategies. In fact, what we are dealing with here is a dra-
matically different kind of threat or combination of threats: the
prospect of rogue states developing weapons of mass destruction
and perhaps having to these weapons fall into the hands of terror-
ist organizations. Certainly this is about as big a shift in the kind
of threat environment as we have seen since the early days of the
cold war.
145
Second, I think this set of strategies is clearly an effort to pro-

vide at least some point-of-departure strategic guidance both in
general terms and in terms of the key specific areas that may de-
fine the competition, such as cyberspace, the issue of financial
laundering and so on.
If that is the glass half full, I think we also need to examine the
glass thats half empty. If you look at historical experience, we only
have a few data points. We did not really come up with a strategy
for dealing with the Soviet Union, a comprehensive strategy, argu-
ably until 1950, when you had NSC68.
We also found that we had to constantly evolve the strategy to
reflect changing circumstances. As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman,
we had in 1953 the Solarium group meeting, when President Ei-
senhower took office, to revise and revisit the strategy that had
been laid down several years earlier. So, again, this is not a situa-
tion where you come up with a strategy overnight. It is not a fast-
food approach to strategy. This is going to require a lot of work,
a lot of hard, intellectual work to address a lot of the questions,
quite frankly, raised by you and by my colleagues here today.
I would point out also that both NSC68 and the Solarium group
were classified undertakings.
The strategies that I reviewed, to the extent that I could, given
that at least one of them was classified and, as our colleagues
pointed out, there were several of them just released recently, do
lead to some unanswered questions. This gets back to my point
that further work is going to be needed. I will just raise a few here
for your consideration.
One, as Mr. OHanlon said, is this issue of preemptive attack. If
we really do decide to pursue this policy, or this strategic pillar,
against terrorists or rogue states, we are going to have to get a lot
better at things like surprise, stealthy deployments, operating
along short time lines, and operating over long distances. I dont
think you can conduct a surprise attack with a precursor being
months long negotiations with allies as to whether or not you can
use their forward bases. So, initiatives by the Defense Department
such as converting Trident submarines to provide for the stealthy
insertion of Special Operations forces or the increase in the size of
Special Operations forces, would be consistent with that kind of
strategy.
Of course, we are also modernizing our Air Force to deploy large
numbers of short-range aircraft to forward bases which may not be
available, at the same time developing no new long-range air capa-
bility.
So, again, I think at some point you have to begin to look at the
strategy and the means and see where the links and the dis-
connects are and, again, to paraphrase from my colleagues, to see
if the dots all connect correctly.
In terms of port security, I think the issue was raised by Michael
OHanlon. Where is the emphasis? Is it at the port of origin where
the goods coming to our shores originate? There has been talk in
the Pentagon about a maritime NORAD, about a naval force that
will intercept suspicious cargo ships the way our missile defenses
are meant to intercept incoming warheads. Or is it at the port of
entry? Or is it a combination of these things? If so, which has pri-
146
ority? And over what time will we phase in these various elements
of our strategy? What is the standard of performance? How many
cargos are we supposed to be able to intercept and check out?
So, in the area of port security, it seems to me that we know
there is a danger there. We know there is a threat. We are devot-
ing means to address it but not quite clear what the linkage is be-
tween the means and ensuring that we achieve our ends.
If you have a strategy that recognizes that deterrence doesnt
work against terrorists and you may not be able to intercept every
terrorist attack, than a big part of your strategy has got to be dam-
age limitation, or what we call consequence management. How do
you limit the damage of a successful attack? Because that can go
a long way toward defeating terrorism. Where is the responsibility?
With the Federal Government? With State governments? With
local governments?
For example, once an attack occurs in an American city, is it that
citys responsibility alone to deal with it? I would suspect that we
would want to mobilize resources and flow them toward that city.
Well, who controls those resources? Can the Federal Government
put the arm on other cities resources now at its disposal to go to
the city thats been attacked? Have we built in the transportation
assets that allow us to rapidly reinforce the city thats just been
subjected to attack? Is it that way across the board?
Or do we recognize that, for example, in the case of first respond-
ers, those people who are on the scene first, you are not going to
be able to reinforce them. Either they are going to be able to do
the job quickly, or its going to get out of hand. Have we really
thought through the process, the linking of ends and means, to
make sure that we have an effective defense in dealing with con-
sequence management?
There are other matters that deserve consideration. The role of
our allies. Our alliances were formed in a different era, when there
was much more common agreement about what the principle
threat to our security was. We find ourselves needing allies more
in the global war on terrorism but perhaps in some cases being
able to rely on them less. Certainly we want to rely on them for
different things.
Theres a new division of labor. We dont want tank armies so
much as we want good intelligence, for example. So how do we de-
vise a new division of labor, and what does that say about our
strategy? What resources can we free up to accord to other prior-
ities?
I will just speak very quickly on cost-imposing strategies. Its
kind of an arcane term, but its a strategic term. Bottom line: they
spend $1 million, we spend $100 billion. Thats an awfully effective
strategy. Part of our strategy, part of our strategic development,
has got to answer how are we going to off set their ability to pur-
sue cost-imposing strategies on the United States.
In summary, I would say that the administrations efforts rep-
resent an important initial effort to address the most dramatic
shift in our threat environment since the early days of the cold
war. The effort is both impressive and, I would argue, incomplete.
We are only at the beginning of a major process, primarily intellec-
tual, to come to grips with this threat and make sure that we have
147
a strategy that can effectively apply our limited resources to

achieve the very worthy ends that we seek.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Krepinevich follows:]
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
Mr. SHAYS. I really appreciate all four of your testimonies. I am

so eager to jump in, but I am going to call on Mr. Janklow to start.
I would just make a comment that will tell you where Im coming
from. At this table, we had an individual who was a doctor of a
major medical magazine; and he said, beforehe said, I want to
put something on the record. And this is what he basically put on
the record. He said, my greatest fear is that a small group of dedi-
cated scientists within a country can create an altered biological
agent that could wipe out humanity as we know it. That to me was
a very real statement of why we cant wait for a lazy country to
step in and stop a small group of scientists from creating a biologi-
cal agent that could wipe out humanity as we know it.
In other words, its not just those countries that seek to work
with terrorists but those who tolerate them. And there is not a
chance in heck that I would think that we would wait.
Which gets to a topic that you had brought up, Dr. OHanlon,
and all of you did, and thats the whole issue of preemption. My
view was that what we would have over the course of the next few
months and maybe years is, with the world communities, how do
we define when preemption has to happen?
So I took an advantage that I dont often do as chairman to just
jump in here, but, Mr. Janklow, you have the floor for 10 minutes.
Mr. JANKLOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank all four of
you gentlemen for your testimonies.
Dr. OHanlon, you were specific with respect to certain areas.
When we look at the structure of America, I will call it the infra-
structure of this country, given the way historys developed or we
have developed, but for the military bases, the banks, the jails and
prisons, nothing has been built secure. Everything, 100 percent of
our country is open. Closing those doors and getting into a public
safety mentality is just an incredible cultural and physical shift for
us. What do you think is the threat assessment with respect to our
public utilities, specifically the electrical grids? All we have are
fences that say high voltage, keep out, where we have the trans-
formers. Yet disabling a transformer is probably one of the easiest
things in the world to do.
There isnt a backlog of transformers in this country on the shelf.
In the event someone were to start to bring the electrical system
down, you could make whole areas of this country uninhabitable
for months. Were it to be done in the wintertime, it is incalculable
how we could deal with it and maintain our standard of living or
not turn on each other. Have you ever had a chance to assess the
question with respect to the electrical utilities or the natural gas
utilities where every so many miles they come up out of the
ground, with the pumps and the monitoring, and it would be a no
brainer just to throw a log chain around them and drive off, pulling
them apart. Do you have any comments, sir?
Dr. OHANLON. Those are very tough questions, Congressman. I
share your understanding and your concern on electricity in par-
ticular because its so hard to fix. My understandingand Im not
an expert in this areabut it could take several months to repair
some of the kind of damage one might imagine.
Mr. JANKLOW. Thats correct.
162
Dr. OHANLON. During that period of time, as you say, the econ-
omy and even the basic ability to ensure heat and other needs for
people would be really at risk.
I think the way you have to prioritize homeland security, be-
cause, as you pointed out, we dont want to protect every res-
taurant and every movie theater in this country, at least I hope we
dont have to get to that point, but you have to prioritize. And I
think the way you do is to say major loss of life, major economic
damage, or major damage to the institutions of this country such
as government. Those are the sorts of things we have to focus on
most intently. If there is a plausible risk in one of those areas, you
should think hard about doing something about it if you can.
As Andy Krepinevich says, there may be situations where the
cost is just too high. But I think you have identified a couple of
areas where the cost is not that high, and its a matter of scrutiniz-
ing our vulnerability, and I think youve identified a couple of im-
portant ones that I should have added to my list.
Altogether, by the way, I think we can make very good progress
on about a $50 billion a year Federal budget for homeland security.
So, were moving in the right direction, but were not there yet.
Mr. JANKLOW. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse, I gathered from your testimony youre rather crit-
ical of the way things are going under the current administration;
and I notice from your resume that you were a senior policy advi-
sor to Strobe Talbott with respect to Europe. But I was wondering,
did he take your advice on how to deal with Europe during the
time you were an advisor to him?
Mr. NEWHOUSE. You can say, yes, sometimes, but rarely. Because
I found myself in persistent low-intensity conflicts with the State
Department bureaucracy. As Im sure you know, when you go up
against the organized bureaucracy, the cards are weighted against
you. But it was fun. I wasnt there very long. I was there for the
last 3 years of the Clinton era.
Mr. JANKLOW. And, sir, if I could ask you with respect toa lot
of your testimony dealt with our relationship vis-a-vis Israel, our
policy, the policy enunciations by the President. Do you know of
any strategy that any President has ever employed with respect to
Israel that worked, or the Middle East, Israel vis-a-vis its relation-
ship with the Palestinians, given the uniqueness of the threat to
Israel, the constant?
I mean, I justI was there last week2 weeks ago on an Inter-
national Relations Middle East Subcommittee trip; and it was
amazing, just amazing that, to go into grocery stores, you go
through magnetometers. You go into malls, you have the wand put
over you. You cant go into public parking. The cost of the society
for public protection, none of it contributing to economic growth, is
an unbelievable drag. And that country is so small you could put
six of them inside my State. I justI cant even imagine a United
States with that kind of drag.
My question is, do you know of any administration thats had an
effective policy with respect to the peace aspects of that area?
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Well, I would say there were two. First, the sec-
ond Eisenhower administration. After the Suez crisis beganand
163
I no longer remember what became of that effort. Maybe it was the

political calendar. I dont remember.
But I think the most striking example of this was the Presidency
of George W. Bush after the Gulf war, starting with the Madrid
Conference. What transpired during the Madrid Conference when
he had all the key players around the table led eventually to the
Oslo Peace Process. I think the Oslo Peace Process set in motion
other agreements, and they kind of sustained what appeared to be
a sustained process which ended abruptly in 1995 with the assas-
sination of Prime Minister Rabin.
I would submit that the time between the collapse of the Soviet
Union and September 11th was a kind of parenthesis during which
the one event of lasting historic importance would have been the
assassination of Rabin, because that ushered in instantly a Likkud
government, and things began to go from bad to worse.
Now its not as if the blame falls largely on Israel. I mean, it also
falls with great weight on the Palestinian Liberation Organization
and its leadership. But I think the Palestinian moderates by and
large understand whats been happening to them, and theyand
since it has been happening to them in the most injurious and
painful way, they would like to change things, including changing
the leadership. They cant change their leadership so long as you
have got this nexus of political heavyweights starting with the
Likkud party and government that lashes out at the PLO leader-
ship and quarantines it, makes a hostage of its leader, says that
you have to change this.
Mr. JANKLOW. Sir, if I can ask you, lets just assume that in this
country we were dealing with an element, a group of people, where
the leader fundscontributes funds toward those that are blowing
up our people and our facilities, where they contribute support,
public rhetoric to give aid and comfort to those that are trying to
drive us out of the area. Im not being overly sympathetic to the
Israeli position as much as I am to say, put yourself into their men-
tality and then deal with what Yasir Arafat and his group have
done with respect to the safety in the area or the neglect. Its not
benign neglect, its far more than the benign, and one can under-
stand the activity that individuals take as self-preservation.
You know, I visited the American military whenPatriot missile
units that were in Israel a week ago, and I frankly was dumb-
founded at the attitude that all of those soldiers had, the men and
women had, all the way down to the lowest enlisted ranks as to
what their mission was and how important they felt they were for
the security and stability in that particular area.
I am just wondering if you have any insight, sir, as tocoming
back to homeland security. What is it that we can do in this coun-
try to make it safer? I mean, obviously, September 11th, we found
out how vulnerable we were. To the extent anybodys committed
and was willing to commit suicide, you can wreck a powerful lot
of damage over and over and over. What it is that we are not doing
that we ought to be doing specifically?
If you could list the things, Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Well, I began my statement by suggesting what
I thought we should do first and foremost in bringing stability or
164
greater stability to the regionand I mean the entire region. That

is to restart the Middle East Peace Process.
Mr. JANKLOW. No. No. I mean the United States, here.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Yeah. But only we can do that. Nobody else can
restart the Middle East Peace Process.
Mr. JANKLOW. So you are suggesting
Mr. NEWHOUSE. The Europeans cant do it. The quartet, that is
to say, the combination of the United Nations, the European
Union, Russia, they cannot do that without the other member of
the quartet, the United States, taking the lead. It is just wholly un-
realistic.
Mr. JANKLOW. So what you are suggesting, sir, is to the extent
that the Middle Eastern Peace Process gets started or gets on a
better track, things will be safer in the United States?
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Yes, indeed. Because I think that not only does
the region use the Arabthe Palestinian-Israeli issue as the prin-
cipleone of the principle tools for generating recruitment in the
region, but I think that the larger part, most of the Islamic world
is profoundly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
Mr. JANKLOW. Would that explain the explosions then, for exam-
ple, in Bali, in Indonesia?
Mr. NEWHOUSE. I dont know, sir. Partially. BecauseI mean, I
think these things are really all connected. What is it that inspires
an organization like al Qaeda? Its more than one thing. I mean,
I think the leadership probably wants to divide Islam from the
Western world if it can. But it uses whatever grievances, tools, that
it has available to it; and this is certainly a big one.
Mr. JANKLOW. Thank you.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Sir, can I just make onewith response to one
of your other questions, when you said that these people are being
terrorized and being killed, Id just make two comments. The num-
ber of people being killed oversince the Second Intifada began,
theres been a great disproportion, a tragic number of Israeli citi-
zens have been killed, thats true. But a considerably larger num-
ber of Palestinians have been killed in the process and a great
number of Israelis, if they were sitting here, Israelis whom I know
personally, would strongly agree with what Ive said here. But they
feel frustrated because they have very little control.
Amos Elon, one of the great Israeli writers, wrote recently:
Israels military power increases on a daily basis, and its security
diminishes on a daily basis, because Israel is a small state with a
low birth rate that lives in a huge sea of Arabs.
Mr. TURNER [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Gilmore, would you like to comment on some of the ques-
tions?
Mr. GILMORE. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, it is a policy decision
about whether the foreign policy of this country is going to shift
with respect to support of Israel or their policies. That is not really
the topic that we are discussing here today. We are discussing here
today the question of what actions the Congress can focus on in
order to try to make the homeland more secure. I think that was
the essence of Congressman Janklows ideas about this.
Im concerned, frankly, about some of the things that Im hearing
here today. I think there is a risk here that we are being led down
165
the path of trying to address all vulnerabilities in the Nation. You

cannot address all vulnerabilities of the Nation. Again, that was
also said from the dais a few moments ago.
This Nation is a free country. It carries within, therefore, inher-
ent vulnerabilities. But vulnerability is not threat. Threat is dif-
ferent. Threat is the things that the enemy has the capability of
attacking, and they dont have the capability of attacking every-
thing. They dontthe motivation to attack things and what things
are vulnerable, and that is the threat, and that we can address. We
can address that. If we tried to address everything that anyone
could imagine, any terrorist could imagine, we are driving our-
selves into being a financially exhausted martial state, which is ex-
actly what the enemy probably would like to see us get to.
Instead, we have to address that, and then I think you go to a
little different question, which is, how are we doing it?
We are setting up a major bureaucracy with the Department of
Homeland Security, but what are we doing it for? That is the point
to keep the eye on the ball about here. We dont want to get so tan-
gled up in the administrative efforts to get it all to coordinate and
work together we lose track of what were trying to do, which is to
address the potential threats of this country in a reasonable and
prioritized way and to address what we really think the potential
threats are.
And for what purpose are we doing that? I dont think its to
make ourselves a martial state. I think at some point its to return
to some sense of normalcy in this country, not a country like was
being described someplace where we are constantly watched and
constantly going through security measures at the grocery store
and things like that, but to get back to the point where we protect
ourselves to the greatest extent possible from reasonable, foresee-
able risks and threats and then get on with our lives as free people.
Otherwise, the enemys won.
Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Governor.
Now, Mr. Bell, you will have 10 minutes.
Mr. BELL. Governor, I couldnt agree with you more when you
suggest that there is no way possible for us to do everything to
keep the homeland safe. I have said for a long time that you could
take every security precaution known to man, some even unknown
at this particular point in time, and still have someone willing to
kill themselves in order to kill other people. That youre notthere
are going to be instances where you cant defend against that.
I do believe, though, that after September 11th we live in a new
world in some negative ways but also some rather positive ways,
one being that there has been an awakening and there is a sense
of alertness in America that has never been seen before. Things
that not too long ago would have probably been taken for granted,
an unattended piece of luggage in a crowded facility, will now be
pointed out to a security guard. I daresay if an individual like Tim-
othy McVeigh went and tried to purchase an inordinate amount of
race car fuel that would be reported to some authority. If someone
signed up for a flight class and expressed no interest in taking off
or landing the aircraft, that type of suspicious behavior would be
reported.
166
What I am curious about is that the only way that works and
that sense of alertness leads to greater security is if there really
is communication between the various law enforcement authorities;
and I hope that is something positive which has come out of Sep-
tember 11th, too, because we have all heard the stories of turf wars
between various law enforcement entities, the breakdown in com-
munication, information not being transmitted to where it should
be going. Im curious as to what your feelings are on that particular
subject, whether we really have seen better communication be-
tween the different levels of law enforcement.
Mr. GILMORE. Congressman, of course, it has to be addressed on
two levels, one is technological and the other is cultural.
The technological part is the part we still have to reach for, the
ability to have some interoperability to address the spectrum
issues, to get local responders some capacity to have the ability to
use their intercommunications, even to allow some spectrum to
allow people in the private sector to be able to have some commu-
nication capacities within themselves; and that remains I think
ahead of the Congress. But thats the easier part.
But thats the easier part. The more difficult part is the cultural
problem and that is getting intelligence organizations to commu-
nicate with each other. This is an issue we first began to address
in the year 2000 with our report to the Congress on December 15,
2000, where we pointed out that there was not information passing
back and forth laterally among Federal intelligence organizations
FBI, NSA, CIA, all the rest of them. And more importantly, there
was not information traveling vertically up and down the line be-
tween Federal, State and local people.
We pointed out that while within the Federal system, clearances
are granted routinely to elected officials in the Congress, there are
no clearances granted routinely to people in the State bureaucracy
who actually have the primary responsibility to deal with these
issues. I was the Governor of one of the two States directly at-
tacked on September 11th, New York and Virginia were the two
States directly attacked, and based upon that, I know from per-
sonal experience that there was difficulty with that.
In this past report, our fourth annual report, we recommended
that there be a fusion center of intelligence information that would
also have a role to play with Federal, State and local people all
within the fusion center, the communication back and forth be-
tween Federal organizations as well. And a form of that was adopt-
ed by the President in his State of the Union address, and we are
optimistic that will be structured in a way that it can be made to
work.
There is a major issue of how you are going to conduct
counterterrorism activity in the United States to gain that informa-
tion to go into the fusion center from within the homeland. That
remains controversial even on our commission, but we think that
progress is in fact being made. I was briefed at the White House
recently by Admiral Abbott, the acting Homeland Security adviser
to the President, who has pointed out that there are efforts being
made to create those channels up and down the line between Fed-
eral, State and local people.
167
Last point, condition orange has been widely criticized when it

came to pass, but it does have some value, value in communicating
with the terrorists, value in communicating with the American peo-
ple so that there is not a shock if theres another attack, which
would cause a stampede, an overreaction, which I think we are all
concerned about; but also that condition also triggers automatic
communications between Federal, State and local people which I
thought was maybe the most significant point.
Mr. BELL. Dr. OHanlon, Chairman Shays pointed out that he
liked you when he realized that you had served in the Peace Corps.
I liked you when you started making my case for me on port secu-
rity, and I greatly appreciate that. And when I was home a couple
of weeks ago, I started talking to people about this, basically to
raise the flag and see who might salute it.
But I am curious where we go from here, because it is a very le-
gitimate point that when you look at the number of petrochemical
plants we have located along the Houston ship channel and realize
the vulnerability of those plants, and I hope the point you are try-
ing to make is, right now, you can look at that and say, well, that
is your problem or thats their problem. But if there is any kind
of strike against that type of plant, then as you point out, it be-
comes our problem. So, given that, I am curious as to what you
would recommend.
And one thing that Ive consideredhavent actually proposed it
yet, because I want to get input from other people such as your-
selfbut should we be looking toward some type of subsidy pro-
gram for those types of facilities, to provide a certain amount of
Federal assistance, because I do agree with you there, there is a
line and there is an economic line that they will reach.
I think most of the plants in my district have taken extraor-
dinary measures. Theres one chemical plant that I visited that I
thought I was going to have an MRI conducted before I gained ad-
mittance. They go through extraordinary precautions, but there are
limits. And before they are going to go to the full extent, I think
theyre going to be looking to the Federal Government for some
kind of assistance; and I am curious as to what your feelings on
that would be.
Dr. OHANLON. Thank you, Congressman.
Also wrestling with the point that Governor Gilmore made about
how we dont want to get so caught up in homeland security that
we bankrupt the country, its a tough balancing act to work out.
In our Brookings study, we came to a couple of conclusions. One
of them is at the Federal level, we do need some more capability
in institutions like the Coast Guard and in some of the port secu-
rity funding to develop port security plans that, right now, I think
Federal money needs to go up. It doesnt necessarily need to go up
astronomically. The Coast Guard budget already is increasing, but
I think the Coast Guards fleet needs to get bigger. Thats one piece
of it, but its not really your primary concern.
Your primary concern is actual site defense at the place were
talking about. And there, I thinkpersonally, I am not strongly op-
posed to the idea of subsidies, but I am more intrigued, just based
on my research and discussions with economists at Brookings, by
an idea they came up within the course of our study, which is, re-
168
quire a certain minimal level of regulation, minimal level of secu-

rity legislatively, but leave the primary effort to the private sector;
require many of these facilities to have terrorism insurance, and
then the insurance market will work to give people incentives to
adopt best practices because they can offer lower rates to people
who are adopting better security practices.
So thats a partial answer. It still doesnt get to your real concern
of how do we make sure that these facilities arent themselves
bankrupted because we are asking them to adopt a more secure
workplace. If the level of Federal regulation or State regulation is
relatively modest, and we say, you have to do certain basic things,
have monitoring of all your major entrances, have a certain num-
ber of security guards on duty, have a certain number of tests per
year of your response capability, and then leave it the private-sec-
tor insurance markets to help give these people incentives to de-
velop best practices, that may work better than either Federal sub-
sidies. Because there are so many facilities to subsidize, I dont
know how you draw the line or simply trusting the private sector
to get it right on its own.
One more point, if I could bring in a separate example and I am
sorry to go on, but skyscrapers, I worry about anthrax being intro-
duced into the air intake of skyscrapers. As far as I know, there
is still no Federal requirement or State requirement in most places
that these air intake systems be elevated above street level or oth-
erwise protected.
We dont want to fortify every building in the country and we
dont want to mandate this happen immediately, because it would
cost too much. But I think for large buildings, there needs to be
a certain push by the Federal Government for these buildings to
get more secure on how they handle their air circulation systems.
And then, again, the insurance markets can give them incentives
to do even more, and they can choose for themselves whether they
can afford the additional measures like filtering systems in their
air, circulation devices and that sort of thing.
I am not yet prepared to endorse subsidies because of the sheer
number of facilities and the sheer cost of doing so, but I havent
ruled it out either, and maybe there are certain places we have to
at least keep it in mind if the economies of these plants and facili-
tiesif their budgets are so stressed by additional security they
simply cant do it on their own, we may have to at least give them
a temporary helping hand.
Mr. TURNER. Governor Gilmore, I appreciate your comment con-
cerning the sharing of information between local, State and Federal
Governments. I served as mayor for the city of Dayton, and we ac-
tually were one of the few cities and communities that actually
held weapons of mass destruction exercises prior to September
11th. Attorney General John Ashcroft attended those exercises, and
it was phenomenally helpful to our community when September
11th occurred, because we knew who was in charge of what; what
streets were to be closed. We didnt run to the phone book to figure
out what agencies we needed to coordinate with; there had already
been an effort to put together coordination with the FBI, the sheriff
and the like.
169
Recently, I attended a presentation by NCR concerning the appli-

cation of business data collection software to homeland security
issues, and one of the things that they discussed is that the busi-
ness process of handling data and information technologies starts
with the question what information do we need to know in work-
ing backward in designing your systems.
So the question I have for you, Governor and Dr. OHanlon, is,
in this process of making certain that we are sharing information,
what should we be doing or how is it goingin our efforts to define
what we need to be doing, what information is it that we need to
make certain that we avail ourselves of as we look to sharing that?
Mr. GILMORE. I think thats a new topic. The issue of what type
of data, I suppose youre really referring to, if youre talking about
a National Cash Register-type of presentation, CR-type of
presentation
Mr. TURNER. It was interesting in the discussion because they
talked about, do you start looking at what data you have and start
sharing that, or do you start with the question of what do we need
to know and what levels do we need to know it. And they clearly
indicated, even from the business process, and they believe from
the government and homeland security process, that there should
be a process of defining what are those things that we believe that
we need to know as we go through setting up our systems and
sharing that information.
Mr. GILMORE. There has certainly been a lot of discussion going
on about the DARPA program that the Pentagon was attempting
to conduct, the total information awareness. It was depicted at its
inception as being so broad that it just scared the living daylights
out of everybody. And I think this Congress decided to put the
clamps on that somewhat. So that was, I think, maybe a starting
effort to determine what you need to know, and it may have been
defined so broadly that it wasnt going to go anywhere.
So it may be that if we can go through a definition process, we
can preserve civil liberties and the privacy and anonymity of people
as Americans at the same time we are providing for the capability
of our counterterrorism people to focus on the right kinds of indi-
viduals or people. But thats a definitional process that still has to
be gone through.
I think it has to be handled with the greatest care, and the rea-
son is that today we live in an America that has two elements. I
am not sure it is unique, but yeah, it might be. One is the Amer-
ican media to fix and manage our problems. If we say we have this
problem here and this great managerial class called United States
of America 2003 is going to try to find some technological or mana-
gerial approach to fixing the problem, that would go to the question
of how you define that.
And the second, that is probably unique in the history of man-
kind, is this enormous technological society we live in and the ca-
pacity to gather data and to hold data and to keep data, which does
threaten the potential privacy and character of the values of the
American people.
Do you have to strike that balance? I think it is entirely a policy
question. You will be led, Congressman, to the sense that it is a
technological question and a managerial question. It is not; it is a
170
policy question of how much you are going to permit to be accumu-

lated in order to preserve the security of the country. That is a
judgment call based upon the values you bring with you to the
Congress.
Dr. OHANLON. Congressman, in this dichotomy you put forth, do
you take what information you have and process it more or do you
go out and look for more? You have to do both, but I want to em-
phasize the second piece. I want to do the equivalent of Phoenix
memos as much as we can.
So what I mean by that, I would like to see local, State and Fed-
eral law enforcement authorities sharing information. If we happen
to see 10 places in the country where there are people casing air-
fields on the same day or two, you want to know that its not just
one isolated place, and if it happens in one place in South Dakota
and one place in Virginia and one place in Maryland, no one ever
knows that its happened at all these places simultaneously.
What you want to do is piece that information together or have
it in some kind of a data base where somebody with a creative idea
can write a computer program and say, am I seeing any suspicious
behavior that is systematic?
So you want to have data entered into your National Law En-
forcement Information System that allows that kind of correlation
analysis to be done. And whether it is medical supplies being sto-
len, airfields being cased, crop dusters being rented, there are a lot
of things that can fall into the category of flight trainingthat we
know very well from 2001that you would want to know about, es-
pecially if they were happening at more than one place at a time,
suggesting some kind of a conspiracy. And thats where you need
to generate the data and probably more of the data than we have
today, get it into the data bases and then allow some kind of cen-
tral analysis through Homeland Securitys Threat Analysis System.
That is the sort of thing I want to see much more of. And that
is going to require cultural improvements and technological im-
provements, as Governor Gilmore said before. I think the Federal
Government is going to have to ultimately support improvement in
information technology at the State and local level much more and
maybe even subsidize some of it.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Newhouse, your comments were very interest-
ing. Some of the analysis, I was concerned, certainly was so one-
sided that it left out elements of what we all know is occurring.
You state that one of the issues that needs to occur is starting
with an end to Israels occupation of the West Bank. I didnt notice
in your comments the call for the ending of suicide bombing at-
tacks. Your statements appear to be solely placing responsibility on
what we believe are the responsible states and democracies, in-
stead of the parties that are doing very egregious acts; and I would
like some of your comments about that.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. They certainly are egregious and self-injurious.
They are also, if you like, a response to what they see as the illegal
occupation of their territory and the settlement activity, which ev-
eryone has said, including President Bush, has got to stop.
There are also acts being committed by, if you will, rejectionist
groups who are also terrorist groups. And the leadership, Mr. Ara-
fats leadership, whichhis is really an awful leadership. It is cor-
171
rupt and it doesnt advance the interest of the Palestinian people

in any way, but because it is weak, inherently weak, it is unable
to do anything about these acts. It has actually tried and failed.
These acts you speak of are being committed by the terrorist
groups, and these are not terrorist groups that export, but they are
devoted entirely to harming Israel. But there is very little from
here that we can do about it, other thanin my opinion, except for
doing what I suggested that we do, which is restart the Middle
East peace process.
Mr. TURNER. I would take it that you would not indicate that you
believe that the suicide bombings are advancing the cause of a Pal-
estinian state or resulting in a greater likelihood of that occurring?
I mean, it sets back, obviously, the peace process. And when
their occurrence is neglected, in your comments, as merely a re-
sponsibility ofor the setbacks are a result of Israels reaction, I
think it doesnt provide us with the information that we need to
come to a conclusion as to what really the United States needs to
be doing.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Well, I would agree with you that the acts of ter-
rorism committed against Israel are certainly from the point of
view of Palestinian interests and are deeply counterproductive. As
of now, there seems to be very little that anyone can do about that
directly. The Palestinian leadership has been unable to do anything
about it; the Israelis themselves are unable to do anything about
it because retaliation simply invites more of the same.
So it is kind of a demonic process going on, and as I said, there
is very little, if anything, that the United States can contribute di-
rectly to heading it off, stopping it. But I think, in a larger sense,
generating some stability out there and getting the sides together
in a peace process, I think, is really the only weapon available.
Mr. TURNER. In your comments, you also talked about your con-
cern about the preemption doctrine having an impact of exacerbat-
ing the threats in the United States, and you ended a paragraph
with Terrorism may be contained if intelligence services and police
agencies acquire the habit of cooperating closely and with each
other and suppressing their competitive instincts and preference
for acting alone.
When the intelligence services and police agencies are cooperat-
ing, what action would you think would result from that?
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Well, if they are cooperating, then I think we
are in very good shape. The problem is getting intelligence agencies
and police agencies to cooperate systematically.
Frequently, they will cooperate. Going back to 1984, the Los An-
geles Olympicsthis may have been a first, maybe it wasnt the
first, but we do know at that time the CIA and the FBI worked to-
gether very closely. They were under a lot of pressure from the
White House to do exactly that. Not only that, but they were co-
operating with their counterpart agencies in other governments, so
that in the days preceding the Los Angeles Olympics, the FBI was
able to assure Members of this body at that time that nothing
would happen. They categorically said, nothing will happen at the
Los Angeles Olympics; weve got these groups so penetrated, we
know what theyre thinking about before they think or what theyre
going to do before they do.
172
Much was the same at other major events: Y2K was an example,
or the Gulf war when we rolled up 30 different plots to commit ter-
rorist acts. The problem is, when agencies, both within our country
and in their dealings with other countries, ramp up, in a phrase,
forto make sure nothing happens at a given time, the tendency
then isafter nothing has happened and the event is over, is to
ramp down and go back to the so-called stovepipe method where
information is gathered at one level, or low level, if you will, and
it drifts upward to the top and then it stops there, it isnt trans-
ferred.
Because knowledge is power, and an agency that has information
that perhaps another agency doesnt have and uses that informa-
tion to advantage, sometimes in the budgetary processanyway,
its counterintuitive to cooperate.
Mr. TURNER. Thank you.
Chairman Shays.
Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very
eager to get into this dialog. I love this panel, and I guess I am
fascinated by the issue because we fought for 4 years about this.
You know, in the beginning, Governor Gilmore, it was almost
theoretical because, you know, we just didnt come to grips with it
fully until September 11th, but this is what I want to first start
out with.
After September 11th the eight National Strategies to Combat
Terrorismthis is what I am hearing from this panelthat after
September 11th, the eight National Strategies to Combat Terror-
ism are a good start, but there is more work to be done.
And then, Dr. Krepinevich, I look at your statement and you say,
you know, the National Security Act of 1947, it took until 1958 be-
fore it was structured. The structure was refined, and then you put
in parentheses and even then it was only partial. We looked for
a number of years before we had a reorganization that fit into this,
in a sense, the strategy.
Now, soand you had Eisenhower in 1952. I mean, you had all
these stages of trying to improve this response to what was then
the Soviet Union.
So what I want to know is, do you think this is a good starting
point, if you all agree, and that we need moremore work needs
to be done. And these are the areas I sense you are saying: Interro-
gation among the strategies; intelligence strategy, big question
mark because that was pointed out as not existing. Should there
be an intelligence strategy, or is there one that we just dont sense?
Ensuring that our nationalnot Federal strategies; I think, Gov-
ernor Gilmore, that was your point, interesting concept of national
versus Federal. And the need for more clear measures of effective-
ness.
So thats where the work needs done. And would you agree and
would you want to speak to it, and would you want to add a fifth
or sixth?
Dr. KREPINEVICH. I think we are off to a good start; were better
off than we were a couple of years ago. Im not sure what to com-
pare this to.
Are the strategies integrated? I think, as certain members of this
panel have indicatedlet me speak for myself. I think there are
173
certainly gaps that have raised a number of issues that we have

not come to grips with.
Do we need an intelligence strategy? I think if we are going to
do what Governor Gilmore suggests, which I think is probably a
way to get around the cost-imposing strategy that the terrorists in-
tentionally or unintentionally are pursuing, the way to do it is to
get them, as opposed to trying to provide an airtight defense our-
selves.
Doing that certainly is going to require expert intelligence. We
have underinvested in human intelligence of the kind that is typi-
cally crucial to breaking down these organizations.
Mr. SHAYS. So would your point be that we need an intelligence
strategy added to this list of strategies and then integrate it?
Dr. KREPINEVICH. Certainly you need a strategy for how you are
going to employ your terrorist assets. It should fall out of your
overall strategy. For example, if you are going to emphasize pre-
emption, then I think the weight of your intelligence effort is going
to be overseas. If you are going to emphasize a layered defense of
the continental United States and Alaska and Hawaii, then more
of your intelligence efforts may be at our borders and internal to
the United States, which require a different kind of intelligence.
So I do think the kind of strategy you choose begins to inform
how you are going to apply your intelligence assets and what kind
of priorities you are going to place on them.
In terms of measures of effectiveness, I think weve only begun
to scratch the surface on this. For example, I think the National
Strategy for Combating Terrorism says, well know that weve won
when Americans feel safe and secure and free of a terrorist threat.
Thats probably true, but it doesnt really give the person who has
to execute a strategy much of a sense of what they need to do to
try and achieve that end.
I would say two strategic measures of effectiveness that I would
certainly consider are: one, what is an acceptable level of damage
for the United States to incur? If its impossible to provide airtight
security over the United States, whats an acceptable level of dam-
age and can we achieve it? What strategic alternative can give us
the best prospect of essentially suffering an attack and having an
acceptable level of damage?
The other is our freedom of action, because success is not only
our ability to defend ourselves here at home, but its our ability to
protect our vital interests overseas. If we feel under such risk of
attack here that we forgo our ability to, for example, protect critical
areas whether its East Asia, the Persian Gulf where we have vital
interests, then we will have been deterred because of our vulner-
ability here at home or our ability to deal with the threat abroad.
So I do think that in terms of measures of effectiveness, again
you can go up and down the line, whether its dealing with cyber
attacks
Mr. SHAYS. Bottom line, there needs to be a lot more improve-
ment and the whole issue of whether were effective or not in deter-
mining how well even measure effectiveness?
Dr. KREPINEVICH. Absolutely.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Newhouse, do you want to speak to the issue of
improving integration? Do we need an intelligence strategy, na-
174
tional versus the Federal issue and measures of effectiveness and

any other strategy?
I am asking you, Mr. Newhouse. If you dont want to speak to
it, I will go to Dr. OHanlon.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I think we spent a lot of time on
this today, and I think Governor Gilmore and Dr. OHanlon would
have a lot more that would be useful.
Mr. SHAYS. Let me get to you in another question.
Dr. OHanlon, one thing I say about a Peace Corps volunteer is,
we were taught to understand the people that we lived with, and
there were things that we did and said that when you understood
their culture, you were able to interact and communicate with
them.
Is there a role that needs to be played here in our strategy on
terrorism as well? I am jumping aheaddo you know what I just
asked you?
Dr. OHANLON. Its a tough question. Clearly the answer is yes.
You need to understand your partners and the needs of other coun-
tries. I dont know how to build it into a formalized process like
this with todays focus on security strategies.
Maybe what I would say is that the National Security Strategy,
which really should be at the pinnacle and does have some discus-
sion of the needs of developing countries, to take one category of
overseas partners, it sort of gets cheapened when there are all
these other strategies that are out there. And I worry about the
proliferation of documents, because we should all still be reading
and developing and debating the National Security Strategy, and
we did for awhile in the fall.
And then preemption was the flavor of the month for a few
weeks, and now were on to other documents. And theres a lot of
stuff in the National Security Strategy that has nothing to do with
preemption, as you well know, largely this economic assistance
issue for developing countries who are very important partners of
ours in counterterrorism.
So its not a very clear issue.
Mr. SHAYS. I kind of got you off the topic here. I was eager to
share a bias that I have here without thinking it through.
Let me ask you to address the issuethe eight strategies are a
good start, better integration. Do we need an intelligence strat-
egynational, not Federaland the whole issue of effectiveness.
Comment on any of those?
Dr. OHANLON. I will comment on a couple of them. I had the op-
portunity to at least tangentially talk about a couple of the others
already.
The issue of national versus Federal response, it does occur to
me that we need to spend more time thinking about the State and
local role. Obviously, Governor Gilmore has more experience than
I do. But I, for example, have some contacts at the L.A. city council
who were very concerned about the delay in the first responder
fund over the last year. And Washington let down the States and
the local governments in having this stalemate on that.
And one can look for different people to blame, but the bottom
line is, I think, Washington didnt get the job done until too late.
We spent a whole year when we should have been dealing with
175
first responder capacity, improving that, and we really didnt do

much.
In fact, Im told that in L.A. city council debates, advocates of
doing more were often stymied because others would say, Washing-
ton is going to help us pretty soon, we dont have to find the
money, just wait and the $3.5 billion is going to start to come our
way. And people who wanted to find local funds had their own ar-
gument for finding local funds undercut by this promise from
Washington that was not fulfilled for a full year.
So maybeyou know, I hate to call for more strategies, but
maybe we do need to get the Federal versus national distinction a
little more prominent in our thinking and spend more timeI was
delighted to see the Governors put some pressure on Washington
a couple of weeks ago, and I think well need more of that.
Mr. SHAYS. Governor Gilmoreand I will take my next round to
talk about the whole issue of multiunilateral, and this whole
issue of preemptive.
Mr. GILMORE. Congressman, it is a good start. We didnt have a
national strategy before September 11th, of any kind; now we have
eight strategies. And I guess I would like to think about them a
little bit and the Commission will think about them a little bit. I
believe that will be a topic we will address in this 5th year for the
Congress and for the President and try to think through that.
I think we should make sure they dont contradict each other or
that they dont place different emphases. But I think were going
to find that these aresupplement each other. Some of the strate-
gies like the cyber and so on like that are points of emphasis, and
I am not sure that I see them as something where you have to try
to conglomerate them into one overall strategy. I think it might
work out all right, but we will look at that.
The intelligence piece is really tricky. This is very, very difficult.
We have placed a great emphasis on this all of our 4 years that
we have been in existence and recommended that stovepiping be
broken through and fusion center be created and the culture of sep-
aration be broken down between all these different agencies.
The trick is that you do all that and you run the risk of contami-
nating the society by looking over the shoulder of regular people
out there who are just trying to live their lives every day. This is
tricky. It means that we all believe that you have to do effective
sharing of information to get at the bad guys, but at the same time,
you have to find some method to not be looking over the shoulder
of the good guys.
This is a very tricky challengenational, not Federal, absolutely.
And I think that this is the real, maybe one of the focuses. I would
say to you, Congressman Shays, that the danger here is, we are
going to get so caught up with how you put the agencies together
and the Department together, that you implement everything, that
we lose some focus and momentum toward actually doing the
things that are going to be necessary. I am uneasy with the idea
that every witness who comes before you for the next year is going
through a list of vulnerability that he sees within his own State
and then, of course, naturally demand money to go into that State
to take care of that vulnerability. Thats not a very good approach.
176
Instead, you have to find an all-hazards type of approach, one

that really focuses on enabling the States to create State-oriented
plans in cooperation with their localities so that instead of worry-
ing about any individual chemical plant, you enable your localities
and your States to observe that plant, all the plants, all the rail-
roads, all the airlines, and enable them to be watched in a reason-
able way and to respond if an attack does occur and to circumscribe
the potential attack.
The key issue is implementing that, really not worrying so much
about the organization as implementation of the program to, in
fact, get out here and to get proper funding in accordance with the
proper strategy, in accordance with a proper State plan and make
sure that they are properly equipped, enabled, and they know who
is on first and that its properly exercised and ultimately measured.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would love to come back. When the
Governor has had a chance, I would love to get into the issue of
preemption.
Mr. JANKLOW. Go ahead and then Ill go.
Mr. SHAYS. Dr. Krepinevich, do you agree with Dr. OHanlon that
a policy of preemptive self-defense should be more implicit than ex-
plicit?
Dr. KREPINEVICH. I agree with him to the extent that, the option
of preemption is nothing new. For example, in the Solarium Study
you cited, one of the three groups explicitly looked at conducting
what was called preventive war against China. President Kennedy
also explored in great detail and actually engaged the Soviets in
discussions about a preemptive attack on Chinas developing nu-
clear facilities.
Certainly, President Clinton debated with his security advisers
the prospect of conducting a preemptive attack on the North Ko-
rean reactor at Yongbyon. So this is not new; it has always been
an option in our strategic arsenal.
I think perhaps by stating it as boldly as the President did, it
might have garnered some unwanted attention on the part of the
administration.
On the other hand, I think its also necessary to point out to peo-
ple that the last big threat that we faced, the Soviet Union, was
a threat that we felt could be deterred; and so we put a lot of our
eggs in the basket of deterrence. And that is why we had public
statements of strategy, because again we wanted to get into the
minds of the Soviets. We wanted them to understand that any un-
acceptable action on their part would produce catastrophic con-
sequences for them.
Well, what do you do when you cant deter a group that can in-
flict substantial damage on your country? You have to begin to re-
weigh your balance of options. And this administration has argued
for preemptionwhich is really preventive war in the case of
Iraqand Im not quite sure how you preempt somebody youre al-
ready at war with; we are already at war with terroristsbut at
any rate, I think youve got to prepare the American people for the
fact that we are going to be acting perhaps quite differently than
we have in the past. And the reason is because our traditional reli-
ance on deterrence has been eroded.
177
And you have to prepare the American public and you have to
make the case to its elected Representatives for their support to de-
velop the capabilities, because they are not identical to the kinds
of capabilities you would want for a posture of deterrence.
Mr. SHAYS. Governor Gilmore, would you speak to this issue
next? I would just preface it by saying, I think this is a huge issue
that there has to be lots of debate about.
Dr. OHanlon, I dont come down on your side of the argument
because it strikes me that the world community has to know that
they cant allow a small group of dedicated scientists within their
borders to do something that could wipe out humanity. We have to
be honest with our own folks and say, this isntthis needs to be
stated explicitly, because this is the world you live in. Its a dif-
ferent world.
So I am giving you my answer to it, but Id be happy to have you
comment to it, Governor.
Mr. GILMORE. Congressman, I think we have an obligation to be
very precise on our threat assessment before we decide to take seri-
ous military action. The intelligence community ought to be able to
give us some testable advice about any particular risk. The chance
of a dedicated group of scientists someplace creating a bio weapon
that can destroy humanity is remote, so you should be cautious.
Mr. SHAYS. Why do you say, its remote?
Mr. GILMORE. Its hard to do. All of the information that our com-
mission has gotten is that its extremely difficult to get these weap-
ons, extremely difficult to weaponize them and extremely difficult
to deliver them. We were not prepared to rule out a weapon-of-
mass-destruction attack on the United States, but in the very first
year, we assessed the likelihood of a conventional attack on this
country as being highly probable, the chance of a weapon-of-mass-
destruction attack on this country as being highly improbable, not
completely beyond the pale; and thats why we have considered it
on a continuous basis as we have gone on.
Our most recent threat assessment contained in our fourth re-
port changes that analysis not one whit. Its just very difficult to
deliver those kinds of weapons, and we should be cautious about
governing policy along those lines.
Mr. SHAYS. Its difficult if you are not willing to carry it yourself.
But if youre willing to carry it yourself, it becomes a lot easier.
Mr. GILMORE. If you can get it.
Mr. SHAYS. There are two parts. But if you are willing to infect
yourself and others who are very willing to, you know, be blown up
in an airplane that hits a building, it strikes me that the reality
becomes very different.
Mr. GILMORE. Its very difficult to get those weapons. Its very
difficult to create those weapons.
Its very difficult to get smallpox, for example, very difficult to
weaponize it. If our suggestions are put into place, particularly on
the health sidewhich has been the greatest extent of our work,
by the way, for the 4 years has been the health piece and the pub-
lic health system and the ability of hospitals to deal with thisyou
could contain those kinds of attacks, should they occur. But they
still remain highly unlikely compared to that which terrorists can
178
get, which are explosive devices, hijackings, attacking vulnerable

points. That is very likely and has of course, been borne out.
I think your question with respect to this, I think September
11th is driving and coloring the policy decisions that the Congress
is making and the executive branch is making. The threat seems
so much more real after September 11th in terms of the potential
attack, which then leads us to the analysis that if you allow either
a terrorist organization or a foreign country to continue to develop
these kinds of weapons, and with the visceral fear we now have in
America with this kind of attack, then that leads more toward a
policy of preemption, the notion being that we cant allow someone
to develop that kind of weapon and put us in that kind of position.
Even if they cant get the weapon here, which they probably
cant, they could get it around their neighbors, and then, in that
position, upset the entire balance of a major region where the na-
tional interests of the United States are at stake. This is the analy-
sis, I believe, of the President.
Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Governor.
Mr. TURNER. Do you have any additional questions?
Mr. JANKLOW. Let me pick up on where Congressman Shays left
off on the comments that some of you panelists made.
Governor Gilmore, its extremely difficult to manufacture these,
theres no question about that. But when a State sponsors the re-
search and the manufacturing, just exactly like has gone on histori-
cally in the Soviet Union, what has gone on in North Korea and
clearly what is going on in Iraq.
I mean, we can all argue and will continue to argue what is or
isnt present in Iraq. But after the inspections started back in the
1990s and after several years and after Saddam Husseins son-in-
law came out of the country and then others talked about what was
inside the country, all of a sudden the worldthere was an admis-
sion, there was anthrax in the country in very substantial quan-
tities and research going on.
There was smallpox within the country. There was no candid ad-
mission, but I dont think theres been any intelligence service from
any country that hasnt understood that there has been smallpox
research going on in Iraq.
Clearly, there was research with respect to risin and some of the
other types of weapons of mass destruction.
You dont have to wipe out the human race in order to wreck it,
especially when you live in as sophisticated a society and economy
as we have. September 11th is a classic example of the hundreds
of billions of dollars, the price were paying for those particular in-
cidents taking place.
Our country has had a long history of explosions: antiwar efforts
blowing up buildings at the University of Wisconsin; as I recall, the
Symbionese Liberation Army [SLA], back a couple of decades and
explosions they were doing; things that some other groups were in-
volved in. Europe clearly had the Red Guard and all of those types
of things. Japan has had the incidents with respect to poisonous
gas.
But the point is, it doesnt take much in a society to change the
standard of living, to change the culture.
179
You keep talking aboutvery eloquently, Governor, about how

we just have to evaluate all this and then we have to make policy
decisions. But the fact of the matter is, no one who drafted our Bill
of Rights, or subsequently that has dealt with it, ever had in mind
the kinds of terrorism or the kinds of wanton acts that human
beings would do to one another with respect to deliberately inflict-
ing diseases and those types of things. So, I mean, we have a tre-
mendous challenge, as you keep saying all the time, where do we
draw that line?
I think hoof and mouth disease, although it has been with ani-
mals, is a classic example of how easy it is to spreadfor example,
smallpox is not a difficult disease to spread. Clearly, its done by
contact. But to the extent that people are as mobile as they are in
todays world, again if someone is willing to die, to infect them-
selves with smallpox and theyre willing to die, they can have a
huge amount of contact with others, like at airports or public are-
nas, what have you, before they reach the point where they are no
longer capable of being a bomb themselves.
So after having said all of this rhetoric, my question to you and
to you, Mr. Krepinevich, is what is itwhat is it that should be ex-
pected to us? If youre a citizen out there, what is it they should
expect of us to be able to dois there anything we can do in the
legislative sense? Is it our responsibility to talk about it? What is
it that should be expected of us?
Mr. GILMORE. Its a very great policy question. I dont think that
the American people should expect of their legislators that they are
going to provide them complete security from all imaginable at-
tacks and terrorism. I dont think the legislature can do that. Its
unrealistic to hold you accountable for some diseased mind and
some idea that somebody might come forward withand, you
know, it doesnt even have to be a weapon of mass destruction. It
can be a bomb in a local McDonalds in downtown St. Louis.
Mr. JANKLOW. It could be snipers.
Mr. GILMORE. And I think we have to begin to go through the
education process that says that we are going to assess the risk in
a realistic way. Were going to take the appropriate measures that
are realistically based upon those threats, those realistic threats;
and then we are going to get on with our lives and understand that
were going to live like we have always lived. And I think thats
part of the answer of both expectations.
I mean its clear that you dont have to have weapons of mass
destruction to wreck a society. I think the society is on a hair trig-
ger right now, and I think we need to back away from that a little
bit.
The agricultural terrorismby the way, I want to throw in, since
you raised it, Congressman, that we have a whole chapter here on
agricultural terrorism, so we are not excluding any possibility as a
weapon of mass destruction, hoof and mouth disease or any other
potential attack.
But we think theres an obligation to reasonably assess the
threats in a realistic way. Try to avoidin a perfect world, I sup-
pose, trying to guard against everything for fear that if you miss
something and something bad happens, then some commentator or
180
some newspaper is going to criticize you and say that you didnt
think of that.
Mr. JANKLOW. Thats what they do, though.
Mr. GILMORE. We cant think of everything. And we have to be
honest about it with the American people that we owe an obliga-
tion to reasonably assess the threats, put together a national strat-
egy and make sure all the resources of Federal, State and local peo-
ple are drawn to it, and we all understand what it is, were prop-
erly funded, not crazily funded, and then put it into place; and then
build this and then explain to the American people that life has
never been risk free and go on from there and ask them to live free
lives.
Mr. JANKLOW. Dr. Krepinevich.
Dr. KREPINEVICH. To come full circle, again, Congress has the re-
sponsibility of the purse to provide the means. Congress is also re-
sponsible for declaring war. So I think its appropriate that Con-
gress pass judgment on the strategy, which essentially is, how we
are going to go about dealing with this particular threat to our se-
curity?
So what does this mean? I will count off a number of things that
I think Congress has to look for. One is, do we have an adequate
statement of the character of the threat? Is the threat a renegade
group that were talking about in terms of international terrorism,
or is it a popular movement?
If its a popular movement, then it takes on the characteristics
of an insurgency; and an insurgency is a popular movement that
has got a fundamental level of support among a specific group of
the population. If this is a movement in the Arab world, for exam-
ple, or in the Islamic world, then its not essentially a police action.
Its an action that at some point if you are going to get rid of this
brand of terrorism, you are going to have to go after the root causes
of why these people are doing what theyre doing.
And it seems to me their objective is to get the U.S. influence
out of their part of the world, and in a sense, to keep Americans
from exporting their culture, to stop being Americans in a sense.
So what is the character of the threat that were dealing with?
What is the goal? What do we wish to accomplish? What are the
means?
And, again, your responsibility is to get a sense of whether the
means can actually be provided. Are we willing to make that kind
of a national commitment to X billions of dollars year after year
after year because, as we know, the President said: that this is a
protracted conflict which were in.
Preemption, strategists will tell you, buys you time. When the
Israelis attached the Osirak reactor in 1981, they bought them-
selves time. What do you do with that time? That has got to be a
critical part of your strategy.
Metrics, again, how do we measure progress, not just in one area,
but in a number of areas. But I think that is if we have these mul-
tiple strategies then we ought to have performance metrics.
Mr. JANKLOW. Dont you thinkand I am cutting you off just a
little because of time, but dont you think when Congress, when all
of America, focuses like they did after September 11th, which we
all agree was a focal point for us, and then we all agreed we need-
181
ed a homeland security-something, and then we get hung up and

Congress goes home for Christmas and everybody just takes time
off while we discuss civil service protections for people, doesnt that
reallyand I am not questioning the impact it has on individuals
that are employed in the government. Im not. But doesnt that
really trivialize it for someone out there in Timbuktu, America,
with respect to what it is, the sense of urgency we are trying to
convince them were dealing with?
And then we still havent funded it. Now theyre all screaming,
wheres the money? We told them we would give them the money.
Were not giving them the money. Doesnt this really fly in the face
of what we call a sense of urgency?
Dr. KREPINEVICH. I think certainly there needs to be a sense of
urgency. One of the political wags opined that the situation is criti-
cal, but not serious and in a sense you could argue
Mr. JANKLOW. Where I come from we call that a distinction with-
out a difference.
Dr. KREPINEVICH. Again, the years 1945 to 1950 when we devel-
oped a containment strategy, we were not at war. We were not
being attacked. We did not have military forces engaged in combat.
We certainly need that sense of urgency. And I couldnt agree
with you more. The question is, what is it going to take to get that
sense of urgency?
Mr. JANKLOW. We dont have it, and we expect the public to
givewe are privy to folks like you coming before us to give us in-
formation. But out in the hinterland, they dont get that. They will
get a snippet of this. They will get a paragraph of this in some
third rewrite of an AP story.
Im not being critical. Im just saying, it isnt fair to them in
order for them to drag their politicians to make policy decisions.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, do you have any additional ques-
tions?
Mr. SHAYS. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to thank the witnesses for their participation today and par-
ticularly to thank you, Governor Gilmore, because when we set this
up, you could have asked for a separate panel. It would have made
it not as interesting, and by your participating with the other three
panels this way, it makes it more informative. I appreciate you not
pulling rank like that.
I would like to thank the rest of youjust a tremendous job.
Mr. TURNER. Well, I would like to thank the panelists also and
ask if you have any additional comments or statements you would
like to be included in the record. Do any of you have any additional
comments?
Mr. NEWHOUSE. I remained silent during this brief discussion,
but it seems to me, rightly or wrongly, there isnt any sense of
prioritizing this enormous range of threat.
The so-called threat of terrorism has a number of elements.
And there was discussion just a few minutes ago about focusing the
publicmaking the public more aware. Seems to me the publics
attention has been focused, but it has been focused on Iraq. And
Iraq is a real threat, ugly threat. The issue, reallyand its de-
bated and theres a case to be made either way, but the case is
whether its an imminent threat, or if it isnt an imminent threat,
182
how imminent. Is it more imminent than say the interrelated

threat from al-Qaeda and the Arab-Israeli quarrel. Or Pakistan
and the interaction between Pakistan and North Korea, the fact
that this technology exchange betweencould result in the North
Koreans selling nuclear technology to this one and that one, anyone
who is prepared to buy it. It is also the case that while we are de-
bating a lot of this, that is, to say what to do about Iraq, that India
and Pakistan will shoot their way to the head of the agenda.
So theres a lot to worry about. But I myself dont get any sense
of prioritizing the range of threats.
Mr. TURNER. If other members of the panel have no additional
comments, we thank you again and we will be adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]


House Hearing, 108TH Congress - Combating Terrorism: A Proliferation of Strategies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

House Hearing, 108TH Congress - Combating Terrorism: A Proliferation of Strategies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

House Hearing, 108TH Congress - Combating Terrorism: A Proliferation of Strategies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMBATING TERRORISM: A PROLIFERATION OF

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,

Serial No. 10820

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

PETER SIRH, Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING THREATS AND INTERNATIONAL

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2003

To meet the demands of a new, more dangerous world, the execu-

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would

action could result in more terrorist attacks being directed against

of less than 1,000 people. So we can begin to understand the mag-

Overall, the strategies do generally form a national framework

Mr. DECKER. Sir, its difficult to answer. I dont think weve

money going for chemical and biological decontamination equip-

ing in expertise from different agencies and departments as need-

Strategy for Combatting Terrorism, one being offensive, one defen-

Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir.

strategies do address significant issues that the administration is

So I really think that the burden is on Saddam to explain to us

said it could be 6 months away. So, I mean, this very

I want to thank the Chair for engaging in this discussion. Thank

structured and the division of responsibility and how we operate.

Mr. JANKLOW. But, sir, if we do that, if I can interrupt you for

think about that. The pressure, I mean, through our oversight, I

giant cyberwar effort, if you will. It seems that it would make

At this time we will go to the next panel. Is there anything I

ment, not just Federal involvement; focusing on the difficulty of in-

We congratulate this committee for going about the oversight

Mr. SHAYS. At this time we would call on Dr. OHanlon.

After September 11th, we did a very good job of trying to im-

more money in the 2004 Homeland Security budget for information

On April 4 last year, Mr. Bush said, Enough is enough. And he

attacks on the United States. Both hard-liners and reformers de-

Mr. SHAYS. Dr. Krepinevich, you have a lot of pressure on you

Second, I think this set of strategies is clearly an effort to pro-

a strategy that can effectively apply our limited resources to

Mr. SHAYS. I really appreciate all four of your testimonies. I am

I no longer remember what became of that effort. Maybe it was the

greater stability to the regionand I mean the entire region. That

the path of trying to address all vulnerabilities in the Nation. You

Last point, condition orange has been widely criticized when it

quire a certain minimal level of regulation, minimal level of secu-

Recently, I attended a presentation by NCR concerning the appli-

policy question of how much you are going to permit to be accumu-

rupt and it doesnt advance the interest of the Palestinian people

certainly gaps that have raised a number of issues that we have

tional versus the Federal issue and measures of effectiveness and

first responder capacity, improving that, and we really didnt do

Instead, you have to find an all-hazards type of approach, one

get, which are explosive devices, hijackings, attacking vulnerable

You keep talking aboutvery eloquently, Governor, about how

ed a homeland security-something, and then we get hung up and

how imminent. Is it more imminent than say the interrelated

You might also like