[Senate Hearing 106-145]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 106-145


 
             COUNTERTERRORISM AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                                before a

                          SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                       ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            SPECIAL HEARING

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations



                                



 Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

                                 ______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
 57-802 cc                   WASHINGTON : 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
 Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402


                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                     TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington             FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana                BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYL, Arizona
                   Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
                 Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
               James H. English, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

   Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
                            Related Agencies

                  JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska                  ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
                                     ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
                                       (ex officio)
                           Professional Staff
                              Jim Morhard
                             Kevin Linskey
                               Paddy Link
                               Dana Quam
                              Clayton Heil
                         Lila Helms (Minority)
                         Emelie East (Minority)
                     Eric Harnischfeger (Detailee)
                        Tim Harding (Detailee)



                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                           Secretary of State

                                                                   Page

Statement of Hon. Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State......     1
Prepared statement of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell............     5
Prepared statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg................     7
Prepared statement of Madeleine K. Albright......................    11

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
                     Office of the Attorney General

Statement of Hon. Janet Reno, Attorney General...................    24
Attorney General Reno's opening statement........................    24
Agency cooperation and preparedness..............................    24
Infrastructure protection against terrorism......................    26
Terrorism budget strategy........................................    26
Federal partnership with State and local law enforcement.........    26
Threat of cyber attack...........................................    28
Prepared statement of Janet Reno.................................    29
Preventing and responding to terrorism...........................    32
Domestic preparedness efforts....................................    34
Tools............................................................    36
Resources........................................................    38

                    Federal Bureau of Investigation

Statement of Louis J. Freeh, Director............................    40
Director Freeh's opening statement...............................    40
Interagency cooperation..........................................    40
Critical national infrastructure protection......................    42
Prepared statement of Louis J. Freeh.............................    42
Top down coordination............................................    56
Embassy security.................................................    57
National Guard role..............................................    60
Clarification of the Authority to activate the National Guard....    61
FBI-local law enforcement cooperation............................    61
FBI planning and exercise efforts................................    61
Top off exercise.................................................    62
Role of the National Guard in response to domestic terrorist 
  incidents......................................................    62
Y2K impact.......................................................    63
Preparations for possible year 2000 (Y2K) terrorist activities...    64
Additional legislative authorities...............................    64
Encryption.......................................................    65
Special events management........................................    66
Aviation support.................................................    68
First responder training.........................................    68
Additional committee questions...................................    69
    Department of State..........................................    69
        Questions submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici..........    69
        Questions submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg.......    70
    Department of Justice........................................    71
        Questions submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici..........    71
            First responder training.............................    71
        Questions submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg.......    75
            Fundraising in support of terrorism..................    75
        Questions submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy..........    76
            Interoperable communications between Federal, State, 
              and local emergency and law enforcement personnel..    76
            Counterterrorism.....................................    78

                                  (iii)



             COUNTERTERRORISM AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1999

                           U.S. Senate,    
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and 
                                     State,
               the Judiciary, and Related Agencies,
                               Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senators Gregg, Campbell, Gorton, Hollings, 
Mikulski, and Leahy.

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                           Secretary of State

STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT, SECRETARY OF 
            STATE
    Senator Gregg. We will get started. I know the Secretary of 
State is on her way. Since a number of the members did want to 
make opening statements, we will make the opening statements 
and then by that time the Secretary will be here. She was at 
the prayer breakfast and is wandering over.
    I want to thank the Attorney General, the Director, and the 
Secretary of State for being willing to participate in this 
hearing, the purpose of which is the ongoing effort that this 
subcommittee has made and the Congress has made to address the 
issue of terrorism, and make sure that the manner in which we 
are approaching the terrorism issue is a coordinated one, so 
that we have a plan as to what we are going to do relative to 
the three elements that I think are essential. One is the 
international issue of intelligence. Second is the threat to 
American facilities both abroad and in the United States. And 
third is the question of coordination with the local 
communities and State agencies that are going to be responsible 
should an incident occur.
    We have, I believe, as a Nation made great progress on all 
three of these accounts as a result of the hard work of the 
people who are at the table today, but there is still a long 
way to go. We are on a learning curve, and we are still in the 
growth stages. We began as newborns and we are maybe 
adolescents now. We are certainly not mature in our ability to 
address terrorism, but progress has been made and it has been 
considerable.
    Certainly, the Attorney General's 5-year interagency 
counterterrorism plan, which was put together after a great 
deal of thought and effort, is, I think, a superb blueprint of 
how we should be approaching the issue of terrorism. The State 
Department's review process, which was done after the bombings 
in Africa, is also an excellent proposal that we can use as an 
outline as to how we try to bring our facilities overseas up to 
speed to address the concerns which we are confronting.
    The issue, however, comes back to one of coordination 
within the different agencies and that is why I want to hold 
this hearing today. I have to state right at the outset that I 
was extremely discouraged--that is a conservative word, being a 
conservative--relative to the President's press conference that 
he held on terrorism. It appeared to me to be a press 
conference which had been written out on the back of an 
envelope.
    The proposals put forward in that press conference, first, 
they did not exist as far as I could tell, or as far as this 
committee can determine, and second, the funding directed 
toward them was arbitrary and really not relevant to addressing 
the game plan which has been laid out by organizations like the 
Attorney General's interagency task force efforts. It appeared 
to be a press conference for the purposes of promoting a press 
conference rather than an event directed at actually addressing 
the issue of terrorism.
    Now, I recognize that in this business, we all hold 
political press conferences and we do that fairly regularly 
and, sometimes, we do not expect much to come of them, but I do 
think the issue of terrorism is a little different. I do not 
think it should be trifled with. I think that we, as a 
government, have an extraordinary obligation. This represents a 
real threat to America and it should not be used for the 
purposes of promoting political events. Anything that we do in 
this area should be substantive, and unfortunately, that press 
conference was not.
    Secondly, I have a very serious concern about the budget 
that was sent up, especially relative to the State Department. 
Under the advisory committee review, the review committee, they 
suggested that we would have to spend about $1 billion a year, 
more than $1 billion a year, to get the State Department's 
physical facilities in a position to where we could avoid the 
type of situation that occurred in Africa.
    Regrettably, the President's budget does not have anywhere 
near that number in it. It has $300 million for the coming year 
in this account. I do not know where the State Department is 
going to be asked to get the additional $700 million to meet 
the obligations of the plan which was put forward. I know this 
was not State's request. I know this was done by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).
    But it still puts this committee, and I suspect that is why 
it was done, in a very serious situation, because for us to 
meet the obligations of protecting our people abroad, which 
this White House has said it was going to do, we are going to 
have to come up with the money even though the White House is 
not willing to come up with the money. That is, to me, again, 
playing games with the issue of terrorism for political 
purposes, and it is wrong.
    So I will hope to get some thoughts from the witnesses 
today on those two thematic concerns that I have. But the 
primary concern that I want to talk about today is this issue 
of coordination and making sure we are making progress on this 
at all levels.
    Now I yield to the Senator from South Carolina, who has 
been such a force in this area, a positive force.
    Senator Hollings. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for your 
leadership and attention to this problem and thank Attorney 
General Reno and Judge Freeh and, of course, Secretary of State 
Albright. Your approach is sound. It has got to be a 
comprehensive approach.
    I must note certain misgivings. I am not sanguine about the 
ability of the Government to really get a proof positive 
protection against terrorism. We looked at the Government 
buildings and everything else of that kind. You cannot barrier 
the buildings. If you did, they could go in as they did in the 
World Trade Tower, so you cannot barrier all buildings.
    More specifically, looking at the individual extremes, 
Judge Freeh, you can see our friends in Israel. Terrorism 
occurs over there about every week as long as you have got 
suicidal agents, individuals who are willing to just go down 
into a public square and blow themselves up with other people.
    So you have got to look at this thing in a deliberate, 
studied way. We have gone the Inman approach way and we got rid 
of a lot of good, valuable property, built fortress America, 
and it has not worked in the State Department. I will have lots 
of time with Secretary Albright to go over that, but I can 
identify the buildings and the properties lost and everything 
else of that kind, the money wasted.
    On the other hand, having served in the intelligence field, 
I go back to the 1950s on the Hoover Commission, when we 
investigated the CIA and the emphasis was on human 
intelligence, and we knew what was going on in these countries. 
I then relate back to the role on the Senate Intelligence 
Committee when we had the Gulf War, and we went at it in Iraq 
and Kuwait, and we did not have anybody in the CIA that could 
brief us. We had to go over and get somebody from the 
Department of Defense to tell us what was going on in Iraq.
    We have gotten all the toys and the satellites and 
everything else of that kind and we would spend $1 billion more 
getting good human intelligence, finding out what is going on 
or hiring the New York Times reporters to tell us what is going 
on. You can mostly find out from them what is happening and 
guard against certain attacks.
    I want to express those views with you because, while we 
have got the three, we need the fourth--the CIA itself--to 
really do a better job, particularly in countries like in 
Africa that they do not have any activity whatever and cannot 
tell us what is going on.
    So with that in mind, I do not think we are going to 
appropriate $1 billion for a bunch of new buildings. We have 
been there, done that. We have had the Inman report, which 
started spending the billions. It did not work and there is no 
absolute protection against this. We cannot just throw up our 
hands and say, well, it cannot be done, and I commend you, Mr. 
Chairman, on having the hearing, and let us hear from the 
witnesses.
    Senator Gregg. I did say that I would like to limit opening 
statements, but I know that Senator Campbell had some points 
that he wanted to make, and I will be happy to acknowledge him 
now.
    Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me 
say how delighted I am to see our colleague from Maryland, 
Senator Mikulski, back here looking very well and fit and 
healthy. Even though all of her parts did not come back with 
her, we are delighted to have her back here. [Laughter.]
    Senator Mikulski. Some things are better left behind.
    Senator Campbell. I suppose. [Laughter.]
    I would like to submit a complete opening statement for the 
record, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, and this article in 
the Washington Times about something else I will speak just a 
moment on. To Director Freeh and Attorney General Reno, thank 
you for appearing this morning.
    I brought some pictures that are very special to me because 
they were taken at Vail, and I am sure that you are aware of 
that terrible fire that transpired this last fall that was 
targeted apparently by a group called the Earth Liberation 
Front, which is, as near as I can tell, what would be called an 
ecoterrorist group. The damage to this building was $12.5 
million. Interesting enough, they tell me, just to purchase 
logs out of the forest will cost more to replace this building 
than if the terrorists had left it alone, so I do not see what 
they gained by burning down a log building when we have to cut 
more logs to replace it.
    But one thing is for sure, when we talk about terrorism, 
ever since 1972, with the killing of part of the Israeli 
wrestling team at the Munich Olympic games, these high-profile 
events, as Atlanta was in the last Olympic games, seem to be a 
target for people that, although there might not be some 
connection with other terrorist groups, the commonality is that 
they are high profile.
    The World Alpine Ski Championship, Mr. Chairman, is going 
on now at Vail. They say 40 countries are involved. A hundred 
million people will see that. So there is no question in my 
mind that the people that are behind different kinds of 
terrorism have the commonality that if they can get on TV 
around the world, they can get their message out there. It 
would seem to me that we need to be putting more attention 
toward any kind of a high-profile event, whether it is a 
sporting event or what.
    We hosted the Summit of the Eight, as it was called, in 
Denver last year, and I was pleased with the efforts that the 
FBI and all the other agencies made because they did set up a 
kind of a model to coordinate anticipated acts. We did not have 
anything go wrong. It was just a wonderful event. It went very 
smoothly. But I think that those kinds of models need to be 
expanded on so that we anticipate, in, of course, all hopes 
that nothing ever happens, but we anticipate the increased 
kinds of terrorism that is focused on these high-profile 
events.
    The other thing that concerns me, too, Mr. Chairman, as we 
move along on this and try to provide adequate funding for all 
the agencies, including the FBI, is that there always seems to 
be some kind of copycat activities after these high-profile 
events. There is someone else that sees it happen and they 
think, well, this is a good opportunity. We ought to do 
something like it to strike for whatever they believe in, too.
    I am pleased that the President is planning on devoting 
more of the budget toward research and development of 
counterterrorism measures and technology, and certainly, if we 
increase our level of preparedness, even though everybody knows 
that you cannot totally prevent terrorism, perhaps we can get 
the message to those people that are inspired to do it that 
they will not do it free, that there will be a day of reckoning 
for them, and I thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator.

                           prepared statement

    Senator Campbell. I also would direct your attention to 
these before and after shots, if anybody in the committee is 
interested in seeing what those terrorists did.
    Senator Gregg. Quite startling.
    [The statement follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to take the time to 
thank our witnesses for appearing here today. I am looking 
forward to hearing what they have to say about their efforts to 
combat terrorism, both at home and abroad.
    I am disturbed by the activities of wholly-domestic groups, 
and how to combat their actions. For example, my state was 
recently targeted by the Earth Liberation Front, and a series 
of buildings in Vail were destroyed, causing $12 million in 
damages. So far, we have not been able to apprehend those 
responsible. This same group has also claimed responsibility 
for a fire at U.S. Forest Industry Headquarters in Medford, 
Oregon, and the arson that caused $1.9 million in damages at 
two USDA federal animal research facilities near Olympia, 
Washington.
    Even more disturbing, three packages were delivered to 
families in my state, with a warning that the contents were 
contaminated with anthrax bacteria. Although analysis proved 
that, in fact, the substance was harmless, the threat of 
biological terrorism is real.
    I was pleased to learn that the President is planning on 
devoting more of the budget to research and development of new 
counterterrorism measures and technology. With the continuing 
tensions in the Middle East and Africa, we need to be prepared 
for future attacks. The response to the embassy bombings in 
Africa was exceptional, and we must continue to maintain this 
level of preparedness. We must also be ready to deal with 
terrorist threats at home, which are becoming alarmingly more 
frequent. Although we are making great progress in bringing to 
justice the perpetrators of the World Trade Center and Murrah 
Federal Building bombings, we still must do more.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the time to make 
these remarks.

    Senator Gregg. Did you have anything you wish to add, 
Senator Mikulski?
    Senator Mikulski. Yes, if I could be very brief, Mr. 
Chairman. First of all, I would like to thank you and all my 
colleagues for their wonderful good wishes on my speedy 
recovery. I am happy to be back.
    I would really like to compliment you on holding this 
hearing on counterterrorism and the need for what are our 
resources and what are the better ways to coordinate, and I 
look forward to hearing from our Attorney General and our head 
of the FBI. But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend that 
maybe this be a first in a series of hearings that the 
Appropriations Committee has on counterterrorism for several 
reasons.
    Number one, in addition to what we are going to be focusing 
on today with the State Department and the Justice Department, 
there are other agencies that the President has talked about, 
particularly biological and chemical. They are talking about 
vaccine research, $43 million, and I do not want to see the 
same fiasco as when we were stockpiling vaccines during the 
health insurance debate. Public health surveillance, ten 
National Guard units who were going to respond to an emergency. 
I do not know if that is coordinated.
    As the ranking on FEMA, on VA/HUD, I think the Chairman 
knows that FEMA is within that agency and Senator Bond and I 
have added more money for helping FEMA be able to respond. But 
again, when we ask for coordination, we are going to have 
training programs at the Fire Academy in Emmitsburg. That is 
not a national response.
    So I am concerned. We do not want to throw the money out 
like pin the tail on the donkey and have no effective, 
strategic, coordinated response to be able to do that. So, 
really, I am concerned about threats abroad, threats within the 
United States.
    A good many of the State Department employees call Maryland 
their American home, and it is my obligation to look out for 
them or for all of our foreign operations, all of our State 
Department people, regardless of their home State. Very often 
when there is a tragedy, we say, a grateful nation will never 
forget, but then we forget it in the budget. We forget it in 
our coordination. And we forget to then operationalize our good 
intentions. I think this is the year of do it now, to really 
show that a grateful nation will not let it happen to other 
wonderful, dedicated, valiant State Department employees.
    Also, Mr. Chairman, Maryland has many Federal facilities 
that are targets of terrorist threats. Some are national 
security targets and others are targets of national honor, like 
our Federal laboratories, where damage done to that, like an 
NIH, would not affect our national security, but, yes, it 
would, our biological research, and yet would affect our 
national honor. So we need to really make sure that we have 
what we need to do abroad as well as domestically.
    So I look forward to working with you and thank you so 
much. I agree, this should be not only bipartisan but 
nonpartisan, and we should check our party hats at the door. 
Thank you.
    Senator Gregg. Thank you. I agree with your concerns, 
Senator. In fact, this is actually our fourth hearing in the 
sequence, but we are trying to coordinate with the other 
appropriating subcommittees, and certainly Senator Stevens has 
been very supportive of trying to make sure we coordinate with 
Defense on this issue because of the major role that it has. So 
I agree with you and the more we can do it, the better.
    Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I will talk to Senator Bond 
about Federal Emergency Management.
    Senator Gregg. Senator Leahy.
    Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. One, I 
just am pleased to be on the subcommittee. I have been on the 
Appropriations Committee for over 20 years now, but to be able 
to join you and Senator Hollings, both of whom are good 
friends, and in your case, a next-door neighbor. I am glad to 
be here.
    I have had counterterrorism discussions along the lines of 
what we are talking about with Secretary Albright, Attorney 
General Reno, and Director Freeh, as well as with others in the 
audience like Dave Carpenter and Ann Harkins who are here. We 
are such a powerful nation, that terrorism is a real danger. In 
fact, history has never known a nation as powerful as ours. We 
are at a point where we do not have to worry about armies 
marching against us or navies sailing against us, air forces 
coming against us.
    What we have to worry about is a very small, well-trained, 
well-equipped, well-financed, and determined terrorist group. 
The determination may be political, ethnic, or religious. If 
they have got the equipment, the money, the access, in a highly 
technological society like ours, there is an enormous amount 
terrorists can do. You saw it just in this area alone when we 
lost electricity for a number of days from an ice storm, what 
it did to us. Can you imagine if this became the routine thing, 
if airports were shut down because of terrorist attacks and 
switching gear and so on and so forth.
    So I think this is an extremely important subject and I did 
want to come here to compliment you and the ranking member for 
having these hearings. I am scheduled for another hearing, so I 
will leave, but I would ask permission that questions that I 
might have of the witnesses could be included in the record.
    Senator Gregg. Absolutely, and it is great to have you join 
us. It means Northern New England will be well represented on 
this committee, which I am sure will be positive for Northern 
New England.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you.
    Senator Mikulski. Not Southern.
    Senator Gregg. Well, there is a difference between Northern 
and Southern New England.
    Senator Campbell. We cannot move the FBI headquarters to 
Vermont.
    Senator Leahy. Do not even get us going on it, please. 
Where Judd and I come from, we reported Massachusetts as a 
Southern State, something that caused me to get a reprimand 
from Strom Thurmond one day. [Laughter.]
    Senator Gregg. A very different culture.


                prepared statement of senator lautenberg


    The subcommittee has received a statement from Senator 
Lautenberg which will be inserted in the record at this point.
    [The statement follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing to 
ensure that this Committee gives adequate attention and 
necessary funding to counterterrorism programs.
    The threat of terrorism is very real for Americans at home 
and abroad. Secretary Albright, Attorney General Reno, FBI 
Director Freeh, I commend you and the many people working 
within your agencies who dedicate their efforts to protecting 
the American people from the scourge of terrorism. While 
success in preventing attacks may not always receive public 
attention, our public servants should know that Congress and 
the American people appreciate their dedication which lets us 
all sleep better every night.
    We must continue to strengthen our programs to counter 
terrorist groups and prevent attacks whenever possible, and 
respond rapidly to save lives and pursue the perpetrators when 
attacks occur.
    We must help our communities prepare for the challenges of 
unconventional attacks as well as bombings like those at the 
World Trade Center and in Oklahoma City.
    We must reach out to other nations to develop a global 
response to a global threat, and ensure that criminals cannot 
feel safe anywhere. To make this happen, we must be firm in 
dealing with nations which harbor terrorists. In particular, we 
must strengthen international pressure on Libya to hand over 
the Pan Am 103 suspects for trial.
    We must also ensure that nations which sponsor terrorism 
pay a price--including U.S. court judgements against Iran in 
the Flatow and Cicippio cases. We need to hold individuals and 
regimes responsible for their actions and ensure that whole 
nations or religions are not inappropriately held accountable 
for the misdeeds of the few.
    Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the 
Administration and my colleagues to explore ways to strengthen 
our counterterrorism programs.

    Senator Gregg. We certainly appreciate and thank the 
witnesses for their patience and we will begin, I guess, on the 
order of seniority for succession to the Presidency. That is 
probably the best way to go. So we will start with you, 
Secretary Albright.
    Secretary Albright. I am actually out of order. I was born 
in a foreign country. [Laughter.]
    Thank you very much, and I apologize for being late. I was 
at the National Prayer Breakfast right in front and could not 
leave early.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I welcome the 
chance to testify along with my colleagues, Attorney General 
Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh, regarding our efforts 
to counter the threat that terror poses to our citizens and to 
the world.
    I want to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, and members 
of the subcommittee, for the support that you have provided in 
this effort and it is much appreciated. In my statement, I will 
provide an overview of the international terrorist threat and 
discuss our diplomatic policies and resource needs. The 
Attorney General and the Director will bring you up to date on 
the wide range of law enforcement initiatives.
    We will each refer to the 5-year interagency 
counterterrorism and technology plan. This plan was developed 
in response to last year's appropriations law and serves as a 
baseline strategy for coordinating our response to terrorism, 
both at home and overseas.
    Last August, I had the sad honor of bringing back to U.S. 
soil the bodies of Americans who perished in the embassy 
bombing in Kenya. Like the members of our armed forces who died 
in foreign conflicts, these Americans went in harm's way for 
our country, but there is a difference, for they were not 
combatants in a war, as we have long understood that term. They 
were casualties instead of a new kind of confrontation that 
looms as the new century is about to begin.
    In this struggle, our adversaries are likely to avoid 
traditional battlefield situations, where American dominance is 
well-established. They may resort instead to weapons of mass 
destruction and the cowardly instruments of sabotage and hidden 
bombs. We must be vigilant in protecting against the terrorist 
triple threat posed first by countries that actively sponsor 
terrorism; second, by long-active terrorist organizations; and 
third, by loosely-affiliated extremists, such as, among others, 
Osama bin Laden, who has urged his followers to kill Americans 
when and wherever they can.
    Our strategy must be long term. The 5-year plan is only the 
beginning. Certainly, no single arrest or shut-down of a 
terrorist operation will be sufficient. The advance of 
technology has given us new means to counter terrorists, but it 
has also enabled terrorists to develop more powerful weapons 
and to travel, communicate, recruit, and raise funds on a 
global basis.
    Following the embassy attacks last August, President 
Clinton ordered military strikes to disrupt terrorist 
operations and deter new bombings. As this decision 
demonstrated, we will not hesitate to use force when necessary 
to respond to or defend against terrorist acts. But force is 
only one element in our strategy. Every day in every part of 
the world, we use the full array of our foreign policy tools to 
wage a zero-tolerance campaign against international terror.
    For example, we place the highest priority on measures to 
prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the wrong 
hands. This imperative is on our agenda with virtually every 
nation and figures in almost every major meeting that I have. 
We constantly exchange information with friendly governments 
concerning terrorist activities and movements, thereby 
preventing attacks and facilitating arrests. We are expanding 
our Antiterrorism Training Assistance so that other nations 
will be better able to protect themselves and us. And, we are 
making full use of the Terrorism Information Rewards program to 
encourage those who know the truth about terrorist acts and 
plans to come forward.
    We are engaged in a vigorous research and development 
effort to improve our ability to detect explosives, counter 
weapons of mass destruction, protect against cybersabotage, and 
provide physical security.
    We impose economic sanctions against state sponsors of 
terror, and around the world, we couple law enforcement with 
diplomacy in order to bring suspected terrorists before the bar 
of justice, and the Attorney General and Director Freeh will 
provide more detail on these efforts, but let me stress two 
points.
    The first is that law enforcement success often depends 
upon international cooperation, which in some recent cases has 
been extraordinary.
    Second, I believe every American should be proud of the 
work of the FBI, the Justice Department, the CIA, and the State 
Department's Diplomatic Security Service and what all of them 
have been doing. When I was in Nairobi last August, I had a 
chance to meet some of the FBI personnel who were literally 
sifting the wreckage of the embassy for clues, and I was deeply 
impressed by their dedication and by the progress made in 
gaining custody of the suspects.
    I am gratified, moreover, that the partnerships in the 
field among the various agencies and our embassies are 
excellent. Our people are working together well and doing a 
great job for America.
    The measures we take to physically protect our diplomatic 
personnel also play a major role in our counterterrorism 
strategy, and I know this is an area of great interest to the 
subcommittee and certainly nothing is of more urgent concern to 
me.
    In the aftermath of the embassy bombings last August, I 
established accountability review boards chaired by Admiral 
William Crowe to investigate and recommend improved security 
systems and procedures. The boards identified what they called 
a collective failure by the Executive and Legislative Branches 
of our Government ``to provide adequate resources to reduce the 
vulnerability of U.S. diplomatic missions.''
    The report suggested that responsibility for this failure 
must be shared broadly, including by the Secretary of State, 
and I have accepted that. The report recommends, and I concur, 
that we provide sustained funding for enhanced security and new 
construction reflecting the new range of terrorist threats.
    The report also recommends, and again, I concur, that the 
additional funds for security should not come at the expense of 
other major foreign affairs programs. This is a key point, for 
it would make no sense to enhance the security of our people 
overseas while at the same time depriving them of the resources 
they need to effectively represent American interests.
    The State Department is determined to go forward with a 
comprehensive multi-year program to upgrade security at all 
posts. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposes the 
minimum amount required to move ahead with such a program. In 
an age of advanced technology and suicide bombers, no one can 
guarantee perfect security, but our embassies represent 
America. They should not be easy targets for anyone.
    That is one reason why I recommended to the President that 
he break precedent and appoint a career law enforcement 
professional, David Carpenter, as our Assistant Secretary of 
State for Diplomatic Security. Assistant Secretary Carpenter is 
helping us to get the message out to all our posts that in 
today's world, there is nothing automatic about security. It is 
every person's responsibility. No detail should be overlooked, 
no precaution shrugged off, no post considered safe, and no 
assumptions made about when, where, how, or by whom a terrorist 
strike might be perpetrated.
    We all recognize that the price tag for needed measures to 
improve security is and may remain at least for the foreseeable 
future higher than the resources we have available for that 
purpose, and we will continually have to make tough choices 
about how best to use the resources we have and about how to 
reconcile security imperatives with our need to do business 
overseas.
    In making these judgments, I am pleased to announce that we 
will be aided by a new overseas President's advisory panel to 
be chaired by Mr. Lewis Kaden. The panel will prepare 
recommendations for criteria to be used in making decisions on 
the size and composition of our overseas posts. It will also 
design a proposed multi-year funding program for the Department 
to restructure the U.S. presence abroad.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say a word about 
coordination. This subcommittee has stressed the need for U.S. 
agencies to work together in responding to the terrorist 
threat, and you are absolutely right. I am in frequent contact 
with my colleagues here at the table and with the Secretary of 
Defense, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and 
other key officials regarding the full range of antiterrorism 
issues. I think we work together well and are getting better at 
it every day.
    One reason is that the President has made it clear through 
both his policies and statements that this issue is the 
Administration's highest priority internationally and 
domestically, and that is true for a host of compelling 
substantive reasons, but I suspect it is true for another 
reason, as well.
    Over the past 6 years, on too many occasions, the President 
has had the job of comforting the loved ones of those murdered 
and maimed by terrorists, and I know from my own experience, it 
is an impossible task. After the last hand has been held and 
the last words of condolence offered, all you can really do is 
vow that everything within your power will be done to prevent 
similar tragedies, and that is the vow of this Administration 
this morning, and I suspect it is fully embraced by the members 
of this subcommittee and by the American people.
    Mr. Chairman, I have quoted New Hampshire's Daniel Webster 
to you before and I do so again in closing my testimony this 
morning. ``God grants liberty,'' said Webster, ``only to those 
who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it.'' To 
that, I say amen and thank you again for the opportunity to 
testify.

                           prepared statement

    Senator Gregg. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I appreciate you 
noting that Daniel Webster was from New Hampshire and not 
Massachusetts. He may have served in the Senate from 
Massachusetts, but he made a mistake.
    [The statement follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Madeleine K. Albright
    Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I 
welcome this opportunity to testify concerning U.S. efforts to counter 
the forces of international terror. As you know, the President has 
designated the Department of State as the lead agency for coordination 
of our counterterrorism policy and operations abroad, while the FBI is 
the lead agency for countering terrorism in the United States.
    So I am delighted to be here with my colleagues, Attorney General 
Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh. Their presence reflects the 
fact that the battle against terror requires effective coordination 
within our own government and between our government and law-abiding 
nations around the globe.
    It also requires a partnership between the Executive and 
Legislative branches of the United States. And here I want to commend 
the Chairman and members of this Subcommittee. For no one has been more 
aware of the dangers to our diplomatic personnel, more supportive of 
our efforts to improve security, or more helpful in providing resources 
to respond to the terrorist threat, than this panel.
    I look forward to the opportunity today to build on our partnership 
and to explore with you the many dimensions to our strategy. In my 
statement, I will provide an overview of the international threat and 
discuss our diplomatic actions, policies, plans, and resource needs. 
The Attorney General and the Director will then bring you up to date on 
the wide range of law enforcement, technology, crisis management and 
other initiatives that are underway.
    We will each discuss the Five-Year Interagency Counter-terrorism 
and Technology Crime Plan. This Plan serves as a baseline strategy for 
coordinating our response to terrorism in the United States and against 
American targets overseas. The Subcommittee has received copies of the 
Plan, which was crafted under the leadership of the Attorney General. 
You also have the written statements we prepared for this morning. We 
have agreed to keep our oral presentations brief in order to honor your 
time for questions.
The Threat
    I will begin by discussing the threat posed to the United States 
and the world by the forces of international terror. If you look at the 
statistics, you will see that the number of terrorist incidents 
worldwide is declining. This reflects the diplomatic and law 
enforcement progress we have made in discrediting terrorist groups and 
making it harder for them to operate. It reflects, as well, the 
improved political climate that has diminished terrorist activity in 
places such as Northern Ireland and Central America.
    But you would not be conducting this hearing, Mr. Chairman, if the 
dangers posed by international terrorism had declined. Tragically, they 
have not.
    Last August, I had the sad honor of bringing back to U.S. soil the 
bodies of Americans who perished in the embassy bombing in Kenya.
    Like the members of our armed forces who died in foreign conflicts, 
these Americans went in harm's way for our country. But there is a 
difference--for they were not combatants in a war as we have long 
understood that term. They were casualties, instead, of a new kind of 
confrontation that looms as a new century is about to begin.
    In this struggle, our adversaries are likely to avoid traditional 
battlefield situations because there, American dominance is well 
established. They may resort, instead, to weapons of mass destruction 
and the cowardly instruments of sabotage and hidden bombs. As we know 
from explosions over the past decade in Africa, the Khobar apartment 
complex, the World Trade Center and Pan Am 103, these unconventional 
threats endanger both Americans and others around the world.
    Accordingly, we must be vigilant in protecting against the 
terrorist triple threat posed, first, by the handful of countries that 
actively sponsor terrorism; second, by long-active terrorist 
organizations; and third, by loosely affiliated extremists such as, 
among others, Osama bin Laden, who has urged his followers to kill 
Americans when and wherever they can.
    Our strategy must be long-term. The Five-Year Plan is only the 
beginning. Certainly, no single arrest or shutdown of a terrorist 
operation will be sufficient. The advance of technology has given us 
new means to counter terrorists. But it has also enabled terrorists to 
develop more powerful weapons and to travel, communicate, recruit, and 
raise funds on a global basis.
    It is essential, therefore, that we work closely with others. The 
perpetrators of terror include persons from a wide variety of creeds, 
cultures and countries. And their criminality has claimed victims 
almost everywhere, from Jerusalem to Japan, Tanzania to Turkey, and 
Oklahoma City to Sri Lanka.
    To counter this plague, law-abiding peoples everywhere must close 
ranks to detect, deter, prevent and punish terrorist acts. It is not 
enough for Americans to be concerned only about attacks against 
Americans. We must reach out to all those victimized or threatened by 
terror. The victims of the attacks orchestrated in Africa by Osama bin 
Laden, after all, were predominately African, including many 
practitioners of Islam. Terrorism is a highly indiscriminate form of 
violence. It must be opposed not simply as a matter of national 
interest, but as a fundamental question of right and wrong.
Fighting Back
    Following the embassy attacks last August, President Clinton 
ordered military strikes to disrupt terrorist operations and deter new 
bombings.
    The message he conveyed is that, in this battle, we will not simply 
sit back and wait. We will take the offensive. We will do all we can to 
limit terrorist movements, block terrorist funds and prevent terrorist 
acts.
    As the President's decision demonstrated, we will not hesitate, 
where necessary, to use force to respond to or defend against acts of 
terrorism. But force is only one element in our strategy.
    Every day, in every part of the world, we use a full array of 
foreign policy tools in our zero tolerance campaign against 
international terror.
    For example, we place the highest priority on measures to prevent 
weapons of mass destruction from falling into the wrong hands. This 
imperative is on our agenda with virtually every nation and figures in 
almost every major meeting I have.
    We constantly exchange information with friendly governments 
concerning terrorist activities and movements, thereby preventing 
attacks and facilitating arrests.
    We work with other agencies and other countries to strengthen 
screening procedures and increase intelligence sharing on visa 
applications.
    We are expanding our Anti-terrorism Training Assistance Program, 
which has already instructed more than 20,000 law enforcement officers 
from more than 90 countries, in subjects such as airport security, bomb 
detection, maritime security, VIP protection, hostage rescue and crisis 
management.
    We are engaged, through the State Department-chaired Technical 
Support Working Group, in a vigorous research and development program 
to improve our ability to detect explosives, counter weapons of mass 
destruction, protect against cyber sabotage and provide physical 
security. In the technological race with terror, we are determined to 
gain and maintain a decisive strategic edge.
    We are making use of the Terrorism Information Rewards program to 
encourage persons to come forward with information to prevent acts of 
terrorism and apprehend those who commit them.
    We impose economic sanctions against state sponsors of terror. 
Currently, the seven governments on this list are Cuba, Iran, Iraq, 
Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.
    And both domestically and internationally, we are working to 
strengthen the rule of law.
The Rule of Law
    At home, we have changed our statutes to block the financial assets 
of terrorist groups, prevent them from raising funds in the United 
States, and allow us to bar foreigners who support such groups.
    Around the world, we couple law enforcement with diplomacy in order 
to bring suspected terrorists before the bar of justice. As the 
Subcommittee knows, we have done this successfully in the World Trade 
Center case, the CIA killings and to a very considerable extent, in the 
Africa embassy bombings--which triggered a worldwide manhunt for bin 
Laden and his associates in murder. The Attorney General and Director 
Freeh will provide more detail on these efforts, but let me stress two 
points.
    The first is that law enforcement success often depends upon 
international cooperation. That cooperation has been extraordinary in 
some recent cases. We cannot discuss these in public, but I did want 
the record of this hearing to reflect our deep appreciation for the 
timely and lifesaving help we have received.
    Second, I believe every American should be proud of the work the 
FBI, the Justice Department, the CIA and the State Department's 
Diplomatic Security Service--or DS--have been doing.
    When I was in Nairobi last August, I had a chance to meet some of 
the FBI personnel who were literally sifting the wreckage of the 
Embassy for clues. I was deeply impressed by their dedication and I 
have been even more deeply impressed by the progress made in gaining 
custody of suspects. I am gratified, moreover, that the partnerships in 
the field among the FBI, Department of Justice, DS and our embassies 
and other agencies are excellent. Our people are working together 
closely and well to investigate past crimes and prevent new ones. They 
are doing a great job for America.
    I cannot leave the subject of bringing terrorists to justice 
without highlighting the tragic case of justice delayed with respect to 
the bombing more than a decade ago of Pan Am flight 103. As Senators 
know, we have challenged the Government of Libya to meet its pledge to 
deliver the two suspects in that case for trial in the Netherlands 
under Scottish law. This approach has been approved by the Security 
Council and is supported by Arab and African regional organizations. It 
is an approach that is reasonable and fair and that has been on the 
table now for more than six months.
    I would like to take this opportunity once again to urge Libya to 
deliver the suspects for trial and thereby gain suspension of the U.N. 
sanctions. If this does not occur by the time those sanctions come up 
for Security Council review later this month, we will seek additional 
measures against the Qaddaffi regime.
    Our effort to strengthen the rule of law against terrorism is 
global. At its heart is the message that every nation has a 
responsibility to arrest or expel terrorists, shut down their finances 
and deny them safe haven.
    Attached to my testimony is a chart showing the extent to which 
countries have ratified eleven international antiterrorism conventions. 
Our goal is to obtain universal adherence to these treaties. Our 
purpose is to weave a web of law, power, intelligence, and political 
will that will entrap terrorists and deny them the mobility and 
sustenance they need to operate.
    As we stressed in the aftermath of the murders in Kenya and 
Tanzania, terror is not a legitimate form of political expression and 
it is certainly not a manifestation of religious faith. It is homicide, 
plain and simple.
    It is right for nations to bring terrorists to justice and those 
who do so should be recognized and rewarded appropriately.
    It is wrong to finance terrorist groups, whether or not specific 
contributions are for terrorist purposes. It is cowardly to give 
terrorist groups money in return for not being targeted. It is 
irresponsible simply to look the other way when terrorists come within 
one's jurisdiction. And it fools no one to pretend that terrorist 
groups are something they are not.
    Consider the words of Hezbollah's Sheik Hassan Nasrallah shortly 
after the Wye accords were signed: ``I call on any Palestinian who has 
a knife, a hand grenade, a gun, a machine gun or a small bomb to go out 
during these few weeks and kill the Israelis and the Accord.'' He also 
called for the assassination of Chairman Arafat.
    Some say Hezbollah is not terrorist, because it has a political 
agenda. But that is sophistry. As long as it advocates indiscriminate 
violence and assassination, it is terrorist. The same is true of other 
groups, such as Hamas, the PKK, and Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers.
    For each, the decision to use terror was a choice it did not have 
to make. Law-abiding nations must unite in helping them realize that 
the choice they have made is wrong.
    In this connection, I was very disappointed that Germany failed to 
make good on the recent opportunity to prosecute Abdullah Ocalan, 
leader of the terrorist PKK; and that Italy and Turkey were unable to 
find an alternative way to ensure he was brought to justice. Instead of 
determination, this opportunity was greeted with handwringing and 
vacillation. Ocalan has left Italy and his current whereabouts are 
unknown. We call upon any nation into whose jurisdiction Ocalan comes 
to cooperate in ensuring that he stands trial for his alleged crimes.
Diplomatic Force Protection
    The measures we take to provide physical protection for our 
diplomatic personnel overseas play a major role in our strategy for 
countering terror. I know this subject is a matter of great interest to 
the Subcommittee. And certainly, nothing is of more urgent concern to 
me.
    In the aftermath of the embassy bombings last August, I established 
Accountability Review Boards, chaired by Admiral William Crowe, to 
investigate and recommend improved security systems and procedures. I 
received their report last month and will be submitting a formal 
response this spring.
    As you probably know, Mr. Chairman, the Boards found that the 
security systems and procedures followed by the two embassies involved 
were in accord with State Department policy. In both cases, the 
terrorists were prevented from penetrating the perimeter of the post. 
In neither case, did U.S. employees or members of the military breach 
their duty.
    The Boards did, however, identify what they termed ``a collective 
failure'' by the Executive and Legislative branches of our government 
over the past decade ``to provide adequate resources to reduce the 
vulnerability of U.S. diplomatic missions.''
    The report suggests that responsibility for this failure must be 
shared broadly, including by the Secretary of State; and I accept that. 
It reminds us all that no matter how much we care, no matter how much 
we do, we can always do more when the lives of our people are on the 
line.
    The report cites some of the steps we have taken, particularly 
since August, to strengthen perimeter defense, increase security 
personnel and speed necessary construction and repairs.
    It notes, as well, Congressional approval of the security-related 
supplemental appropriation late last year. We were, and are, very 
grateful for your swift action on that measure. It has helped us to 
resume, albeit in a makeshift way, our diplomatic activities in Nairobi 
and Dar es Salaam. And it is enabling us to upgrade physical security 
levels worldwide through the hiring of additional diplomatic security 
agents and support personnel.
    The Accountability Review Boards concluded, however, and I agree, 
that these measures must be viewed as just an initial deposit towards 
what is required to provide for the security of our posts overseas.
    According to the report, ``We must undertake a comprehensive and 
long-term strategy . . . including sustained funding for enhanced 
security measures, for long-term costs for increased security personnel 
and for a capital building program based on an assessment of 
requirements to meet the new range of global terrorist threats.''
    The Boards stress, and again I concur, that ``additional funds for 
security must be obtained without diverting funds from our major 
foreign affairs programs.'' This is a key point. For it would make no 
sense to enhance the security of our people overseas while, at the same 
time, depriving them of the resources they need to effectively 
represent American interests.
    The State Department is determined to go forward with an extensive, 
multi-year program for upgrading security at all our posts. The 
President's budget for fiscal year 2000, released earlier this week, 
proposes the minimum amount required to move ahead with such a program.
    First, it includes $268 million to fund what we call the ``tail'' 
of the supplemental. This includes the recurring costs required by 
additional personnel, and security improvements not addressed in 
emergency supplemental approved last fall. We expect such costs to run 
about $300 million annually in subsequent years.
    We recognize the need to continue an aggressive program of locating 
suitable sites and building secure facilities overseas. The President's 
budget includes an additional $36 million for site acquisition and the 
design of new facilities; augmenting fiscal year 1999 emergency funds 
available for site, design and construction. It also proposes $3 
billion in advance appropriations for new construction in the years 
2001 through 2005.
    I feel strongly that in order to have a viable security 
construction program, we need a long-term commitment of resources. The 
President's request proposes that this be done by advanced 
appropriations. We have been able to work together on such arrangements 
in the past and I hope very much that we will able to do so in this 
case.
    I wish to stress, Mr. Chairman, that our request for support is not 
special pleading. American embassies include a broad range of U.S. 
Government employees and their families. They host a constant flow of 
U.S. citizens who turn to our people for help on everything from 
business advice to travel tips to emergency medical aid. They are open 
to foreign nationals who wish to come to our country as tourists or 
students or for commercial reasons. And as the casualty list for the 
Africa bombings illustrates so starkly, many of our embassy employees 
are locally hired.
    Under international law, the host country is responsible for 
protecting diplomatic missions. We hold every nation to that standard, 
and will assist, where we can, those who need and want help in 
fulfilling that duty. In an age of advanced technology and suicide 
bombers, no one can guarantee perfect security. But our embassies 
represent America. They should not be easy targets for anyone. We owe 
our people and all who use or visit our facilities the best security 
possible.
    As I noted at the time I received Admiral Crowe's report, the 
Department is already implementing, or studying the best way to 
implement, a significant number of its recommendations.
    I cannot detail in public everything that we are doing, often in 
partnership with others, to prevent and prepare for potential terrorist 
strikes.
    I am able to say, however, that we will continue to implement 
additional physical protection measures as rapidly as we can.
    We are improving our programs for dealing with vehicle-bomb 
attacks, such as those experienced in Africa.
    We see the need for additional crisis management training and have 
begun such a project at the Foreign Service Institute.
    We are engaged, with other agencies, in a review of equipment and 
procedural needs related to the possibility of a terrorist incident 
involving the use of chemical or biological weapons.
    We are striving to improve our emergency response capabilities. As 
the Crowe report indicates, and our Five-Year Plan reflects, we need a 
modern plane to replace the specially-configured aircraft used to 
deploy the Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) that we dispatch 
overseas when there is a major terrorist incident. The current aircraft 
is 36 years old and was delayed while en route to Nairobi last August 
by the need to make repairs. This is not acceptable. The Department is 
currently engaged with the National Security Council and the Defense 
Department in discussions on the best way to replace the old aircraft 
and the Administration intends to resolve the matter as soon as 
possible.
Security and Diplomacy
    Finally, we agree fully with the Accountability Review Boards on 
the need to demonstrate the high priority we attach to security issues. 
This is one reason why I recommended to the President that he depart 
from past practice and appoint an outstanding career law enforcement 
professional, David Carpenter, as our Assistant Secretary of State for 
Diplomatic Security.
    Assistant Secretary Carpenter is helping us to get out the message 
to all our posts that, in today's world, there is nothing automatic 
about security. It is every person's responsibility. No detail should 
be overlooked. No precaution should be shrugged off. No post should be 
considered safe. No assumptions should be made about when, where, why, 
how, or by whom, a terrorist strike might be perpetrated. Literally 
nothing should be taken for granted.
    We all recognize that the price tag for needed measures to improve 
security is and may remain, at least for the foreseeable future, higher 
than the resources we have available for that purpose. The result is 
that we will continually have to make difficult and inherently 
subjective decisions about how best to use the resources we have, and 
about how to reconcile security imperatives with our need to do 
business overseas.
Overseas Presence Advisory Panel
    In making these judgments, I am pleased to announce that we will be 
aided by a new Overseas Presence Advisory Panel, to be chaired by Mr. 
Lewis Kaden. The Panel is charged with preparing recommendations for 
criteria to be used in making decisions on the size and composition of 
our overseas posts. It will also design a proposed multi-year funding 
program for the Department to restructure the U.S. presence abroad.
    In its deliberations, the Advisory Group will take into account the 
heightened security situation, advances in technology, the 
transformation of the world's political lineup, and the emergence of 
new foreign policy priorities. The Panel is being asked to complete its 
work by the end of this fiscal year.
Conclusion
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say a word about coordination. This 
Subcommittee has stressed the need for U.S. agencies to work together 
in responding to the terrorist threat, and you are absolutely right. 
The Five-Year Plan will help. So has the President's designation of a 
National Coordinator for Infrastructure Protection and 
Counterterrorism. And I have the highest confidence in the State 
Department's own new coordinator for counterterrorism, Lieutenant 
Colonel (ret.) Mike Sheehan.
    Personally, I am in frequent contact with my colleagues here at the 
table, Attorney General Reno and FBI Director Freeh, and with the 
Secretary of Defense, the Director of Central Intelligence and other 
key officials regarding the full range of anti-terrorism issues. I 
think we work together well and are getting better at it every day.
    One reason is that the President has made it clear through both his 
policies and statements that this issue is the Administration's highest 
priority--internationally and domestically. That is true for a host of 
compelling substantive reasons. But I suspect it is true for another 
reason as well.
    Over the past six years, on too many occasions, the President has 
had the job of comforting the loved ones of those murdered and maimed 
by terrorists. I know from my own experience--it is an impossible task. 
After the last hand has been held, and the last words of condolence 
offered, all you can really do is vow that everything within your power 
will be done to prevent similar tragedies.
    That is the vow of this Administration this morning. And I suspect 
it is fully embraced by the members of this Subcommittee and by the 
American people.
    Mr. Chairman, I have quoted New Hampshire's Daniel Webster to you 
before. I do so again in closing my testimony this morning. ``God 
grants liberty,'' said Webster, ``only to those who love it, and are 
always ready to guard and defend it.''
    To that, I say ``Amen,'' and thank you again for the opportunity to 
testify before you today.

                                                                     ,L2,i1,s20,10,10,10,10,10,10)0,10)0,10)0,10)0,10)0,10)0
                                                                                PARTIES TO TERRORISM CONVENTIONS
                                              [Based on ``Treaties in Force'' except where indicated. No information on reservations is included.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             1988
                                                                                           Protocol                                                              1971
                                                                                1988       for the    1988 Protocol                                            Montreal               1963 Tokyo
                                                                  1991       Convention  Suppression     for the                             1973 Convention  Convention              Convention
                                                   1998        Convention     for the    of Unlawful  Supression of     1979        1979          on the        for the   1970 Hague      on
                                                Convention      for the     Suppression      Acts     Unlawful Acts  Convention  Convention   Prevention and  Supression  Convention   Offenses
                                                  for the      Marking of   of Unlawful  Against the   of Violence     Against     on the     Punishment of       of        for the       and
                                                Suppression     Plastic         Acts      Safety of    at Airports   the Taking   Physical    Crimes Against   Unlawful    Unlawful     Certain
                                               of Terrorist    Explosives   Against the     Fixed        Serving         of      Protection  Internationally     Acts     Seizure of  Other Acts
                                               Bombings \1\     for the      Safety of    Platforms   International   Hostages   of Nuclear     Protected       Against    Aircraft    Committed
                                                              Purposes of     Maritime    Located on      Civil                   Materials      Persons      the Safety               on Board
                                                             Detection \2\   Navigation      the         Aviation                                              of Civil                Aircraft
                                                                                         Continental                                                           Aviation
                                                                                            Shelf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan..................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Albania......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............      \3\ Y       \3\ Y       Y
Algeria......................................  ............            Y         \3\ Y   ...........            Y    ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Andorra......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Angola.......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............      \3\ Y       \3\ Y   ..........
Antigua & Barbuda............................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Argentina....................................  ............  .............           Y   ...........            Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Armenia......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........          Y              Y     ..........  ..........  ..........
Australia....................................  ............  .............           Y            Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Austria......................................  ............  .............           Y            Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Azerbaijan...................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Bahamas......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Bahrain......................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........        \3\ Y    ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Bangladesh...................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Barbados.....................................  ............  .............           Y            Y   .............          Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Belarus......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Belgium......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........          Y   ...............          Y           Y       Y
Belize.......................................  ............  .............       \3\ Y   ...........        \3\ Y    ..........  ..........             Y     ..........      \3\ Y   ..........
Benin........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........          Y   ..........
Bhutan.......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Bolivia......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Bosnia-Herzegovina...........................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y            Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y   \3\ Y
Botswana.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Brazil.......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........          Y   ...............          Y           Y       Y
Brunei.......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Bulgaria.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Burkina Faso.................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Burma........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y    ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y   \3\ Y
Burundi......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y     ..........  ..........      Y
Cambodia.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........        \3\ Y    ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y   ..........
Cameroon.....................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Canada.......................................  ............            Y             Y            Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Cape Verde...................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Central African Republic.....................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y    ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Chad.........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Chile........................................  ............  .............           Y            Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
China........................................  ............  .............           Y            Y   .............          Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Colombia.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Comoros......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Congo (Brazzaville)..........................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........          Y       Y
Congo (Zaire)................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Costa Rica...................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Cote D'Ivoire................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Croatia......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........        \3\ Y    ..........          Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Cuba.........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Cyprus.......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Czech Republic...............................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........            Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Denmark......................................  ............            Y             Y            Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Djibouti.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Dominica.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Dominican Republic...........................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Ecuador......................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........  .............          Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Egypt........................................  ............            Y             Y            Y   .............          Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
El Salvador..................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y            Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Equatorial Guinea............................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Eritrea......................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Estonia......................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........            Y    ..........          Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Ethiopia.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
EURATOM......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........          Y   ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Fiji.........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y    ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Finland......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........        \3\ Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
France.......................................  ............            Y             Y            Y             Y    ..........          Y   ...............          Y           Y       Y
FYROM........................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........        \3\ Y    ..........          Y   ...............          Y   ..........  ..........
Gabon........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Gambia.......................................  ............  .............           Y   ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Georgia......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y   ..........
Germany......................................  ............  .............           Y            Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Ghana........................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Greece.......................................  ............            Y             Y            Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Grenada......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Guatemala....................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........            Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Guinea.......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y   \3\ Y
Guinea-Bissau................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y   ..........
Guyana.......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Haiti........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Honduras.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Hungary......................................  ............            Y             Y            Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Iceland......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y            Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
India........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........        \3\ Y            Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Indonesia....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          v           Y   ...............          Y           Y       Y
Iran.........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Iraq.........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y    ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Ireland......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y    ..........          Y   ...............          Y           Y       Y
Israel.......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y    ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Italy........................................  ............  .............           Y            Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Jamaica......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Japan........................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........  .............          Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Jordan.......................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........            Y            Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Kazakhstan...................................  ............            Y         \3\ Y        \3\ Y         \3\ Y            Y   ..........             Y         \3\ Y       \3\ Y   \3\ Y
Kenya........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Kiribati.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y     ..........  ..........  ..........
Korea (DPRK).................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Korea (ROK)..................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Kuwait.......................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........            Y            Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Kyrgyzstan...................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Laos.........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Latvia.......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y     ..........  ..........  ..........
Lebanon......................................  ............            Y             Y            Y         \3\ Y    ..........      \3\ Y          \3\ Y             Y           Y       Y
Lesotho......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Liberia......................................  ............  .............           Y            Y   .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y   ..........
Libya........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........        \3\ Y    ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Liechtenstein................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y           Y              Y     ..........  ..........  ..........
Lithuania....................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........        \3\ Y    ..........          Y   ...............          Y           Y   \3\ Y
Luxembourg...................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y           Y   ...............          Y           Y       Y
Madagascar...................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y    ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Malawi.......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Malaysia.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Maldives.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Mali.........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y            Y   ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Malta........................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........            Y    ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........      Y
Marshall Islands.............................  ............  .............           Y            Y             Y    ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Mauritania...................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Mauritius....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y            Y   ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Mexico.......................................  ............            Y             Y            Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Micronesia...................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Moldova......................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............      \3\ Y       \3\ Y   ..........
Monaco.......................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........            Y    ..........          Y   ...............          Y           Y       Y
Mongolia.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Morocco......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Mozambique...................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Namibia......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Nauru........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Nepal........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Netherlands..................................  ............            Y             Y            Y         \3\ Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
New Zealand..................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Nicaragua....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Niger........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Nigeria......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Norway.......................................  ............            Y             Y            Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Oman.........................................  ............  .............           Y            Y             Y            Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Pakistan.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Palau........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........        \3\ Y    ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y   \3\ Y
Panama.......................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........            Y            Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Papua New Guinea.............................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Paraguay.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........          Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Peru.........................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........            Y    ..........          Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Philippines..................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Poland.......................................  ............  .............           Y            Y   .............  ..........          Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Portugal.....................................  ............  .............       \3\ Y        \3\ Y   .............          Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Qatar........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Romania......................................  ............            Y             Y            Y   .............          Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Russian Federation...........................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Rwanda.......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Saint Kitts & Nevis..........................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Saint Lucia..................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y    ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
St. Vincent & Grenadines.....................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........      Y
San Marino...................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Sao Tome & Principe..........................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Saudi Arabia.................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........            Y            Y   ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Senegal......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............      \3\ Y   ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Serbia-Montenegro............................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Seychelles...................................  ............  .............           Y            Y   .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Sierra Leone.................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Singapore....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........        \3\ Y    ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Slovak Republic..............................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........        \3\ Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y   \3\ Y
Slovenia.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Solomon Islands..............................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y   ..........      Y
Somalia......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
South Africa.................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Spain........................................  ............            Y             Y            Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Sri Lanka....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........        \3\ Y    ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Sudan........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y   ..........
Suriname.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Swaziland....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Sweden.......................................  ............  .............           Y            Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Switzerland..................................  ............            Y             Y            Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Syria........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Tajikistan...................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y    ..........          Y   ...............          Y           Y   \3\ Y
Tanzania.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Thailand.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........        \3\ Y    ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Togo.........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y            Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Tonga........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y   ..........
Trinidad & Tobago............................  ............  .............           Y            Y   .............          Y   ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Tunisia......................................  ............            Y         \3\ Y        \3\ Y             Y    ..........          Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Turkey.......................................  ............            Y         \3\ Y        \3\ Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Turkmenistan.................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Tuvalu.......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............  ..........  ..........  ..........
Uganda.......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y    ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Ukraine......................................  ............  .............           Y            Y   .............          Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
    (USSR)...................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............         (Y)         (Y)            (Y)           (Y)         (Y)    (Y)
United Arab Emirates.........................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........            Y    ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
United Kingdom...............................  ............            Y             Y            Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
United States of America.....................  ............            Y             Y            Y             Y            Y           Y              Y             Y           Y       Y
Uruguay......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Uzbekistan...................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........            Y            Y           Y              Y         \3\ Y       \3\ Y   \3\ Y
Vanuatu......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Venezuela....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............          Y   ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Vietnam......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Western Samoa................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y   ..........
Yemen........................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
    (Yugoslavia).............................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........          (Y)           (Y)         (Y)            (Y)           (Y)         (Y)    (Y)
(Zaire)......................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........             Y             Y           Y       Y
Zambia.......................................  ............            Y    ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
Zimbabwe.....................................  ............  .............  ...........  ...........  .............  ..........  ..........  ...............          Y           Y       Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not from TIF, information obtained from other sources.
\2\ Convention not listed in TIF; list of parties is from ICAO.
\3\ Convention not listed in TIF.


                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                     Office of the Attorney General

STATEMENT OF HON. JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL

               attorney general reno's opening statement

    Senator Gregg. Madam Attorney General.
    Attorney General Reno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just so 
very much appreciate your leadership over these years. You have 
been consistent, you have been nonpartisan, you have cared so 
deeply, and your suggestions have been so very helpful to us, 
and your prodding helps, too.
    The other members of the committee, Senator Hollings, 
Senator Campbell, thank you very, very much. You have both 
always been here and it has been so important.
    Senator Mikulski, I am so glad you are back. Welcome, and 
thank you so much for all that you have done on this issue and 
the eloquence with which you speak about the human equation of 
it all.
    As Secretary Albright has said, there is a threat and it is 
real. We have seen it here and around the world. It has taken 
different forms. Conventional weapons are the ones we have seen 
most, but we have clear, clear alert that weapons of mass 
destruction, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear 
weapons, are there and are being considered for use. Director 
Freeh will talk more about the threat, but I would like to talk 
with you about what we are doing to plan and prepare and deal 
with the very specific issues that I know concern you.
    As you have pointed out, and you deserve much of the credit 
for this, we have submitted a 5-year interagency 
counterterrorism and technology plan. That was as a result of 
this subcommittee's leadership and we appreciate that very 
much. It is very good to have the subcommittee and a conference 
report behind us as we try to develop this coordination.

                  agency cooperation and preparedness

    The President has designated the Department of Justice, 
through the FBI, as the lead agency for domestic terrorism. My 
whole approach with that responsibility is to try to build a 
partnership, first, between the Federal agencies, and one of 
the first agencies that we dealt with long ago was the State 
Department. I appreciate the Secretary's words and I concur 
with her that there has been an excellent working relationship 
as we have learned from each other, as we have met to discuss 
these issues, and as she and her Department have been so 
thoughtful in terms of trying to plan for assignment of legats 
around the world. As Director Freeh, I think, will point out to 
you, the fact that there were legats relatively nearby on the 
continent able to go to the site of the bombing in East Africa, 
that made a significant difference.
    Our first goal amongst the Federal agencies has got to be 
to do everything we can to prevent terrorism. The resources you 
have given us since 1995 have given us personnel to help do 
that. The work that Director Freeh has done in dealing with the 
Central Intelligence Agency has been excellent, and the working 
relationship that has existed and been developed between the 
FBI and the intelligence community, I think, has been vital in 
terms of preventing terrorist attacks.
    But, Senator, you are absolutely right. We are not going to 
be able to prevent them all. There is no way we can do that, 
and we have got to be prepared. And to that end, finding that 
we had such good fortune with the Department of State, we 
started meeting on a regular basis with Deputy Secretary Hamre 
of the Department of Defense to talk about how we could work 
together--consistent with the laws of this land, Posse 
Comitatus, various provisions relating to the declaration of 
emergency--to make sure that we used resources the right way, 
consistent with the laws, to see that we were prepared in terms 
of an attack even with conventional weapons as well as weapons 
of mass destruction.
    One of the key areas, however, as many people spoke to me 
about the problem was the fact that we were perhaps not as 
prepared with respect to biological terrorism. The President, 
so deeply concerned about this effort, called together a group. 
I was there and it was a group of experts who had had 
experience in the issue of biological terrorism. It was one of 
the most informative times that I have had in Washington on 
this issue and the President directed that we address the issue 
of resources.
    At that point, I met with Secretary Shalala to make sure 
that she knew I would back her in every way. We developed a 
process whereby the Department of Health and Human Service 
representatives would meet with the FBI so that they learned to 
work together. It is fine to have a detective out here, but if 
he does not know anything about the biological aspects of it, 
he needs a science detective on the other side, and we are 
building that partnership.
    It is slow. Sometimes, I do not think we have reached our 
teenage years, as you point out, Mr. Chairman, and other times, 
I think we are maybe 30 or 40. Sometimes we backslide a little 
bit. But the process is in place and it is working, I think, 
well.
    If a terrorist incident happens, the first responsibility 
is to save lives. FEMA has done a magnificent job around the 
country in instances of natural disaster, and it has developed 
a sound Federal response plan that can serve as a guide for us 
as to what we must do when there are instances of terrorism 
that bring together all of the agencies.
    Under PDD 39 and its successor, PDD 62, the FBI is the lead 
agency for crisis management. FEMA is the lead agency for 
consequence management. Some people ask, when do you shift from 
one to the other? When the crisis is over, it is my 
determination as to when to shift responsibility to FEMA for 
the consequence management. But whatever the case, whether we 
are still in crisis or it is a matter of consequence 
management, saving lives is the number one issue.

              infrastructure protection against terrorism

    What I began to hear from so many people is, what are the 
best tools? What is the best equipment? Are we being trained 
the right way? Is everybody being trained, or is it just 
happening in the big cities?
    I will address that point in a moment, but I want to go on 
and point out that another important player in this partnership 
has got to be the private sector. As we deal with complicated 
issues such as infrastructure protection, as we face the threat 
of cyberterrorism, it becomes absolutely critical in order to 
protect our infrastructure that we work in partnership with the 
private sector.
    After we save lives, after we care for the wounded, our 
next responsibility is to make sure that these people are 
brought to justice. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your 
comments about the FBI. I second them, but I also say that 
there was an excellent working relationship with the State 
Department and we appreciated that very much in connection with 
East Africa.
    Some people despair and say, you are not going to be able 
to bring them to justice. You can charge them, but you cannot 
catch them. We will not stop until we catch them, and the 
record of this Government in bringing people to justice, I 
think, reflects that.

                       terrorism budget strategy

    Mr. Chairman, you asked about the budget process. The 
terrorism strategy that we developed and submitted to you did 
not address the budget issues because we are, frankly, growing. 
We are developing that capacity and I raised the issue with OMB 
to make sure that we were going to address it. I expect that we 
will be able to submit a cross-cutting budget to you, an 
addendum, by March 1 that reflects, it would be my 
anticipation, a thoughtful start at how we coordinate budget 
efforts in this connection across the Government to make sure 
that we do not fragment our dollars, that we do not waste our 
dollars, and that we do not duplicate our dollars.
    I frankly think, and I have spoken to you about it before, 
but I think it is one of the real challenges that we face, 
whether it be in law enforcement or fighting terrorism, that we 
have a responsibility to make sure we spend our dollars as 
wisely as possible. People like to sell us things, and instead 
of a military-industrial complex, I think we are going to have 
to think about a law enforcement-industrial complex. And how we 
buy the right equipment without wasting it, Senator, without 
stockpiling it for no purpose at all. How we buy the right 
equipment, the right technology, and most of all, how we keep 
it from becoming totally obsolete one year after another. I 
look forward to working with you in that effort. Your 
leadership in this regard has been extremely helpful.

        federal partnership with state and local law enforcement

    The second partnership that it is imperative that we work 
on, improve is--and I want to say to you, as I said earlier 
before the hearing began, I think Director Freeh has done a 
wonderful job of building partnerships with State and local law 
enforcement. I think it is imperative that we look to State and 
local first responders, fire, emergency personnel, hospital 
personnel, those who have expertise in biological terrorism. It 
is going to be imperative that we have a two-way street between 
State and locals and the Federal Government as we deal with 
issues of terrorism because they are on the scene first.
    That is going to require an exchange of information, and 
one of the issues that we are addressing is how do we exchange 
classified information with the State and locals. We are 
exploring accelerated security clearances that will permit that 
and other means of getting information to them as fast as 
possible that will help prevent terrorist attacks within their 
communities. I can give you some examples. If we have 
intelligence about a particular individual, we want to make 
sure that we protect sources and methods, but we can define the 
situation so that the information gets out without endangering 
or putting the sources and methods at risk. I think we have got 
more to do on that issue, but I think that is one that we are 
well on our way to solving.
    I think it is important that we have a two-way street, 
whether it be in the City of New York or a State like New 
Hampshire, so that the representative of the FBI knows who is 
who. They know who to call and the local officials know who to 
call; there is an exchange of information; there is an 
identification of key assets and key events that might be the 
subject of a terrorist attack so that we can take appropriate 
precautions.
    But we are not going to be able to prevent it all, and we 
have got to prepare for what might happen if a chemical or 
biological weapon was used as a terrorist weapon in this 
country.
    It is important, we have heard again and again, to have one 
Federal point of contact to go to for training, for equipping, 
for exercising to see how the whole process works. This past 
August, the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs 
called together stakeholders both from the Federal agencies and 
from State and local first responders to hear from them what 
was needed, and that is the hallmark of what we are trying to 
do. Do not tell people what to do. Consult with them and see 
from those who are on the front lines what they need to do the 
job.
    Again and again, they said, we need one point of contact. 
The FBI was the lead agency, but I went to FEMA, I went to the 
Department of Defense, I went to Secretary Shalala, and I said, 
how do you want to structure this? The consensus was that the 
FBI should be the lead agency, but there was also a clear 
consensus that the Office of Justice Programs had long 
experience in working with State and local officials and knew 
how to distribute monies in a wise way that would avoid 
entanglements along the way. We formed an idea in which the 
Office of Justice Programs would work with the FBI in the 
distribution of grants and in the distribution of training 
programs that would be planned, meet the needs, and meet 
certain standards.
    As a consequence, we have proposed the National Domestic 
Preparedness Office within the FBI to work with the Office of 
Justice Programs to achieve this effort. There will, at the 
same time be weapons of mass destruction coordinators within 
every FBI field office with the goal, I hope, of developing a 
relationship with State and local officials throughout the 
States, with State emergency officials at the State capital, 
and with the mayor of the smallest town to ensure that no part 
of America is left unattended as we plan for how we respond to 
domestic terrorism.
    To do that, I think it is going to require States to 
develop comprehensive plans in conjunction with the FBI and OJP 
so that we make sure that the entire State receives the support 
in equipping and training its personnel. I think it is 
important that we make sure that the equipment is appropriate 
for the circumstances and that we do not turn around in 10 
years and find that somebody has put a fancy piece of equipment 
on the shelf that was obsolete from the day it was purchased. I 
think all of these issues can be addressed in a comprehensive 
way.

                         threat of cyber attack

    One issue that has been a major concern to me, and I do not 
think that this country yet is grasping the nature of it, is 
the threat of a cyber attack. Just now, in this past year, we 
have been able to see instances in which 17- and 18-year-old 
hackers can intrude into sensitive computers across this 
country. If they can do that, our cyber system, our cyber 
infrastructure is at risk, and we must develop the capacity to 
deal with it with personnel and technology that can match the 
wits of the smartest criminals and the smartest terrorists.
    Director Freeh has established the National Infrastructure 
Protection Center, which has formed a partnership with other 
Federal agencies. The Department of Defense has particularly 
commented to me on how helpful this structure has been, but it 
is going to require that we reach out to State and locals, and 
to the private sector as we come to grips with the fact that 
our cyber infrastructure creates an interconnectivity between 
the public and private sector that presents new and 
unparalleled challenges for law enforcement. Our budget this 
year will address that issue of the cyber threat, and I look 
forward to working with you in that regard.
    You have spoken often about how we develop the research 
capabilities that are necessary to match wits with the bad 
guys. I have had an opportunity to visit at one of the national 
laboratories and we are trying to expand our efforts. The 
Bureau, with its very distinguished director of the FBI lab, 
Dr. Kerr, has done some great work in trying to reach out to 
make sure that we have the advantage of the best thinking on 
this issue and we are going to continue that effort.
    This is an extremely complex subject, but there is none 
more important to this Nation. I am not satisfied, because I 
sometimes think we move too slowly. But I think, considering 
all the agencies involved, we have made, as you point out, real 
progress in addressing our ability to prevent, to prepare, to 
save lives, and to bring people to justice. That is what it is 
all about and we are going to continue to try our level best.
    I look forward, Senator Mikulski, to other hearings. They 
oftentimes serve as very good prods, and Mr. Chairman, I look 
forward to working with you and the entire subcommittee in 
doing everything we can to make the terrorism strategy a 
reality, to do everything we can to prevent these things from 
happening in the first place.

                           prepared statement

    Senator Gregg. Thank you very much, Attorney General. We 
appreciate those comments. You raised a lot of issues that we 
want to get into.
    [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Janet Reno
                              introduction
    I am pleased to appear before you today to continue the dialogue 
between the Department of Justice and the Committee on our efforts to 
combat terrorism. At the outset, I would like to thank the Chairman for 
his leadership and express my appreciation to the Subcommittee for your 
interest and support in counter-terrorism matters.
    Since my testimony last March, we have made progress on developing 
strategies to deter, prevent, and respond to terrorist acts. We have 
enhanced our process of interagency cooperation and consultation with 
state and local authorities to prepare for, respond to, and investigate 
terrorist incidents in the U.S. and abroad. I would like to highlight 
for you what we have accomplished on these fronts in the last year.
    As you know, under Presidential Decisional Directives (PDD's) 39 
and 62, roles and responsibilities of federal agencies in counter-
terrorism activities have been clarified. The Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) is the lead agency for responding to acts of 
domestic terrorism. The FBI continues to work to identify, prevent, 
deter, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur. We will not 
always be able to prevent every incident and we will have to respond to 
terrorist incidents here and abroad. In these instances the FBI will 
lead the federal response to a domestic terrorist incident through the 
coordinated crisis response mechanism of its Counter-Terrorism Section. 
In addition, the FBI works with the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) as the lead agency for consequence management. Building on this 
framework the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) in the 
FBI is now a reality and is working to detect and respond to cyber-
based attacks on our critical infrastructures.
    Under its role as the designated lead agency for domestic 
terrorism, the FBI and the Department are taking positive steps to 
ensure state and local communities are prepared in the event of a 
terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD). We 
convened a stakeholders conference last August to get input and 
expertise from our federal agency partners in this effort, the 
Departments of Energy (DOE), Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services 
(HHS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and FEMA, as well as 
from the state and local first responder communities.
    Through the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici program first responders are 
receiving valuable training and communities are being provided 
protective, detection, and communications equipment.
    We have proposed the establishment of the Office of State and Local 
Domestic Preparedness Support (OSDLPS) within the Office of Justice 
Programs (OJP) to coordinate the delivery of training, equipment and 
technical assistance to state and local first responders.
    We have also proposed the establishment of the National Domestic 
Preparedness Office (NDPO) to be led by the FBI in partnership with OJP 
to provide a national-level coordinating office and single point of 
contact for the state and local responder community to access federal 
domestic preparedness programs, including those under the Department of 
Justice and other federal agencies.
    In order to provide a coordinated capacity to respond to terrorist 
incidents, the FBI has created--through funding provided by this 
Committee--the Strategic Information Operations Center (SIOC). The SIOC 
is staffed 24 hours a day as a command post to direct special 
operations and to respond to terrorist incidents.
    Working in coordination with state and local law enforcement the 
FBI has established 18 Joint Terrorism Task Forces operating in major 
cities. These task forces serve to enhance coordination and cooperation 
among federal, state and local law enforcement. Over 200 members of 
state and local law enforcement participate on these task forces with 
the FBI and other representatives from federal law enforcement to 
investigate terrorism incidents.
    With the support of and at the direction of this Committee, we 
worked with other agencies to prepare the Administration's Five-Year 
Counter Terrorism and Technology Crime Plan (Five-Year Plan) which was 
submitted on December 30, 1998. The Five-Year Plan serves as a baseline 
strategy for coordination of a national policy and capabilities to 
combat terrorism in the United States and against American interests 
abroad. As this Committee directed, the Five-Year Plan was developed in 
partnership with other federal agencies, and with the input of academia 
and state and local law enforcement. The resources required by the 
actions set forth in this Plan will be presented in a separate Budget 
Addendum. I consider this Plan a living document and I am committed to 
working with you and your staff to update this Plan on a regular basis 
and to address issues as they arise either in the context of our 
strategy or individual incidents.
    Secretary Albright will discuss the issue of international 
terrorism in greater detail. As you know, PDD 39 provides that the 
State Department is the lead agency for coordinating the U.S. response 
to acts of international terrorism like the bombings in East Africa. 
The FBI works with the State Department and other agencies to provide 
support and crisis management assistance through the FBI's 
International Terrorism Section. This coordination was evident in the 
aftermath of the bombings in East Africa last August when the FBI and 
the State Department worked together to rapidly deploy personnel to the 
scene and collaborate with local law enforcement officials to identify 
those responsible and begin the process of bringing them to justice. 
Immediately upon notification of the bombings a coordinated effort 
began under the State Department's lead to deploy two multiagency 
Foreign Emergency Support Teams (FEST). The FBI supplied 
representatives on the two FEST teams. In addition, the FBI deployed 
Evidence Response Teams and activated the SIOC at FBI Headquarters. 
Through this coordinated effort we worked with Kenyan and Tanzanian 
authorities to mount the investigation that has resulted in the 
indictment of 10 individuals, including Usama Bin Laden. But our work 
continues.
    Both the report of the Accountability Review Board on the Embassy 
Bombings and the Five-Year Plan underscore the need to improve training 
and contingency planning to deal with mass casualties and major 
destruction from terrorist bombs. In these types of incidents, saving 
lives and treating the injured is our first priority. Yet, as we 
experienced in East Africa, necessary medical and emergency equipment 
was not always ready and available. We need to improve our planning and 
stockpiling for contingencies so that we can tailor our response for 
individual incidents.
    I would like to briefly describe the nature of the existing 
terrorist threat. Terrorists will continue, in the near term, to employ 
conventional weapons and methods, such as bombings, firearms and 
kidnapings. We must continue to enhance our readiness to withstand and 
respond to such attacks at home and abroad. This continuing need was 
graphically demonstrated by the horrific attacks on our embassies in 
Kenya and Tanzania last August. The devastation and senseless loss of 
life caused by the terrorists responsible for these events were wrought 
by the use of conventional explosives in large vehicle bombs--the same 
type of weapons used to attack the World Trade Center in New York City 
in 1993 and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. As 
the Report of the Accountability Review Boards on the Embassy Bombings 
in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam clearly indicates, we must continue our 
efforts to detect and defeat such conventional weapons and to secure 
our citizens here and abroad.
    Terrorists will not confine themselves to the use of conventional 
weapons. Our intelligence and investigative efforts indicate increasing 
interest in biological and chemical weapons. A terrorist attack using a 
biological weapon may not be immediately apparent, and the resulting 
impact on victims, police, firefighters, and emergency medical 
personnel--the first responders on the scene--could be far reaching. In 
fact, as we have found recently the mere threat of the use of 
unconventional weapons can cause concern and panic. Threats to release 
harmful biological or chemical substances cannot be ignored; they 
require a sizable commitment of law enforcement investigative resources 
before they can be discounted.
    This underscores the need to train and equip first responders and 
emergency medical personnel adequately to deal with a range of 
unconventional weapons including dual use substances--those which have 
a benign, legitimate use as well as potential use as weapons--which 
pose an added risk. We are working with the Department of Health and 
Human Services, especially with the Public Health Service, to 
strengthen the preparedness of our public health and emergency medical 
resources to recognize and respond to terrorist events involving 
biological and chemical agents.
    Because we are increasingly reliant upon interdependent networks we 
face the threat of cyber attacks on our infrastructure and information 
systems which could significantly harm our military power and our 
economy. The networks that connect our utilities, transportation, and 
telecommunications systems rely on the National Information 
Infrastructure (NII). These may prove to be attractive targets to 
cyber-terrorists looking to exploit the global nature of the Internet.
    In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in East Africa last 
August, the threat posed by the network of loosely affiliated 
individuals associated with and inspired by Usama Bin Laden has 
received substantial public attention. Through cooperation with other 
agencies we have made progress on this investigation. I know Director 
Freeh and Secretary Albright will speak more about the scope of the 
existing threat to Americans both at home and abroad and our 
coordinated efforts to prepare for and respond to these threats. But, I 
would like to emphasize today my commitment to continuing to use the 
full panoply of our resources to bring terrorists like Osama Bin Laden 
and those like him to justice.
    I would like to discuss in more detail all the steps we have taken 
and the solid advances we have made in developing and implementing a 
comprehensive approach to combat terrorism. In so doing I want to 
address directly the issues of mutual concern that have arisen in the 
numerous discussions we have had with you and your staff.
    I share the Committee's concern that state and local officials be 
fully and continuously involved in our counter-terrorism planning 
efforts. I want to focus on what we are doing to include state and 
local first responders and to build trust and partnership relationships 
with those on the front lines who will be the first to respond in the 
aftermath of a terrorist attack.
    We have looked to the state and local responder community to 
provide us valuable input throughout our planning efforts for instance 
in the stakeholder's conference, and in preparing the Five-Year Plan. 
In the proposed NDPO effort, an advisory committee of state and local 
authorities will be the bridge between the federal domestic 
preparedness program planning and the needs and priorities of the 
states and local emergency response and health care community.
    In order to establish effective partnerships at the state and local 
level we must get state and local officials the information they need 
to protect the public and themselves and to aid their preparedness and 
response efforts. Through the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces and the 
Regional Terrorism Task Force concept, we are working to provide a 
means of sharing classified information on case-related matters with 
state and local law enforcement officials. These task forces, by 
themselves, do not address all of the situations in which state and 
local officials need access either to classified information or to 
information derived from classified material. We are developing a 
process investigating how to provide the appropriate security 
clearances so that state and local officials will get the information 
they need. In taking these steps, we are building on the FBI's thorough 
and efficient success in making threat warning information about 
specific threats to particular jurisdictions available in a timely 
manner. State and local officials who work side-by-side with federal 
officials, as in the NIPC and in the proposed NDPO, will hold 
appropriate security clearances.
    In addition, first responders absolutely need access to the 
information necessary to protect the public and themselves, even when 
that information is classified. In many instances, the source or method 
by which the information was obtained, and which requires it to be 
classified, can be removed and the information declassified before it 
is shared with state and local officials. In the case of an actual or 
threatened terrorist incident, state and local personnel who need 
access to classified information will be provided clearances on an 
expedited basis. Finally, state and local officials participating on 
the advisory committee of the proposed NDPO will also be eligible to 
receive classified information, as needed, to help make policy 
recommendations.
    Information sharing is critical to our preparedness efforts. As you 
know, the Five-Year Plan was classified in its entirety. We have 
recently made available to you a 50 page unclassified excerpt from the 
Five-Year Plan which addresses strategies to enhance state and local 
capabilities to respond to terrorist acts. We are making this document 
widely available to state and local authorities. This report and the 
results of the state and local questionnaire will serve as the basis of 
a continuing dialogue with these officials on how we can implement, 
improve, and expand upon the initiatives in the Five-Year Plan in ways 
that will best strengthen the capabilities of states, cities, and local 
communities across the country. As we update the Plan annually, we will 
incorporate the views of state and local officials and of emergency 
responders.
    As we learned from the bombings of the World Trade Center in New 
York and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, domestic 
terrorism incidents have their initial and most devastating impact at 
the state and local levels. It is the first responder and emergency 
worker who must literally begin to pick up the pieces: locate, 
extricate, and treat the victims; put out the fires; and take the first 
steps to begin to restore order out of chaos. We owe it to these vital 
personnel and to ourselves to enable them to be adequately trained and 
equipped for these tasks. We cannot measure our preparedness to deal 
with terrorist acts without measuring the degree to which we have 
prepared first responders. Accordingly, we must continue to do 
everything we can to enhance the capabilities of state and local 
emergency responders, managers and officials who will play a critical 
role in the immediate response to such events.
    We must recognize that there is no single template for interaction 
with state and local authorities since under our federal system there 
is considerable variation in how local governments are structured and 
organized. In the wake of a terrorist incident there may well be 
initial confusion as we organize ourselves and bring all our resources 
to bear on an effective response. But make no mistake, there is no 
confusion that the first priority of all concerned is the saving of 
lives.
    I know there is concern that during a terrorist incident our 
communications infrastructure could be disabled--thereby encumbering 
the ability of first responders to communicate by radio or telephone. 
Fortunately, such an occurrence would not cripple the Department's 
communications capacity. Some degree of infrastructure-independent 
radio communications, with security features intact, would still be 
feasible. We are dedicated to maintaining this core capacity. In 
addition, in our dealings with state and local public safety agencies, 
we emphasize their need to develop and maintain communications systems 
that are not wholly reliant on the existence of a communications 
infrastructure.
    The confusion that inevitably follows in the wake of a terrorist 
incident makes it essential that federal, state, and local responders 
work together to plan and execute exercises that can help the responder 
community understand each other's functions in the event of a terrorist 
attack and in particular a WMD incident.
    Since I last testified before you, we conducted a tabletop exercise 
in the District of Columbia using a WMD scenario. As this committee has 
recognized, exercises and training must include senior level officials 
to achieve senior level coordination. Thus, government officials and 
emergency response personnel in the various jurisdictions within the 
District of Columbia metropolitan area participated in this exercise. 
This exercise demonstrated areas where we need to clarify our 
respective roles and improve communication so that we can function more 
effectively in the event of a terrorist incident. This is one of the 
important purposes of such exercises, and I am committed to continuing 
to conduct and participate in these exercises in order to improve our 
unified operational capabilities.
    We have made significant progress in our efforts to deter, prepare 
for and respond to terrorist activity. In all of these efforts our 
goals are clear. First and foremost we want to detect and prevent 
terrorist acts before they occur. If they do occur, our highest 
priority is to save lives and provide help to the injured. Finally, we 
will work tirelessly to hold accountable the perpetrators of terrorist 
acts and bring them to justice no matter how long it may take.
                 preventing and responding to terrorism
National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC)
    Within the last year the NIPC was established to deter, detect, 
analyze, investigate and provide warnings of cyber threats and attacks 
on the critical infrastructures of the United States, including illegal 
intrusions into government and private sector computer networks. The 
NIPC will also evaluate, acquire, and deploy computer equipment and 
cyber tools to support investigations and infrastructure protection 
efforts. NIPC will play a major role in the national plan for cyber 
protection, which the President has tasked in PDD 63. The national plan 
will be finalized shortly.
    The NIPC continues to recruit personnel at FBI Headquarters and in 
the field. The NIPC currently has representatives from several 
government agencies including DOD, DOE, Central Intelligence Agency, 
National Security Agency, Secret Service, the Postal and Inspection 
Service, as well as state law enforcement. The NIPC is also seeking 
private sector representatives.
    As computers pervade our lives and culture, they play an ever-
increasing role in a wide variety of criminal activity, not just cyber 
terrorism or other sorts of illegal intrusions. Thus, computers can be 
used in fraud schemes on the Internet or to disseminate child 
pornography. In order to improve our ability to deal with these sorts 
of computer-facilitated crimes we must raise the general level of 
computer competence among all agents and prosecutors, not just those in 
the NIPC and National Infrastructure Protection and Computer Intrusion 
(NIPCI) field squads and the small cadre of specially trained 
prosecutors. We need to aggressively train existing staff across the 
board, so that all personnel in DOJ and FBI have the requisite 
expertise to carry out these investigations.
    In order to build up state and local capabilities, the NIPC, in 
conjunction with NDPO, plans to conduct outreach and training efforts 
for local first responders and state and local law enforcement. The 
NIPC seeks to train investigators and at least one trainer from state-
level investigative agencies in each of the 50 states and the District 
of Columbia. The NIPC also plans to train investigators from the 
municipalities represented in the Major Cities Police Chiefs' and the 
Major Sheriffs' Associations and has been consulting on this 
possibility with the International Association of Chiefs of Police and 
the National Sheriffs Association. A larger effort to include the 
training of 500 state and local law enforcement personnel at a one week 
hands-on course will be launched in the second half of this fiscal 
year. In addition, the Administration has proposed the Cyber Corps 
program to address the shortage of highly skilled computer science 
expertise in the government. This program will encourage agencies to 
recruit an expert class of computer security workers through existing 
scholarship and financial assistance. Finally, the newly-created 
National Cybercrime Training Partnership, an organization consisting of 
federal, state, and local cybercrime trainers, is developing a 
comprehensive set of courses, pursuant to rigorous academic standards, 
to ensure that the cybercrime training available can meet the ever-
increasing demand.
Federal Crisis Response Structure
    In the event of a domestic terrorist incident, under PDD's 39 and 
62 the FBI is the lead agency for responding to terrorist threats and 
incidents occurring within the United States. As the lead agency for 
domestic terrorism response, the FBI will utilize its investigative and 
law enforcement expertise in the crisis management of a terrorist 
attack. The FBI will work with FEMA which has the lead responsibility 
for consequence management.
    Responsibility for operational coordination of resources and 
information within the FBI during a terrorism event depends on the 
nature and venue of the crisis and the identity and affiliation of the 
perpetrators.
    If a terrorist incident occurs, the FBI's SIOC is immediately 
activated. If necessary the new SIOC is capable of managing multiple 
crises simultaneously. The SIOC has been recently utilized and tested 
during recent alerts in response to intelligence developed in past 
weeks. During a crisis, the SIOC functions as the conduit for 
information and expertise at the headquarters level of all pertinent 
agencies and components.
    In a WMD incident, consequence management personnel from FEMA, EPA, 
DOE, NDPO, and DOD will supplement FBI personnel in the SIOC just as 
they would supplement FBI personnel in the field in the Joint 
Operations Center (JOC). During a non-WMD incident, the SIOC structure 
closely resembles the structure of the FBI Command Post in the field.
    If a terrorist attack affecting U.S. interests overseas occurs, 
SIOC will be activated immediately to facilitate communications and 
prompt evaluation of the appropriate FBI response. As Director Freeh 
will discuss, the FBI Legats stationed abroad are ready to offer 
support and assistance to the Chief of Mission and to advise me as to 
the situation at the scene. Likewise, deployment of the FEST by the 
State Department will include FBI representation.
    If an attack occurs overseas against U.S. persons or property, or 
within the U.S. with foreign involvement, then the FBI's International 
Terrorism Operations Section will coordinate the FBI's response. If a 
WMD incident in the U.S. that is perpetrated by foreign terrorists, the 
WMD Operations Unit will coordinate the federal response in support of 
the International Terrorism Operations Section which would focus on the 
actual investigation.
    If there is a terrorist attack against our critical infrastructures 
that is cyber in nature, the NIPC will coordinate crisis response 
activities with the Counter-Terrorism Section or the International 
Terrorism Section using the resources of the SIOC. To respond in a 
coordinated fashion, a crisis action team comprised of criminal 
investigators, computer scientists, analysts, watch standers, and other 
federal agency representatives will be formed. The crisis action team 
will attempt to determine the scope of the attack, the technology 
employed, and the possible source and purpose of the attack. The NIPC 
Watch and Warning Unit will continually assess the situation and issue 
warnings, as necessary, to federal agencies, state and local 
authorities, and the private sector. In the event of a physical attack 
on an infrastructure, the NIPC will support the investigation using its 
key asset network.
    In the field, the FBI Field Office in the jurisdiction where a 
terrorist incident occurs will establish a Command Post under the 
direction of the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) to manage and coordinate 
the crisis response. If the terrorist incident is of the magnitude 
which requires the involvement of other agencies, the SAC will expand 
the Command Post into a Joint Operations Center (JOC). The FBI's 
Critical Incident Response Group will assist the field office in 
establishing the Command Post/JOC by providing tactical advice and 
equipment, and the Attorney Critical Incident Response Groups will 
provide additional advice and keep me informed at all critical stages 
of our response. If a crisis warrants it, Director Freeh may ask that I 
seek interagency approval for the deployment of the Domestic Emergency 
Support Team, also known as the DEST, to draw on specific federal 
agency expertise, to transport these additional experts to the field, 
and to incorporate them into the JOC. The composition of the DEST is 
tailored to the particular incident. In the event of chemical, 
biological or nuclear terrorism, HHS, EPA, DOD and DOE might be 
represented on the DEST.
    The FBI is developing a comprehensive approach to all states which 
will help prevent, deter, and respond to terrorist threats by 
collecting, analyzing, and disseminating intelligence broadly and 
consistent with security concerns. The FBI has established Joint 
Terrorism Task Forces in 18 major metropolitan areas composed of state 
and local officials and local representatives from the FBI and other 
federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 
the Customs Service, the Secret Service, and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service. Participants, including state and local law 
enforcement officials, hold security clearances and work together, 
usually on a full-time basis to share information and investigate 
terrorist activities. Recognizing that not all terrorist activity is 
centered in urban areas, the FBI has developed the ``Regional Terrorism 
Task Force'' concept to serve several rural states with common 
terrorism concerns. Two such task forces have recently been 
established.
                     domestic preparedness efforts
Office of Justice Programs and the National Domestic Preparedness 
        Office
    We are working to streamline and improve our current and future 
abilities to work effectively with state and local authorities toward 
our common national goal of improved readiness. As you know, OJP is 
responsible for specific financial and technical assistance to state 
and local authorities under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 
Penalty Act of 1996 and the Justice Department's fiscal year 1998 and 
fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Acts. OJP has served as the Justice 
Department's principal link to state and local jurisdictions in the 
areas of criminal and juvenile justice and victims services. OJP is now 
bringing that expertise and experience to the area of domestic 
preparedness. We have proposed the establishment of the Office of State 
and Local Domestic Preparedness Support (OSLDPS) within OJP to provide 
funds for equipment, training and technical assistance to state and 
local authorities and emergency responders. OSLDPS is proposed as one 
mechanism through which we will implement the mandate given to the 
Justice Department by this Committee to enhance the capabilities of 
state and local jurisdictions to better respond to incidents of 
domestic terrorism.
    Additionally, we have proposed the creation of the National 
Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO) which will be lead by the FBI 
working in partnership with OJP and all federal agencies engaged in WMD 
preparedness efforts. The NDPO is proposed as an interagency effort 
aimed at enhancing government-wide coordination among federal programs 
offering terrorism preparedness assistance to state and local 
communities. As such, the NDPO and OJP will work together as a team in 
a unified Justice Department effort to streamline access to federal 
preparedness assistance programs. The NDPO, in coordination with OJP, 
will serve state and local authorities as the single federal point of 
contact they have requested to facilitate their access to federal 
programs and resources which suit their preparedness needs. As the NDPO 
is established, we seek the active involvement of participating federal 
agencies, including FEMA, the DOD, HHS, DOE, and the EPA, as well as 
state and local authorities and emergency responder organizations. The 
participation of these agencies will be needed in staffing and in 
otherwise supporting this effort. I want to stress that the NDPO is not 
intended to be another layer of bureaucracy. Rather, it is intended to 
streamline access to federal domestic preparedness assistance programs.
    With the NDPO we plan to build upon OJP's considerable expertise 
and experience in providing assistance to state and local authorities 
on a range of issues. With regard to equipment in the domestic 
preparedness effort, the major federal response to state and local 
needs has been through the Nunn-Lugar equipment loan program which 
provides WMD-related training equipment. In 1998, the Justice 
Department, through OJP, provided $12 million for grants to local 
jurisdictions for personal protection, chemical/biological detection, 
decontamination and communications equipment. In 1999, OJP will award 
grants in partnership with the standards, policy and guidance of the 
NDPO. Under the OJP First Responder Equipment Acquisition Program, 
$69.5 million in grant monies will go out to the 157 largest cities and 
counties in the 50 states. An additional $4 million will fund equipment 
to support training provided through the National Domestic Preparedness 
Consortium. The Consortium was formally organized on June 11, 1998, in 
order to bring together various existing national assets, as identified 
in the Department's fiscal year 1998 and 1999 Appropriations Acts, into 
a singular, coordinated, and integrated training architecture. The 
Consortium is comprised of the Center for Domestic Preparedness at Fort 
McClellan; the National Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center 
at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology; the National 
Center for Bio-Medical Research and Training located at the Louisiana 
State University; the National Emergency and Response and Rescue 
Training Center located at the Texas A&M University; and DOE's National 
Exercise, Test, and Training Center (Nevada Test Site).
    The Municipal Fire and Emergency Services program provides $16 
million to jurisdictions to provide specialized equipment to fire and 
emergency service agencies.
    Key to the equipment grant program will be the Standardized 
Equipment List (SEL), developed jointly by DOD and FBI, to define the 
types of equipment for which grant funds can be utilized within the 
four categories of personal protective equipment, detection devices, 
decontamination equipment, and first response communications equipment. 
The FBI and DOD drew upon the expertise of state and local emergency 
responders in drawing up the SEL so it meets their needs. OJP's fiscal 
year 1999 application cycle will not be executed until the Needs 
Assessment, due for initial reporting on March 1, 1999, is completed 
and the application kit reviewed to ensure consistency with the 
findings of the Needs Assessment. OJP will also initiate a technical 
assistance program to provide state and local jurisdictions with hands-
on, on-site expertise and guidance to better enable these jurisdictions 
to make well-founded decisions relating to both domestic preparedness 
planning and response. OJP projects distribution of the application 
kits to the selected jurisdictions by April 1, 1999.
    Through OJP and NDPO's joint efforts, state and local first 
responders will be able to access technical assistance for their 
response personnel to help them in making decisions about equipment 
grants and training.
    It is through these initiatives, and the initiatives and programs 
to be developed and expanded over the next fiscal year, that OJP--in 
tandem with the FBI and our other federal agency partners in the NDPO--
will continue to fulfill the mission of assisting state and local 
jurisdictions to better prepare and respond to incidents of domestic 
terrorism.
The Five-Year Plan and Federal Agency Coordination
    Let me lay out for you the mechanisms we have developed to ensure 
that federal agencies will work together and with the state and local 
community in the event of a terrorist incident within the U.S.
    On December 30, 1998, I submitted to you the Administration's Five-
Year Interagency Counter-Terrorism and Technology Crime Plan. 
Consistent with the direction you gave us in the Conference Committee 
Report accompanying the 1998 Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 
the Plan sets forth a baseline strategy for our nation's counter-
terrorism efforts. The long-range goal of the Five-Year Plan is to 
achieve readiness nationwide and with respect to our interests abroad. 
The Plan addresses critical technologies for targeted research and 
development, preventing and deterring terrorism, integrating crisis and 
consequence management, protecting our National Information 
Infrastructure, and improving state and local capabilities. It 
represents our best thinking as to where we are now, where we need to 
go, and how we are going to get there in terms of national 
preparedness. For example, the Plan recognizes that it is not enough to 
provide initial training for first responders in select jurisdictions. 
We must make such initial training available to first responders in all 
fifty states and the territories, and we must provide refresher and 
follow-up training as well.
    The Five-Year Plan is consistent with the PDD's issued last year. 
PDD's 62 and 63, set forth goals for national security, counter-
terrorism and infrastructure protection. These directives specify and 
clarify lead agency roles in strengthening our preparedness for 
combating terrorism, protecting our critical infrastructures, and 
managing the consequences of terrorist acts, particularly those 
involving weapons of mass destruction. These directives establish the 
National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and 
Counter-terrorism to oversee program coordination and to aid the 
National Security Council in carrying out its advisory role on issues 
of national security to the President. The National Coordinator does 
not direct the activities of the agencies, rather, he serves a 
coordinating function for the policies and programs on threats to the 
U.S. and to U.S. interests abroad, including attacks on our 
infrastructure, cyber systems, and government operations; terrorism; 
and defense against covert delivery of WMD.
    We have closely coordinated our efforts in developing the Five-Year 
Plan with the PDD 62 and 63 implementation efforts of the Office of the 
National Coordinator in order to minimize duplication of effort and to 
assure a consistent national approach in these vital areas. This 
approach of coordinating and integrating related efforts must continue 
as the Plan is updated in the coming years. We are working with the 
Office of the National Coordinator to establish procedures that will 
facilitate these updates and merge our efforts in overlapping areas.
    As this Committee has recognized, state and local input is 
essential to our counter-terrorism planning. In developing the Five-
Year Plan, we sought the input of state and local authorities through a 
questionnaire sent to public officials and organizations representing 
first responders and emergency response personnel. Also, at my 
direction, OJP convened a state and local stakeholders conference in 
August 1998, in Washington, D.C. Together with state and local 
stakeholders, we brought together the expertise of the DOD, HHS, DOE, 
the EPA, FEMA, the National Security Council and the FBI which have all 
worked with state and local responder constituencies in response to a 
variety of crises and catastrophes.
    The PDD's set out specific crisis and consequence management 
responsibilities in the event of a terrorist attack. PDD's 39 and 62 
outlines the responsibilities of law enforcement and other agencies in 
responding to a terrorist incident. Numerous federal, state and local 
agencies have devoted considerable resources in recent years to the 
development of crisis and consequence management plans. We must work to 
integrate these plans so that in the event of a terrorist incident all 
those involved in the response and mitigation efforts work together.
    One of the planning documents developed over the past year to 
further refine our interagency efforts in regard to domestic terrorism 
is the Concept of Operations Plan (CONPLAN). The CONPLAN seeks to 
establish a structure for a systematic, coordinated, effective national 
response to threats and acts of terrorism. The CONPLAN describes how 
the FBI crisis response structure, the Federal Response Plan, the 
Federal consequence management mechanisms and state and local Incident 
Command Systems will coordinate their activities in the event of a WMD 
incident.
    By educating themselves as to the scope and provisions of each 
agency's and jurisdiction's plan, and by exercising and training 
together, federal, state, and local entities can learn to work together 
more effectively. This education, exercising and training process must 
include senior level officials to achieve senior level interagency 
coordination. The Top-Off exercise, which this Committee has required, 
is a significant and necessary step in this direction.
    The National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection 
and Counter-terrorism plays an important coordination role in our 
preparedness and response to events involving international terrorism 
and WMD. The National Coordinator does not have an operational role, 
rather, the Attorney General advises him with regard to national 
security information when a terrorist event occurs. The National 
Coordinator is responsible for coordinating the government's policies 
and programs concerning unconventional threats within the United States 
and to Americans abroad. These unconventional threats include attacks 
on our infrastructure, cyber systems, and government operations; 
terrorism; and the covert delivery of WMD. He is also responsible for 
coordinating the development of interagency procedures for deployment 
of specialized crisis assets.
                                 tools
    As we enhance our readiness nation-wide to deal with terrorism, we 
must have the right tools and personnel to improve our capabilities 
across the broad spectrum of WMD and threats to our nation and its 
critical infrastructures.
Expedited Procurement
    I want to acknowledge the leadership of this Committee in this 
effort and the recent authority granted to me to purchase or lease 
necessary equipment or services on an expedited basis to support 
ongoing counter terrorism, national security, or computer crime 
investigations or prosecutions. It will enable me to quickly access 
additional resources, should the need arise, to supplement federal 
capabilities as well as to assist emergency responders first on the 
scene, whether they are from federal, state, or local agencies or from 
the private sector.
    Also, with the leadership of this committee, the Department and the 
FBI Laboratory are capitalizing on national laboratory resources for 
the development and deployment of new applied science and engineering 
capabilities to support counterterrorism, intelligence activities and 
criminal investigations.
Legislation
    Although the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 
provided many necessary and additional legal tools, some modifications 
to existing laws would clarify and strengthen these tools. Draft 
legislation currently under review within the Department includes 
proposals which would strengthen investigative tools, clarify and 
supplement existing criminal and immigration statutes relating to 
terrorist offenses and offenses involving WMD, and promote prompt 
federal interagency cooperation in responding to terrorist incidents.
    One of the items under review is clarification of the removal 
ground of ``engage in terrorist activity'' in order to facilitate 
removal of terrorists who engage in fund-raising or otherwise provide 
material support to terrorist organizations. We are also considering 
the addition of terrorist offenses as predicate offenses to the federal 
racketeering and money laundering statutes. Also under review is 
clarifying the definitions in the biological weapons statutes and 
expansion of these statutes to provide better controls over biological 
agents. For example, an amendment could be proposed outlawing the 
possession of biological agents that could be used in weapons of mass 
destruction by those with no legitimate purpose for possessing these 
agents.
    In addition, the Department is considering a High-Technology Crime 
Bill to address several technical and procedural infirmities that 
inhibit effective investigation and prosecution of cybercrime. While 
not all cybercrime is perpetrated by terrorists, improving our overall 
capabilities to combat cybercrime will improve our readiness to address 
cyber terrorism.
    The High-Technology Crime Bill could contain proposals to clarify 
and expedite routine procedures used in the investigation of computer 
crimes. Today, investigators must place multiple trap-and-trace devices 
and execute multiple search warrants in the many jurisdictions through 
which relevant information passes. Consequently, law enforcement often 
finds itself well behind the criminals who traverse international 
networks with the touch of the keyboard.
    In this digital age of Internet-based communications, signals do 
not travel along straight lines, thus the traditional trap and trace or 
pen register is not effective. Signals are often broken up and may pass 
through many providers, in several different jurisdictions, en route to 
their destination. In order to obtain key prosecution information about 
a telephone call that is routinely provided in response to an 
authorized court order, law enforcement officers must obtain orders in 
each successive jurisdiction through which a signal passes in order to 
trace the communication to its source. This consumes valuable time and 
scarce resources and impedes identification of the perpetrator. A 
possible amendment to existing statutes could allow federal judges to 
direct cooperation among successive communications providers that carry 
a particular communication in tracing a call to its ultimate source or 
destination.
Encryption
    Court-authorized electronic surveillance (wiretaps) and search and 
seizure are two of the most critically important investigative 
techniques used by law enforcement to prosecute crime including 
terrorism. The growing use of strong, commercially-available, non-
recoverable encryption will significantly impair our ability to 
effectively use wiretaps and conduct searches and seizures.
    Encryption is extremely beneficial when used legitimately by 
individuals and corporations to protect the privacy and confidentiality 
of voice and data communications and sensitive electronically stored 
information (computer files). In order to provide individuals and 
corporations with greater privacy protections as the world moves into 
the information age, both industry and government are encouraging the 
use of strong encryption. But the use of strong encryption by criminals 
and terrorists poses a significant risk to public safety and national 
security.
    Law enforcement has steadfastly expressed its concern about the 
adoption of an encryption policy based solely on market forces. Law 
enforcement, including the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the National District 
Attorneys Association, the National Association of Attorney Generals 
and the Major City Chiefs, continues to call for the adoption of a 
balanced encryption policy--one that meets the commercial needs of 
industry as well as the needs of the public for effective law 
enforcement.
    The Administration is not currently seeking mandatory controls on 
encryption, but instead is working with industry to find voluntary 
solutions that meet privacy, electronic commerce and public safety 
needs. We remain optimistic that such a voluntary approach will be 
successful in addressing our public safety needs.
                               resources
    The Department currently spends approximately $738.5 million for 
counter terrorism and anti-terrorism activities. In fiscal year 2000, 
the Department is seeking an increase of 319 positions (60 agents and 
66 attorneys) and $122.6 million for counter-terrorism/cybercrime 
programs to enhance our ability to deter, detect, investigate and 
prosecute violations committed by terrorists and other computer 
criminals. This reflects our concern that the interdependent systems 
that support every critical aspect of American life, including 
telecommunications, power delivery, transportation, delivery of 
government services and banking and commerce, are vulnerable to 
terrorist groups, organized criminals and, simply, lone hackers.
    For the FBI, our request includes counterterrorism/technology crime 
program increases totaling 207 positions (60 agents) and $45.7 million. 
Of the total amount, we seek $9 million to modernize the Hazardous 
Devices School at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, where state and local bomb 
technicians are trained and certified. This request also includes 108 
positions (60 agents) and $11.3 million to allow the FBI to establish 
up to 12 field NIPCI Squads to investigate cyber intrusion cases, 
address infrastructure protection matters, support computer facilitated 
crime investigations, and provide equipment for 26 other field offices; 
79 positions and $9.9 million to increase the number of Computer 
Analysis Response Team (CART) examiners who provide forensic support in 
cases involving computers, and provide CART members with appropriate 
equipment and training; 7 positions and $4.2 million for data network 
interception support and development; $7 million for counter-encryption 
equipment and services; 13 positions and $2.6 million for protocol 
analysis and processing staffing and equipment; and, finally, $1.7 
million for NIPC operations.
    We continue to require additional technologically proficient 
personnel who are capable of protecting the security and integrity of 
government systems and of enabling us to stay a step ahead of those who 
would attack or otherwise compromise our capabilities. We will seek to 
accelerate our efforts to hire, train and retain specialized and 
technologically skilled personnel, not only for the NIPC and field 
squads, but also for critical positions throughout the Department of 
Justice. Using the authority provided by the exemption to Title 5 for 
certain positions that was approved by this Committee, we will augment 
our existing staff with specialized and technologically skilled 
personnel.
    To increase the United States' ability to protect its businesses 
and its citizens, we are requesting 87 positions (55 attorneys) and 
$7.3 million for the U.S. Attorneys. The Administration is committed to 
protecting the nation's businesses and citizens from terrorists and 
other computer criminals. But, to meet this commitment, there must be 
additional attorneys and support staff for the investigation and 
prosecution of computer crime in its various manifestations. The U.S. 
Attorneys require additional staffing to handle significant cases of 
national interest which are due, in part, to terrorism, computer and 
other high tech crime generated by the steadily accelerating role of 
computers in businesses, the personal lives of our citizens, the 
exploding growth of on-line services and Internet use, the 
vulnerabilities of computer systems to attack and abuse, and the 
ability of terrorists and computer criminals to attack anonymously and 
from locations throughout the world.
    For the Criminal Division, the Department requests an increase of 
13 positions (9 attorneys) and $1.8 million for counter terrorism/
cybercrime in the fiscal year 2000 budget. This enhancement will permit 
the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section of the Criminal 
Division to focus additional resources on 3 areas: (1) infrastructure 
protection; (2) international computer crime; and (3) intellectual 
property rights enforcement. These resources will permit the Criminal 
Division to investigate and prosecute attacks on the National 
Information Infrastructure, and to assist in assuring the integrity of 
systems that are integral to our telecommunications, power delivery, 
transportation, delivery of government services and banking and 
commerce. The global nature of the Internet, and the rapid expansion of 
international commerce, have been accompanied by a globalization of 
computer-related crime. Our need to address these international crime 
problems calls for enhanced resources to coordinate global solutions. 
Finally, the protection of intellectual property rights will expand 
significantly in the 21st century, as this country's intellectual 
capacity becomes, perhaps, our greatest resource. In all these areas, 
the Criminal Division's Computer Crime attorneys will be critical in 
the effort to combat successfully terrorism/cybercrime.
    For the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, we seek an 
increase of 5 positions (2 attorneys) and $357,000. This includes 
resources to handle additional Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
(FISA) applications, especially those in support of counterterrorism 
work, as well as increased workload resulting from revision of the FISA 
statute, which allows for separate ``pen register'' and ``trap and 
trace'' FISA warrants.
    Our request includes an overall increase of 7 positions and $38.5 
million to expand the OJP domestic preparedness efforts. We propose 
transferring the $135 million appropriated in the Counterterrorism Fund 
in 1999 for state and local domestic preparedness assistance to OJP in 
2000. In addition, we propose restructuring $31.5 million of these 
resources, which, when combined with the requested increase of $38.5 
million, will allow funding to be provided for the following 
enhancements: $6 million to expand the First Responder Equipment 
Acquisition Grant Program; $45 million to provide local bomb technician 
squads with the specialized equipment necessary to allow them to detect 
and react to a chemical or biological weapon threat or release; $7 
million for a Law Enforcement First Responder Training Program to train 
local law enforcement officers on the basic skills necessary to fulfill 
their roles as first responders to a weapons of mass destruction 
terrorist incident; $9 million for the Center for Domestic Preparedness 
at Fort McClellan, Alabama, to continue training at the U.S. Army's 
installation after the planned closure on September 30, 1999; and $3 
million to expand the technical assistance component of OJP's domestic 
preparedness efforts. In addition, OJP's request includes $1.9 million 
for the National White Collar Crime Center to provide training and 
technical assistance relating to computer crimes to state and local law 
enforcement and regulatory agencies.
    The Department also seeks $27 million for the Counterterrorism 
Fund. These resources will be used to reimburse departments and 
agencies of the Federal government for costs incurred in support of 
countering, investigating, or prosecuting domestic and/or international 
terrorism; finance reward payments in connection with such activities; 
restore operational capacities of offices destroyed or damaged by 
domestic or international terrorist acts; ensure continuance of 
essential government functions during an emergency; protect the 
Nation's critical infrastructure; provide for costs associated with the 
NDPO; and provide for costs associated with design of the Federal 
Intrusion Detection Network.
    In 1999, the Department did not receive any new funding for 
responding to extraordinary circumstances, but did receive $145 million 
for earmarked initiatives. Since the Department expects to use all 1998 
carryover funding, approximately $25 million, for the extraordinary 
costs of countering, investigating and prosecuting terrorists in 1999, 
the need for new funding is critical.
    As I have mentioned before, having the right computer 
infrastructure is more and more critical in our investigative work. 
While this issue is much larger than counterterrorism, it warrants 
attention here. The Department of Justice's 2000 request includes: 
$38.8 million for the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) 
Information Sharing Initiative (ISI), $13 million for the Drug 
Enforcement Administration's Firebird System, and $37 million for the 
U.S. Attorneys' Justice Consolidated Office Network (JCON).
    While these enhancements support basic office automation related to 
the missions of these agencies, I want to emphasize that to do our job 
effectively, whether it be addressing counterterrorism or fighting 
violent crime in general, we have to have up-to-date computer systems. 
For example, it will be through the ISI system, once implemented, that 
the FBI will be able to tie its intelligence information and case 
documentation together in order for the appropriate analytical work to 
be accomplished. The implementation of ISI is critical, to ensure that 
the millions of pages of documents the FBI handles worldwide can be 
shared among appropriate field offices and headquarters divisions.
    Furthermore, to ensure the integrity of our computer 
infrastructure, we must develop systems that can link our different 
offices and agencies together, while ensuring a secure environment. 
Most of today's computer software and network systems cannot function 
on outdated hardware and legacy systems, which unfortunately is what 
many of our investigators and attorneys are still using. Without these 
systems, neither our investigators nor our prosecutors can adequately 
address our complicated counterterrorism casework.
    This Committee has been very supportive of efforts to build and 
enhance law enforcement capabilities to deter, detect and defend 
against acts of terrorism. We greatly appreciate this support and we 
look forward to continuing to work together on this critically 
important issue.

                    Federal Bureau of Investigation

STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. FREEH, DIRECTOR
    Senator Gregg. Director Freeh, unfortunately, I know the 
Secretary of State is going to have to leave at 11:30, so would 
it be possible for you to give your statement in about 5 or 10 
minutes?
    Mr. Freeh. I will do it in five, Senator.
    Senator Gregg. That would be great. Thank you.

                   director freeh's opening statement

    Mr. Freeh. Thank you very much. My written statement, 
obviously, is submitted for the record. Let me just very 
briefly, first of all, echo the comments of the Secretary and 
the Attorney General thanking this committee and particularly 
its leadership for paying attention and focusing on, and then 
sustaining with both interest and resources, what I believed 
when I became Director in 1993 to be our single greatest 
challenge, which is responding to terrorism, not just at home 
and abroad but in the new dimensions with which we are being 
presented.
    The Attorney General referred to cyber crime, Senator 
Campbell to other types of terrorism. These are very complex 
and challenging issues which challenge both our technical 
ability, our resource allocations, but also, perhaps most 
importantly, as you pointed out, the need to coordinate these 
activities.
    Let me just remark how over 5 years, the focus and the 
attention on this problem has been so well maintained by the 
Congress and the successful implementation by the Attorney 
General of the coordinating tasks. The great progress that you 
note is certainly appreciated. We also realize we have a lot of 
work to do.

                        interagency cooperation

    If I could just mention very briefly some of the aspects of 
this problem that you are aware of, and I would start with your 
first category of intelligence. Echoing what the Attorney 
General said, the coordination, at least on the level of law 
enforcement and intelligence services with respect to 
counterterrorism issues abroad has never been superior, in my 
view. The relationships, the exchanges of officers, the 
coordinated activity that takes place with respect to terrorism 
issues at the highest level, and more importantly, at the 
operational level, between the Central Intelligence Agency and, 
particularly, the FBI are exemplary. I have said before that 
this relationship is much more efficient and certainly more 
productive than the relationship between our agencies at the 
height of the Cold War, and I thank Director Tenet and his 
predecessor, Director Deutsch, for making that possible.
    Taking very, very briefly the East African bombings as an 
example, the ability to deploy rapidly, first with the 
Department of State-led FEST team and then over the course of 
several weeks by 500 FBI personnel--investigators, laboratory 
experts, even computer experts, because some of the evidence 
that we encountered was in the form of drives and hard disks. 
Using all these combined resources and the complex undertaking 
of doing an investigation in two separate countries under the 
authority of our ambassadors but also with the permission and 
support of the host countries, within 20 days we returned back 
to the United States two of the subjects who are now charged. A 
third subject was subsequently returned to the United States. 
Nine other subjects are charged, the main subjects in that case 
still being fugitives.
    The ability to deploy very quickly to those two crime 
scenes legats, one from South Africa to Nairobi and one from 
Cairo to Dar es Salaam--those legats did not exist 15 months 
ago--and the ability of those officers to arrive on the scene 
and quickly join forces with the RSO and the diplomatic 
security personnel to do basic things like securing the crime 
scene and securing evidence, has played an important role in 
the case.
    The ability through the State Department to achieve the 
rendition of two subjects in such a very rapid period of time, 
accumulating the evidence, using all of the resources which 
have been provided by the Congress in a coordinated fashion was 
really responsible for those successes.
    It was very interesting, in terms of the State and local 
coordination, the officers who have the responsibility for 
these cases are the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York 
City, which is made up of several Federal agencies and the New 
York Police Department. One of the things I noticed, when I was 
in East Africa shortly after the Secretary of State, one of the 
officers sifting through the crime scene in Dar es Salaam was a 
New York City police officer who is on our terrorism task 
force. His expertise is vehicle identification numbers, which 
proved very important not only in the World Trade Center case, 
but also in this case in identifying a vehicle which was 
subsequently corroborated by other evidence.
    We have a number of tools to deploy both domestically and 
overseas, whether an attack is sustained in Oklahoma City or 
against one of our embassies in East Africa or our personnel in 
Pakistan. The driving force on the implementation of this plan 
is coordinated activity, whether it is on the FEST team, the 
supporting operations of the two counterterrorism centers, one 
at the CIA, one at the FBI, where personnel are cross-
designated, including personnel from the Diplomatic Security 
Service.
    The teams that are deployed to these fields, the manner in 
which evidence is acquired, and the complicated issues with 
respect to extraterritorial investigations and the support that 
we need from our foreign partners all goes into the ability to 
use the resources which have been provided in a coordinated 
way, in an effective way.
    I also note, as the Attorney General has, that much of this 
development is in a very early stage, and although we are 
pleased with the progress, we also note what has to be done to 
achieve the type of coordination that will respond successfully 
in a weapons of mass destruction incident here in the United 
States.

              critical national infrastructure protection

    For instance, the National Infrastructure Protection Center 
and the proposed National Preparedness Domestic Protection 
Office are new establishments. Although we have a good idea and 
a blueprint and a consensus as to what we want them to do, we 
know that we have lots to learn with respect to carrying out 
these operations.
    As the Attorney General noted, we also have taken a lot of 
effort and planning to avoid making this a Washington-led, 
Federal Government-dominated, plan and program. That cannot be 
done. Whether it is in Oklahoma City or in the World Trade 
Center or in Nairobi, the Federal Government will not be, for 
instance, the first personnel to arrive at the scene. The 
private sector is playing an increasingly important part, 
particularly in the complex development of cyber strategies and 
infrastructure protection.
    We need to keep in mind that the Federal laboratories, the 
universities, and private industry have a lot more knowledge 
and a lot more expertise in these areas. Part of our efforts, 
and I compliment the Attorney General again for pursuing this 
very successfully, is incorporating into the National 
Infrastructure Protection Center and the proposed National 
Domestic Preparedness Office people from academia, people from 
private industry, people from our national laboratories, the 
State and local fire departments and police authorities, and, 
of course, there are 15,000 of them around the country. That 
job in itself is a very complex one. We want to give them 
training, we want to give them equipment, but we also want them 
to tell us what they need so we can be guided by those 
principles. I think that is the only way this is going to work.

                           prepared statement

    I have a lot of other matters in my statement which I am 
pleased to talk about, but in view of the time, I will just end 
right here. Thank you.
    Senator Gregg. Thank you very much, Mr. Director.
    [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Louis J. Freeh
    Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am 
pleased to have this opportunity to join Attorney General Reno and 
Secretary of State Albright in discussing the threat to the United 
States posed by terrorists both abroad and at home.
    At the outset, I would like to thank you and the Subcommittee for 
your extraordinary support for the FBI's counterterrorism programs and 
initiatives. Over the past several years, you have generously provided 
us with additional agents, technicians, and analysts, as well as the 
technical and forensic tools, that allow us to respond quickly and 
effectively to acts of terrorism against the United States and its 
citizens wherever they occur--including, most recently, in Dar es 
Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. Annual funding for the FBI's 
Counterterrorism program has grown from $78.5 million in 1993 to $301.2 
million in 1999. The number of agents funded for counterterrorism 
investigations has grown from 550 in 1993 to 1,383 in 1999. You have 
also provided additional funding for many programs in the FBI 
Laboratory and Critical Incident Response Group that directly support 
the FBI's capability for responding to the threat and acts of 
terrorism. I am confident that our efforts will justify your past 
commitment and continued support to this important area of the FBI's 
responsibility.
    I would also like to commend the Subcommittee for its leadership in 
directing the preparation of the 5-Year interagency plan that was 
submitted to the Congress on December 30, 1998. As you are aware, the 
preparation of the plan coincided with the preparation of two major 
Presidential Decision Directives regarding counterterrorism (PDD-62) 
and critical infrastructure protection (PDD-63). The plan was also 
prepared at the same time the FBI and many other agencies were 
responding to the terrorist bombings of United States Embassies in East 
Africa. I believe the Subcommittee will find the recommendations of the 
plan to be particularly timely, consistent with these recent executive 
orders, and reflect many of the lessons learned from our most recent 
experiences.
    To help put today's discussion in perspective, I would like to 
start with a summary of the FBI's deployment and investigation of the 
recent terrorist bombings in East Africa and follow with an assessment 
of the current international and domestic terrorist threat and lessons 
learned from our recent experiences. Finally, I would like to describe 
current FBI counterterrorism initiatives, including those proposed in 
our 2000 budget request to Congress.
The Bombings in East Africa
    On August 7, 1998, at approximately 10:40 a.m., local time, a bomb 
exploded near the United States Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 
Almost simultaneously, a bomb detonated near the United States Embassy 
in Nairobi, Kenya. The toll in both bombings, in terms of lives lost, 
persons injured, and damage to buildings, was substantial. In Dar es 
Salaam, 11 persons were killed, 7 of whom were foreign service 
nationals employed by the United States at the Embassy. Another 74 
persons were injured, including 2 American citizens and 5 foreign 
service nationals. In Nairobi, where the United States Embassy was 
located in a congested downtown area, 213 persons were killed, 
including 12 American citizens and 32 foreign service nationals 
employed at the Embassy. Approximately 4,500 persons were treated for 
injuries, including 13 Americans and 16 foreign service nationals.
    Immediately upon notification of the bombings, agencies of the 
United States Government began to marshal their resources to respond to 
these acts of terrorism. Two Foreign Emergency Support Teams (FEST) 
departed Andrews Air Force Base at approximately 2:30 p.m. EST on 
August 7. FEST is a multiagency team, including members of the FBI, 
that is deployed to international emergencies involving United States 
interests to advise and assist local Ambassadors and embassy personnel 
in dealing with crisis situations. FEST is coordinated by the United 
States Department of State. The FBI had eight representatives on the 
two FEST teams. We were also able to include 19 others as part of a FBI 
advance team.
    Based upon our jurisdiction for the investigation of certain crimes 
committed against American persons and property abroad, the FBI began 
the deployment of agents, Evidence Response Teams, technicians and 
laboratory examiners, and other personnel and equipment to Dar es 
Salaam and Nairobi. We activated our Strategic Information and 
Operations Center at FBI Headquarters to coordinate FBI efforts with 
our Counterterrorism Center and other government agencies. Among the 
first steps we took was to direct our Legal Attaches in Cairo, Egypt, 
and Pretoria, South Africa, to respond to the scenes in Dar es Salaam 
and Nairobi, respectively. Our Legal Attaches were the first non-
resident United States law enforcement officials to arrive on scene. 
Upon arriving, these individuals were able to establish a cooperative 
relationship with appropriate Tanzanian and Kenyan law enforcement 
authorities and United States Embassy personnel, including Diplomatic 
Security Service agents serving in these posts. Our Legal Attaches also 
assisted in establishing logistical support for FBI rapid deployment 
teams that subsequently arrived in both locations. The first increment 
of the FBI investigative team arrived in East Africa 40 hours after the 
bombings.
    At our peak, the FBI had approximately 500 personnel on the ground 
in East Africa. Among the individuals deployed were members of our 
Joint Terrorism Task Forces from New York City. We also were assisted 
by explosives experts from the United Kingdom. Over the course of the 
eight-weeks immediately following the bombings, the FBI: logged 61 
flight missions, of which 16 were transoceanic; transported over 1,000 
agents, technicians, examiners, and other employees deployed to and 
from East Africa; and moved 295 tons of equipment, supplies, and 
related items to support our investigative teams.
    From the two crime scenes in Tanzania and Kenya, as well as from 
investigation and searches conducted in surrounding African nations and 
Pakistan, we collected and transported back to the FBI Laboratory more 
than three tons of evidentiary materials for examination and analysis. 
Our on-scene deployments in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi temporarily 
created what would have been among the largest FBI field offices in the 
United States.
    As you can imagine, providing extended operational and 
administrative support to such a large overseas contingent was 
especially challenging and trying. It was not something that we 
accomplished on our own. In a large-scale overseas deployment such as 
East Africa, we must depend upon support and cooperation from our 
partners in the Departments of Defense and State. I would like to 
acknowledge the tremendous job performed by the men and women of the 
Departments of Defense and State under very adverse and trying 
circumstances. And, I am equally proud of the way our own personnel 
rose to meet the challenges presented by this difficult investigation.
    We received exceptional cooperation and assistance from the 
governments of Tanzania and Kenya in conducting our investigation. They 
allowed us to recover and remove evidence for examination and transport 
it back to the United States. They also allowed us to conduct 
interviews and searches. The relationship established by our Legal 
Attache from Pretoria with Kenyan authorities was instrumental in that 
country's decision to allow the removal of two suspects for prosecution 
in the United States. We were also able to conduct investigation and 
searches in several other countries and locations.
    As a result of these investigative efforts, 11 individuals 
associated with al-Qaeda, including Usama bin Laden, have each been 
indicted for conspiracy to kill United States nationals, the bombings 
of the United States Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and murder. One 
other individual, also an al-Qaeda member, has been indicted for 
conspiracy to kill United States nationals, perjury before a Federal 
Grand Jury, and lying to a Special Agent of the FBI. The progress and 
results that have been obtained in this case are the result of 
cooperation among many agencies, including the FBI, the Criminal 
Division, the United States Attorneys' offices in New York City and 
Washington, D.C., the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of 
State, and Department of Defense, working together unselfishly in 
response to brutal acts of terrorism committed against the United 
States. Unfortunately, the bombing of United States Embassies in East 
Africa is only the latest in a series of international terrorist 
incidents directed against United States interests and policies.
The International Terrorist Situation
    The current international terrorist threat can be divided into 
three general categories that represent a serious and distinct threat 
to the United States. These categories also reflect, to a large degree, 
how terrorists have adapted their tactics since the 1970's by learning 
from past successes and failures, from becoming familiar with law 
enforcement capabilities and tactics, and from exploiting technologies 
and weapons that are increasingly available to them in the post-Cold 
War era.
    The first threat category, state sponsors of terrorism, violates 
every convention of international law. State sponsors of terrorism 
currently designated by the Department of State are: Iran, Iraq, Syria, 
Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea. Put simply, these nations view 
terrorism as a tool of foreign policy. In recent years, the terrorist 
activities of Cuba and North Korea appear to have declined as the 
economies of these countries have deteriorated. However, the terrorist 
activities of the other states I mentioned continue, and in some cases, 
have intensified during the past several years.
    The second category of the international terrorist threat is 
represented by more formal terrorist organizations. These autonomous, 
generally transnational, organizations have their own infrastructures, 
personnel, financial arrangements, and training facilities. These 
organizations are able to plan and mount terrorist campaigns on an 
international basis and actively support terrorist activities in the 
United States.
    Extremist groups such as Lebanese Hizballah, the Egyption Al-Gama' 
Al-Islamiyya, and the Palestinian Hamas have supporters in the United 
States who could be used to support an act of terrorism here. Hizballah 
ranks among the most menacing of these groups. It has staged many anti-
American attacks in other countries, such as the 1983 truck bombings of 
the United States Embassy and the United States Marine Corps barracks 
in Beirut, the 1984 bombing of the United States Embassy Annex in 
Beirut, and the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 during which United 
States Navy diver Robert Stehem, a passenger on the flight, was 
murdered by the hijackers. Elements of Hizballah were also responsible 
for the kidnaping and detention of United States hostages in Lebanon 
throughout the 1980's.
    The activities of American cells of Hizballah, Hamas, and Al Gama' 
Al Islamiyya generally revolve around fund-raising and low-level 
intelligence gathering. In addition, there are still significant 
numbers of Iranian students attending United States universities and 
technical institutions. A significant number of these students are 
hardcore members of the pro-Iranian student organization known as the 
Anjoman Islamie, which is comprised almost exclusively of fanatical, 
anti-American, Iranian Shiite Muslims. The Iranian Government relies 
heavily upon these students studying in the United States for low-level 
intelligence and technical expertise. However, the Anjoman Islamie also 
represents a significant resource base upon which the government of 
Iran can draw to maintain the capability to mount operations against 
the United States, if it so decides.
    The third category of international terrorist threat stems from 
loosely affiliated extremists, characterized by rogue terrorists such 
as Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and international terrorist financier Usama bin 
Laden. These loosely affiliated extremists may pose the most urgent 
threat to the United States because these individuals bring together 
groups on an ad hoc, temporary basis. By not being encumbered with the 
demands associated with maintaining a rigid, organizational 
infrastructure, these individuals are more difficult for law 
enforcement to track and infiltrate. Individuals such as Ramzi Yousef 
and Usama bin Laden have also demonstrated an ability to exploit 
mobility and technology to avoid detection and to conduct terrorist 
acts. Fortunately, in 1995, we were able to capture Yousef and return 
him to the United States to stand trial for the February 1993 bombing 
of the World Trade Center and the conspiracy to attack American 
aircraft overseas. Yousef was convicted in two trials and sentenced to 
life imprisonment.
    The FBI believes that the threat posed by international terrorists 
in each of these categories will continue for the foreseeable future. 
As attention remains focused on Usama bin Laden in the aftermath of the 
East African bombings, I believe it is important to remember that rogue 
terrorists such as bin Laden represent just one type of threat that the 
United States faces. It is imperative that we maintain our capabilities 
to counter the broad range of international terrorist threats that 
confront the United States.
    For many of us in this room, the threat of international terrorism 
was literally brought home by the World Trade Center bombing in 
February 1993. Although the plotters failed in their attempt to topple 
one of the twin towers into the other, an outcome that would have 
produced thousands of casualties, they succeeded in causing millions of 
dollars worth of damage in a blast that killed 6 persons and injured 
more than 1,000. After his capture in 1995, Ramzi Yousef, the convicted 
mastermind behind the New York City bombing and other terrorist acts, 
conceded to investigators that a lack of funding forced his group's 
hand in plotting the destruction of the World Trade Center. Running 
short of money, the plotters could not assemble a bomb as large as they 
had originally intended. The timing of the attack was also rushed by a 
lack of finances. Incredibly, the plotters' desire to recoup the 
deposit fee on the rental truck used to transport the bomb helped lead 
investigators to them. As horrible as that act was, it could very well 
have been much more devastating.
    We are fortunate that in the nearly six years since the World Trade 
Center bombing, no significant act of foreign-directed terrorism has 
occurred on American soil. At the same time, however, we have witnessed 
a pattern of terrorist attacks that are either directed at United 
States interests or initiated in response to United States Government 
policies and actions. Among these acts are:
  --the 1993 murders of two Central Intelligence Agency employees and 
        the wounding of several others by Mir Amal Kasi in Langley, 
        Virginia;
  --the March 1995 attack against three employees of the United States 
        consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, which resulted in the deaths of 
        two Americans;
  --the July 1995 hostage taking of four western tourists, including an 
        American, by terrorists in Kashmiri, India;
  --the plot by Shayk Omar Abdel Rahman and his followers to bomb 
        several New York City landmarks, including the United Nations 
        building, the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, and federal 
        buildings;
  --the November 1995 bombing of a Saudi Arabian National Guard 
        building in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which resulted in the deaths 
        of five United States citizens assigned to the United States 
        military training mission to Saudi Arabia;
  --the June 1996 bombing at the Al-Khobar Towers, Dhahran, Saudi 
        Arabia, which resulted in the deaths of 19 United States 
        servicemen and the injury of 240 other military personnel and 
        dependents;
  --a plot led by Ramzi Yousef to destroy numerous United States air 
        carriers in a simultaneous operation;
  --a plot, also led by Ramzi Yousef, to kidnap and kill United States 
        diplomats and foreign officials in Pakistan;
  --the November 1997 ambush and massacre of foreign tourists in Luxor, 
        Egypt, which appears to have been undertaken to pressure the 
        United States Government to release Shayk Rahman from federal 
        prison;
  --the November 1997 murder of four United States businessmen and 
        their driver in Karachi, Pakistan, believed to be in 
        retaliation against the FBI's capture and rendition of Mir Amal 
        Kasi;
  --the kidnaping of seven Americans during 1998 in Colombia by 
        terrorists groups, bringing to 92 the total number of United 
        States citizens reported kidnaped in that country between 1980 
        and 1998, of which 12 Americans have died in captivity; and
  --the December 1998 kidnaping of a group of western tourists, 
        including two Americans, by terrorists in Yemen, during which 
        four hostages were killed and one American hostage wounded when 
        Yemeni security forces attempted a rescue operation.
    As these examples illustrate, the threat of terrorism is real both 
at home and abroad. Usama bin Laden readily acknowledges trying to 
obtain chemical and biological weapons for use in his jihad, or holy 
war, against the United States. We also know that domestic terrorist 
groups have expressed interest in chemical and biological agents. The 
willingness of terrorists to carry out more large-scale incidents 
designed for maximum destruction places a larger proportion of our 
population at risk. Today, Americans engaged in activities as routine 
as working in an office building, commuting to and from work, or 
visiting museums and historical sites in foreign lands, can become 
random victims in a deadly game acted out by international terrorists. 
America's democratic tradition and global presence make United States 
citizens and interests targets for opportunists who are willing to shed 
the blood of innocents for their causes.
Responding to the Threat of International Terrorism
    The United States has developed a strong response to international 
terrorism. Legislation and Executive Orders enacted over the past 15 
years have strengthened the ability of the United States Government to 
protect its citizens through five affirmative ways: diplomacy, 
sanctions, covert operations, military options, and law enforcement 
actions. For this, the Congress and the Executive Branch deserve the 
gratitude of the American people. We cannot accurately gauge how many 
potential strikes our government's strong stand against terrorism has 
discouraged. We can, however, measure with considerable satisfaction 
the success we have had in preventing plots detected in the planning 
stages and our successes in investigating, locating, apprehending, and 
prosecuting individuals who have carried out terrorist activities. I 
would like to highlight two aspects of this response, renditions and 
fund raising, that demonstrate the commitment of the United States 
Government to combating terrorism.
    During the past decade, the United States has successfully obtained 
custody of 13 suspected international terrorists from foreign countries 
to stand trial in the United States for acts or planned acts of 
terrorism against our citizens. Based on its policy of treating 
terrorists as criminals and applying the rule of law against them, the 
United States is one of the most visible and effective forces in 
identifying, locating, and apprehending terrorists on American soil and 
overseas. The majority of terrorist renditions have been accomplished 
with the cooperation of the foreign government in which the terrorist 
suspect was located. Among the individuals recently returned to the 
United States by this process have been Mir Amal Kasi, who shot and 
killed two Central Intelligence Agency employees in Langley, Virginia, 
in 1993, and who was rendered from Afghanistan to the United States in 
1997, and Tsutomo Shirosaki, a Japanese Red Army member, who was 
rendered to the United States in 1996, more than 10 years after firing 
rockets at the United States Diplomatic Compound in Jakarta, Indonesia. 
Every time the United States obtains custody of a terrorist for trial, 
we send a clear message to terrorists everywhere that no matter how 
long it takes, no matter the difficulty, we will find you and you will 
be held accountable for your actions.
    During fiscal year 1998, FBI investigative actions prevented 10 
planned terrorist acts. Nine acts were prevented with the arrest of six 
members of an Illinois-based white supremacist group who were planning 
to target the Southern Poverty Law Center and its founder, Morris Dees; 
the Simon Weisenthal Center; and the New York City office of the Anti-
Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. This group had also discussed 
robbing an armored car using a LAW rocket; poisoning the water supply 
of East St. Louis, Illinois; and committing several murders, including 
a homosexual man, a black female attorney, a member of another white 
supremacist group who had made derogatory comments about the Aryan 
Nations, and a former member of their own group. The arrest of Byron 
Bazarte in August 1998 prevented the bombing of an unspecifed target in 
Washington, D.C.
    Using the authorities provided under Section 302 of the Anti-
Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the Secretary of 
State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of 
the Treasury, has designated 30 groups as foreign terrorist 
organizations. This designation allows the United States Government to 
take actions to block the transfer of funds in the United States in 
which these organizations have an interest. The FBI provided 
information concerning various organizations to the Department of State 
to assist it in compiling the list of foreign terrorist organizations. 
Consistent with provisions of the Act, the FBI did not make 
recommendations concerning which groups should be designated as foreign 
terrorist organizations.
    In July 1998, the FBI arrested Mawzi Mustapha Assi, a procurement 
agent for a foreign terrorist organization, in Dearborn, Michigan, in 
July 1998, on criminal charges relating to providing material support 
to a foreign terrorist organization, export of materials on the 
munitions control list, and other export violations. The FBI and the 
United States Customs Service seized $124,000 worth of sensitive night 
vision and navigational devices. Assi became a fugitive after the 
Government's unsuccessful attempts to detain him prior to trial.
    We believe these provisions provide law enforcement with a 
potentially powerful tool to disrupt the ability of terrorist 
organizations to fund their destructive activities. Investigations into 
the financial operations of clandestine organizations on the shadowy 
fringes of international politics can be particularly complex, time 
consuming, and labor intensive. Organizations have demonstrated an 
ability to reinvent themselves with new names in an effort to thwart 
law enforcement efforts. As with measures of this type, its most 
powerful impact may be from its deterrent effect. As investigators and 
prosecutors build successful cases and precedents to enforce anti-fund 
raising activities, targeted groups may decide that fund raising in the 
United States is too difficult and risky.
The Domestic Terrorism Threat
    Domestic terrorist groups are those which are based and which 
operate entirely within the United States, or its territories, and 
whose activities are directed at elements of the United States 
Government or its civilian population. Domestic terrorist groups 
represent interests that span the full political spectrum, as well as 
social issues and concerns. FBI investigations of domestic terrorist 
groups or individuals are not predicated upon social or political 
beliefs; rather, they are based upon planned or actual criminal 
activity. The current domestic terrorist threat primarily comes from 
right-wing extremist groups, Puerto Rican extremist groups, and special 
interest extremists.
    Right-wing Extremist Groups.--The threat from right-wing extremist 
groups includes militias, white-separatist groups, and anti-government 
groups. All right-wing extremist groups tend to encourage massing 
weapons, ammunition and supplies in preparation for a confrontation 
with federal law enforcement, as well as local law enforcement who are 
often perceived as agents for the State/Federal government.
    The goal of the militia movement is to defend and protect the 
United States Constitution from those who want to take away the rights 
of Americans. The militia movement believes that the United States 
Constitution gives Americans the right to live their lives without 
government interference. The FBI is not concerned with every single 
aspect of the militia movement since many militia members are law-
abiding citizens who do not pose a threat of violence. The FBI focuses 
on radical elements of the militia movement capable and willing to 
commit violence against government, law enforcement, civilian, military 
and international targets (U.N., visiting foreign military personnel). 
Not every state in the union has a militia problem. Militia activity 
varies from states with almost no militia activity (Hawaii, 
Connecticut) to states with thousands of active militia members 
(Michigan, Texas).
    The American militia movement has grown over the last decade. 
Factors contributing to growth include:
  --Guns.--The right to bear arms is an issue which almost all militia 
        members agree and most militia members believe a conspiracy 
        exists to take away their guns. The national system of instant 
        background checks for all gun buyers, mandated by the 1993 
        Brady Act and which actually was implemented on November 30, 
        1998, has further angered many militia groups. These militia 
        members see this new law as another example of how the 
        government is conspiring to take away their guns. The banning 
        of semiautomatic assault weapons has also angered many militia 
        members.
  --State laws.--Militias resent state laws forbidding them to gather 
        together to fire weapons. Sixteen states have laws which 
        prohibit all militia groups and 17 states have laws which 
        prohibit all paramilitary training.
  --Mistrust of Federal law enforcement.--Is frequently mentioned in 
        militia literature and overall militia mythology. FBI and 
        Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) actions, such as 
        Ruby Ridge, the Branch Davidians, and the Freeman standoff, are 
        cited, and thus are hated and distrusted by many militia 
        members.
  --Taxes.--Militia members believe that they pay too many taxes and 
        that those tax dollars are wasted by a huge, uncaring and 
        inefficient bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. Since the Internal 
        Revenue Service collects federal taxes, it is widely hated by 
        militia members.
  --The United Nations.--Is perceived as an organization bent on taking 
        over the world and destroying American democracy and 
        establishing ``the New World Order.'' The New World Order 
        theory holds that, one day, the United Nations will lead a 
        military coup against the nations of the world to form a one-
        world government. United Nations troops, consisting of foreign 
        armies, will commence a military takeover of America. The 
        United Nations will mainly use foreign troops on American soil 
        because foreigners will have fewer reservations about killing 
        American citizens. Captured United States military bases will 
        be used to help conquer the rest of the world.
    Most of the militia movement has no racial overtones and does not 
espouse bigotry; there are some black and Jewish militia members. 
However, the pseudo-religion of Christian Identity, as well as other 
hate philosophies, have begun to creep into the militia movement. This 
scenario is currently being played out in the Michigan Militia, 
arguably the largest militia group in America. Lynn Van Huizen, leader 
of the Michigan Militia Corps, is currently trying to oust Christian 
Identity factions from his group. Christian Identity is a belief system 
that provides both a religious base for racism and anti-Semitism, and 
an ideological rationale for violence against minorities. This pattern 
of racist elements seeping into the militia movement is a disturbing 
trend, as it will only strengthen the radical elements of the militias.
    Many white supremacist groups adhere to the Christian Identity 
belief system, which holds that the world is on the verge of a final 
apocalyptic struggle between God/Christ and Satan (The Battle of 
Armageddon) in which Aryans (European Caucasians) must fight Satan's 
heirs: Jews, nonwhites and their establishment allies (i.e., the 
Federal Government). The Christian Identity belief system (also known 
as Kingdom Identity) provides a religious base for racism and anti-
Semitism, and an ideological rationale for violence against minorities 
and their white allies. Christian Identity teaches that the white race 
is the chosen race of God, whites are the ``true Israelites'' and Jews 
are the Children of Satan. Adherents believe that Jews have 
increasingly gained control of the United States Federal Government and 
are attempting to enslave the white population by enacting laws 
subjugating the white people, such as affirmative action, pro-choice, 
and anti-gun statutes.
    To prepare for Armageddon, many Identity adherents engage in 
survivalist and paramilitary training, storing foodstuffs and supplies, 
and caching weapons and ammunition. As the next millennium approaches, 
Identity's more extreme members may take action to prepare for 
Armageddon, including armed robbery to finance the upcoming battle, 
destroying government property and infrastructure, and targeting Jews 
and nonwhites.
    Due to Christian Identity adherents' widespread propaganda efforts 
and Identity's racist/anti-Semitic/anti-government appeal, there are a 
number of churches and diverse organizations throughout the United 
States that embrace the doctrines of Identity. Identity beliefs are 
also increasingly found in the rhetoric of all types of right-wing 
extremist groups, including, but not limited to, militias, survivalist 
communes, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, skinheads, tax protesters, and 
common law courts. Thus, with the approaching millennium, there is a 
greater potential for members from such Identity influenced groups to 
engage in violent activities as well.
    As the next millennium approaches, violent and illegal acts may 
increase, due to Christian Identity's belief that the world is on the 
verge of a final apocalyptic struggle (aka The Battle of Armageddon) 
between God/Christ and Satan. Identity members believe that this 
entails Aryans (European Caucasians) fighting Satan's heirs (Jews, non-
whites, and their establishment allies). To prepare, Identity adherents 
engage in survivalist and paramilitary training. As the year 2000 
approaches, more extreme members may take action to prepare for or 
bring about ``Armageddon,'' including armed robbery to finance the 
upcoming battle, destroying government property and targeting Jews and 
non-whites.
    Other Anti-Government Groups.--The other right-wing anti-government 
groups include Freemen, ``sovereign'' citizens, and common law courts. 
The Freemen and sovereign citizens believe they have the right to 
renounce their citizenship, after which they do not have to comply with 
any laws or rules and the federal government would have no influence 
over them. In addition, some, like the Freemen, believe they have the 
right to issue their own money which is called ``certified comptroller 
warrants.''
    Some members of the right-wing have formed their own system of laws 
to enforce and follow (called common law courts) to replace the 
existing court system. The common law courts have no basis in 
jurisprudence, but participants claim legitimacy based on the laws of 
the Old Testament, English common law, the Magna Carta and commercial 
law. Some common law courts have issued arrest warrants, but as of yet, 
there are no reports that any of these arrests have been accomplished.
    Puerto Rican Extremist Groups.--A resurgence in Puerto Rican 
extremism has occurred in the past six months. A nearly decade-long 
hiatus in terrorist activity ended on March 31, 1998, with the 
detonation of an incendiary device at the ``Superaquaduct'' 
construction project in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. On June 9, 1998, a bomb 
exploded outside a branch of Banco Popular in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. 
The EPB-Macheteros publicly claimed responsibility for both attacks, 
citing environmental concerns and opposition to the privatization of 
the Puerto Rico Telephone Company.
    Puerto Rican extremism remains a concern to the FBI. Traditionally, 
the Puerto Rican Terrorists have targeted United States establishments 
and interests in an effort to gain Puerto Rican independence. On 
December 13, 1998, Puerto Ricans voted in a non-binding referendum 
concerning Puerto Rico's political status. Voters were given the 
opportunity to vote for independence, continued commonwealth status, 
statehood, free association, or none of the above. Independence 
garnered precious little support in the referendum, receiving a mere 
2.5 percent of the vote, according to media reports. Despite the lack 
of popular support for independence, militant independence activists 
continue to pursue independence through illegal means. Recently, July 
25, 1998 marked the 100-year anniversary of the United States invasion 
of Puerto Rico during the Spanish-American War. In addition, several 
convicted Puerto Rican terrorists remain incarcerated within the 
federal prison system, and militant pro-independence activists continue 
to lobby for their release. The militant independentistas may engage in 
violence as a response to the prisoners' continued incarceration, or as 
a symbolic commemoration of over 100 years of American control over the 
island.
    Special Interest Extremists.--Special interest or single issue 
extremists advocate violence and/or criminal activity with the goal of 
effecting change in policy vis a vis one specific aspect of society. 
The most recognizable single issue terrorists at the present time are 
those involved in the violent animal rights, anti-abortion, and 
environmental protection movements. Each of these issues evoke strong 
emotions within society at large, and violent aberrants continue to 
tarnish the legitimate public debate on each issue.
    The FBI continues to vigorously investigate various bombings of 
abortion clinics and incidents of violence targeting abortion providers 
across the country. The January 1998 bombing of an abortion clinic in 
Birmingham, Alabama, has resulted in a significant allocation of FBI 
manpower and resources to the investigation of the bombing. The recent 
assassination of Dr. Barnett Slepian in Buffalo, New York, serves as an 
acute reminder of the very real threat posed by anti-abortion 
extremists.
    Animal rights extremists continue to pose significant challenges 
for law enforcement as well. Various arsons and other incidents of 
property destruction have been claimed by the Animal Liberation Front 
(ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). For example, on October 19, 
1998, the Vail Ski Resort suffered a series of arson attacks that 
damaged or destroyed eight separate structures and resulted in 
approximately $12 million in property damage. In a communique issued to 
various news agencies in Colorado, ELF claimed responsibility for the 
arsons in retaliation for the resort's plans to expand its ski areas. 
The group claimed that the proposed expansion would destroy the last 
remaining habitat in Colorado for the lynx.
    Although the frequency of terrorist incidents within the United 
States has decreased in number, the potential for destruction has 
increased as terrorists have turned toward large improvised explosive 
devices to inflict maximum damage. The ease with which people can 
obtain the recipes for manufacturing explosives and developing chemical 
and biological weapons facilitates the potential of a major incident. 
As technology and materials become more accessible, the possibility of 
misuse and subsequent fatalities increases. One has only to look at the 
bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, in Oklahoma City, to see the 
devastating potential for a terrorist act. Prior to April 19, 1995, no 
one would have believed that Americans would commit such a tragic act 
against other Americans. But they did, and the potential for another 
such incident continues.
Looking Forward
    If there was ever any doubt about the level of commitment and 
determination that drives rogue terrorists to strike their perceived 
enemies, convicted terrorist Ramzi Yousef provided a glimpse into the 
mind set of these individuals. When sentenced to life imprisonment 
without the possibility of parole, Yousef boasted of his destructive 
exploits saying, ``Yes, I am a terrorist and proud of it.''
    Today's terrorists have learned from the successes and mistakes of 
terrorists who went before them. The terrorists of tomorrow will learn 
from the successes and mistakes of the Ramzi Yousef, Usama bin Laden, 
and others. Tomorrow's terrorists will have an even more dizzying array 
of deadly weapons and technologies, including chemical and biological 
agents and computer networks, available to them for committing their 
insidious acts. We cannot lull ourselves into a false sense of security 
based on the capabilities that exist today and the successes we have 
achieved. Rather, we must continue to improve upon our existing 
readiness and develop the capabilities, technologies, and techniques 
that will be required to keep pace with acts of terrorism in the 
future.
    The FBI has developed its Strategic Plan for 1998-2003 to guide us 
as we deal with the challenges and changing crime problems that face 
this organization. Under this plan, we have identified as our highest 
priority foreign intelligence, terrorist, and criminal activities that 
directly threaten the national or economic security of the United 
States. Two of the strategic goals set for this priority area are 
especially relevant to the problems we are discussing today: Prevent, 
disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur; and deter 
the unlawful exploitation of emerging technologies by foreign powers, 
terrorists, and criminal elements.
    Our goal is to move beyond just responding to acts of terrorism, 
whether these terrorist acts be bombings here in the United States or 
in foreign countries or cyber attacks against the national information 
infrastructure. We recognize that to be successful in the future, the 
FBI must become more proactive in dealing with these complex threats 
and problems.
    I would like to discuss several areas that I believe are especially 
important to our national response to the problem posed by terrorism. 
In doing so, I would like to highlight some of the programs and 
investments the Subcommittee has supported in prior years and our 
requests for the 2000 budget. For 2000, the FBI is requesting increases 
totaling $9,000,000 for our Counterterrorism initiative and 207 
positions (60 agents) and $36,742,000 for our Technology and Cyber 
Crimes initiative.
    Rapid Deployment.--The United States Government's response to the 
bombings in East Africa demonstrated the firm and unequivocal 
commitment to responding to acts of terrorism wherever they may occur. 
Terrorists must know that if they act against the United States, the 
FBI will pursue them relentlessly and for as long as it takes to bring 
them before the bar of justice.
    Earlier, I described the scope of the deployment of FBI personnel 
to East Africa. Based on that experience, in the aftermath of the near 
simultaneous bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, I directed the 
establishment of five FBI Rapid Deployment Teams to provide a 
capability of responding to multiple incidents. With the funding you 
provided in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations and Emergency 
Supplemental Act of 1999, we are establishing teams in New York City, 
Washington, D.C. (2), Miami, and Los Angeles. Since the establishment 
of these teams, there have been three instances where teams have been 
placed on full alert due to the receipt of intelligence information 
indicating a potential terrorist act.
    We readily recognize that improvements are needed in working with 
our partners at the Department of Defense so that necessary airlift 
support for future deployments can be staged in a more timely and 
organized manner. Again, your interest and assistance in the improving 
the capability of the Department of Defense to provide aviation support 
to the FBI is greatly appreciated and will help us place advance teams 
on scene faster. As directed by Congress, we are also working to 
develop a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Defense to 
address the full scope of airlift support and related services that are 
required by the FBI.
    Intelligence Collection, Analysis, and Dissemination.--The 
collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence regarding 
terrorist activities and threats are critical to the success of FBI 
efforts to prevent incidents and in the investigation of acts that do 
occur. Within the FBI, we have several programs and initiatives to do 
this.
    With the Subcommittee's support, the FBI established the 
Counterterrorism Center at FBI Headquarters in 1995. The FBI 
Counterterrorism Center encompasses the operations of the FBI's 
International Terrorism Operations Section and Domestic Terrorism 
Operations Section. Just this week the Diplomatic Security Service 
joined nineteen other federal agencies assigning personnel to the FBI 
Counterterrorism Center. Other agencies in the Center include: the Air 
Force Office of Special Investigations, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
and Firearms, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Central Intelligence 
Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Department of Commerce, 
the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of 
Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal 
Aviation Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Internal Revenue Service, 
the National Security Agency, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, 
the United States Customs Service, the United States Marshals Service, 
and the United States Secret Service. The proposed National Domestic 
Preparedness Office would also become a partner with the 
Counterterrorism Center to ensure domestic preparedness programs and 
activities can benefit from counterterrorism operational experiences 
and reflect the most up-to-date threat information for making decisions 
on training and equipment grants.
    Providing intelligence and threat information to our State and 
local partners is accomplished through the Counterterrorism Center and 
the National Infrastructure Protection Center. Depending upon the 
nature of the information, we use one or more of several avenues for 
dissemination. The FBI has expanded the Terrorist Threat Warning 
System, first implemented in 1989, to reach all aspects of the law 
enforcement and intelligence communities. Nationwide dissemination of 
unclassified information is achieved through the National Law 
Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS). In addition, the FBI 
transmits threat information to security managers of thousands of 
United States commercial interests around the country through the 
Awareness of National Security Issues and Response (ANSIR) program. The 
National Infrastructure Protection Center also uses NLETS and ANSIR to 
reach State and local law enforcement and others regarding cyber and 
infrastructure-related threats and information. The Center has 
developed the InfraGard program which facilitates the sharing of 
information about computer intrusions and research related to 
infrastructure protection among network participants. The proposed 
National Domestic Preparedness Office anticipates providing special 
bulletins and related information on weapons of mass destruction issues 
to a much broader base of State and local agencies, consisting of law 
enforcement, fire fighter, emergency medical services, public health, 
and emergency management, through the Law Enforcement On-Line intranet, 
a website accessible through the Internet, newsletters, and a toll-free 
assistance number.
    Another mechanism for promoting coordination during an incident is 
the FBI's new Strategic Information and Operations Center, which was 
dedicated this past November. Congress provided funding for this 
project beginning in 1995. The new Strategic Information and Operations 
Center allows us to handle multiple incidents simultaneously. It also 
provides us with greatly enhanced communications capabilities between 
FBI Headquarters and field offices, as well as between the FBI and 
other federal agencies. Our coordination of operational efforts in East 
Africa were hampered, somewhat, by the physical and technical 
limitations of the old center.
    The FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency have taken several 
steps to improve cooperation between agencies, including the exchange 
of deputies, exchange of personnel assigned to each agency's 
counterterrorism center, joint meetings, and joint operational and 
analytical initiatives.
    At the field operational level, the FBI sponsors 18 Joint Terrorism 
Task Forces in major cities to maximize interagency cooperation and 
coordination among federal, State, and local law enforcement. 
Currently, 327 full-time and part-time federal, State, and local law 
enforcement personnel participate on these task forces, in addition to 
FBI personnel. Federal law enforcement participants include the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the United States Secret 
Service, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Central Intelligence 
Agency, Federal Protective Service, United States Marshals Service, 
United States Customs Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
Firearms, the United States Border Patrol, the United States Department 
of State, the Postal Inspection Service, and the Internal Revenue 
Service. All task force participants are provided appropriate security 
clearances that are necessary for their involvement in task force 
operations and investigations. Joint Terrorism Task Forces have played 
a critical role in many significant terrorism investigations. The FBI 
recently expanded this concept to include Regional Terrorism Task 
Forces. Regional task forces, of which two are now in existence, are 
designed to meet the needs of communities where a terrorism problem 
exists across a broader regional geographic area, but the situation 
does not warrant a full-time task force. Regional task forces meet on 
regular intervals to share information they have collected and 
determine if there is a nexus for that information to any ongoing 
investigation. The 5-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology 
Crime Plan supports further expansion of FBI Joint Terrorism Task 
Forces where warranted by assessments of activity.
    One of our most effective means of obtaining information is the use 
of court-authorized electronic surveillance. Communication, either 
written or conversations with accomplices, is central to any 
collaborative effort--including terrorist conspiracies. The capability 
to lawfully intercept communications between criminals, terrorists, and 
foreign intelligence agents, has been instrumental in our past 
successes. These capabilities help the FBI, as well as law enforcement 
in our States and cities, to prevent acts and to save lives. This 
Subcommittee has been supportive our efforts to ensure that law 
enforcement does not lose its capabilities to lawfully intercept 
communications in the growing digital telecommunications environment. I 
hope that you will be able to support our request in the 2000 budget 
for $15,000,000 to support reimbursements to telecommunications 
carriers for costs incurred in complying with the Communications 
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).
    Technology Development and Exploitation.--Developing and exploiting 
technology for law enforcement and counterterrorism applications are a 
key to maintaining our edge in the war against terrorists. This 
Subcommittee recognized the value of research and development when you 
set out your instructions and expectations for the 5-Year Interagency 
Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan. In 1998, you provided the 
FBI with $10,500,000 from the Attorney General's Counterterrorism Fund 
for directed research and development projects. With that 1998 funding, 
as well as other funding appropriated for the FBI Laboratory's Advanced 
Render Safe and Hazardous Materials Response Programs, we took the 
following actions:
  --Entered into an agreement with the Department of Energy to improve 
        access by the forensic community to America's national 
        laboratories by seeking to leverage resources in five areas: 
        research, development, test, and evaluation; technology 
        transfer; specialized training; specialized forensic analytical 
        support; and hazardous materials response.
  --Initiated 17 projects under the Department of Energy agreement, as 
        well as awarded contracts for 11 other projects with commercial 
        and academic entities, in the areas of explosives detection, 
        forensic evidence analysis and crime scene technology, 
        information infrastructure technology, and specialized 
        training.
  --Began the process to establish separate agreements with the 
        Savannah River Site and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
  --Continued our agreements with the United States Army Edgewood 
        Arsenal, Engineering Development and Education Center, Naval 
        Medical Research Center, United States Naval Medical Center, 
        and have begun the process of establishing other agreements 
        with other key components of the Department of Defense.
  --Entered into an agreement with the Southwest Surety Institute at 
        New Mexico State University to establish forensic training that 
        complements FBI forensic curriculum requirements and which 
        supports counterterrorism related operational and support 
        services.
  --Upgraded and enhanced the Automated Computer Examination System 
        (ACES), an automated forensic search capability for computer 
        evidence, and enhanced technical support of crime scene 
        evidence collection and execution of court-authorized 
        electronic surveillance on computer networks.
    I am pleased that the FBI has been added to the Technical Support 
Working Group (TSWG) Executive Committee. The Technical Support Working 
Group is an interagency group that coordinates federal research and 
development programs. The Department of State and Department of Defense 
provide leadership to the group. The FBI has used the Technical Support 
Working Group to leverage its funding by joining with other agencies in 
co-sponsoring projects. The FBI encourages support for existing, proven 
interagency efforts like the Technical Support Working Group to help us 
meet the challenges posed by new and emerging technology.
    Without continued, sustained investments, at both the agency and 
interagency levels, in the development and application of new 
technologies for law enforcement, we will fall behind in meeting our 
goals of preventing terrorism. Unfortunately, law enforcement is not 
alone in seeking to use new technology to improve its capabilities.
    Shortly after the World Trade Center bombing, Ramzi Yousef made his 
way to Pakistan. Eventually, he and several associates moved on to the 
Philippines and rented a unit at the Dona Jasefa apartment complex. 
That apartment served as a safehouse and improvised bomb factory. On 
December 11, 1994, Yousef placed a small explosive on a Philippines 
airliner en route to Tokyo via Cebu. A Japanese businessman was killed 
when the device exploded under his seat. Investigation determined that 
Yousef and his associates had used the device to test a new bomb design 
and that Yousef planned to place more powerful devices on United States 
airliners.
    While mixing chemicals at the apartment on January 7, 1995, a fire 
broke out, forcing Yousef and two co-conspirators to flee into the 
street. Concerned that he had left his laptop computer in the 
apartment, Yousef sent one of his associates back into the apartment to 
retrieve it. Responding Philippines police arrested the associate and 
were able to recover the computer--which contained encrypted files--
intact.
    We were fortunate in that Yousef was careless in protecting his 
computer password. Consequently, we were able to decrypt his files. 
These files contained the details of Yousef's plot to destroy numerous 
United States airliners using a timing device made from an altered 
watch. After simultaneously planting the devices on United States 
airliners, the five participants in the plot were to return to either 
Pakistan or Qatar.
    Had that fire not broken out or had we not been able to access 
those computer files, Yousef and his co-conspirators might have carried 
out the simultaneous bombings of 11 United States airliners, with 
potentially thousands of victims.
    Terrorists, both abroad and at home, are using technology to 
protect their operations from being discovered and thwart the efforts 
of law enforcement to detect, prevent, and investigate such acts. 
Convicted spy Aldrich Ames was told by his Russian handlers to encrypt 
his computer files. International drug traffickers also are using 
encryption to avoid detection by law enforcement.
    Most encryption products manufactured today for use by the general 
public are non-recoverable. This means they do not include features 
that provide for timely law enforcement access to the plain text of 
encrypted communications and computer files that are lawfully seized. 
Law enforcement remains in unanimous agreement that the continued 
widespread availability and increasing use of strong, non-recoverable 
encryption products will soon nullify our effective use of court 
authorized electronic surveillance and the execution of lawful search 
and seizure warrants. The loss of these capabilities will devastate our 
capabilities for fighting crime, preventing acts of terrorism, and 
protecting the national security. Recently, discussions with industry 
have indicated a willingness to work with law enforcement in meeting 
our concerns and assisting in developing a law enforcement 
counterencryption capability. I strongly urge the Congress to adopt a 
balanced public policy on encryption, one that carefully balances the 
legitimate needs of law enforcement to protect our Nation's citizens 
and preserve the national security with the needs of individuals.
    The demand for accessing, examining, and analyzing computers and 
computer storage media for evidentiary purposes is becoming 
increasingly critical to our ability to investigate terrorism, child 
pornography, computer-facilitated crimes, and other cases. In the past, 
the Subcommittee has supported FBI efforts to establish a data 
forensics capability through our Computer Analysis Response Teams. 
There is a need to further expand this capability to address a growing 
workload. Indeed, our limited capability has created a backlog that 
impacts on both investigations and prosecutions. For 2000, the FBI is 
requesting 20 positions and $13,835,000 for our cryptanalysis and 
network data interception programs and 79 positions and $9,861,000 to 
expand our Computer Analysis Response Team capabilities.
    Our Nation's critical infrastructure--both cyber and physical--
present terrorists, hackers, criminals, and foreign agents with a 
target for attacks, the consequences of which could be devastating. 
Over the past several years, the Congress has been very supportive of 
FBI efforts to develop and improve its capabilities for investigating 
computer intrusions and other cyber-crimes. These efforts have included 
the establishment of the National Infrastructure Protection Center and 
the creation of specially-trained and equipped squads and teams in FBI 
field offices. For 2000, we are requesting increases of $1,656,000 for 
operations of the National Infrastructure Protection Center and 108 
positions (60 agents) and $11,390,000 for additional field National 
Infrastructure Protection and Computer Intrusion squads and teams.
    Domestic Readiness.--The most potentially devastating threat facing 
the United States as we enter the next century is the terrorist use of 
weapons of mass destruction (large conventional explosive, chemical, 
biological, radiological or nuclear devices). For terrorists, symbolic 
targets, critical infrastructure or major special events make 
attractive targets. These acts may result in a significant loss of 
life, may cause psychological trauma and will attract a high level of 
media exposure.
    While the United States holds little credible intelligence at this 
time indicating that international or domestic terrorists are planning 
to attack United States interests domestically through the use of 
weapons of mass destruction, a growing number (while still small) of 
``lone offender'' and extremist splinter elements of right-wing groups 
have been identified as possessing or attempting to develop/use 
chemical, biological or radiological materials. Additionally, 
religious/apocalyptic sects which are unaffiliated with far right 
extremists may pose an increasing threat. With the coming of the next 
millennium, some religious/apocalyptic groups or individuals may turn 
to violence as they seek to achieve dramatic effects to fulfill their 
prophecies. The possibility of an indigenous group like Aum Supreme 
Truth cannot be excluded.
    In all likelihood, State and local law enforcement, emergency 
management, and public health agencies are going to be the first to 
respond to and contend with the aftermath of a terrorist's large-scale 
improvised explosive device or the release of chemical or biological 
agents. Congress has recognized the critical importance of State and 
local agencies in the national response to and management of such a 
crisis by providing assistance through several programs, such as the 
Department of Defense Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program 
and training and equipment grants under the auspices of the Office of 
Justice Programs. The FBI strongly supports efforts to train and equip 
State and local first responders whose assistance and expertise will be 
critical to our investigation of such terrorist incidents. I would like 
to describe three FBI-led initiatives supporting domestic readiness: 
the proposed National Domestic Preparedness Office, the Hazardous 
Devices School, and the equipping of State and local bomb squads.
    During the development of the 5-Year Counterterrorism and 
Technology Crime Strategy, State and local stakeholders recommended 
that the Attorney General designate a single federal agency to 
coordinate the multitude of federal domestic preparedness activities. 
In October 1998, the Attorney General announced her proposal to 
establish a National Domestic Preparedness Office that would serve as a 
single point of contact for State and local authorities. The Attorney 
General delegated responsibility for implementing and managing the 
Office to the FBI. After several months of working with key federal 
agencies involved in this area, a blueprint to guide the implementation 
of the National Domestic Preparedness Office was prepared and is under 
review. Among the agencies we consulted with in developing the 
blueprint were: the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department 
of Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, the National 
Guard Bureau, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection 
Agency, various components within the Department of Justice, and State 
and local authorities. Using this blueprint as a guide, the Department 
recently submitted to the Subcommittee a notification to establish the 
National Domestic Preparedness Office.
    The mission of the National Domestic Preparedness Office will be to 
assist State and local emergency response agencies (law enforcement, 
fire, hazardous materials, emergency medical services, emergency 
management, and public health) by serving as a single coordinating 
office and clearinghouse for federal efforts to prepare our Nation's 
communities for the threat posed by the terrorist use of a weapon of 
mass destruction. The Office will be organized around six program areas 
that will focus upon specific issues or areas, including: planning, 
training, exercises, equipment/research and development, information 
and intelligence sharing, and health and medical.
    State and local acceptance of the National Domestic Preparedness 
Office is critical for its success. Part of the blueprint for the 
office is the creation of a State and local advisory group patterned 
after our highly successful Criminal Justice Information Services 
Advisory Policy Board. The individuals comprising this group will 
represent their respective areas of expertise and serve as a bridge 
between federal domestic preparedness program planning and the needs 
and priorities of states and local communities. We are also recruiting 
experienced individuals from State and local first responder groups to 
work in the National Domestic Preparedness Office. We also plan to 
solicit State and local agencies for detailees to the Office.
    In our local communities, the work of the National Domestic 
Preparedness Office will be facilitated by a network of 56 full-time 
coordinators, one in each FBI field office. These local coordinators 
will serve as the primary point of contact for State and local 
emergency first responders. State and local officials will also be able 
to contact the National Domestic Preparedness Office through a toll-
free assistance number, an Internet website, and the Law Enforcement 
On-Line intranet.
    As we continue building State and local first responder 
preparedness and readiness, we must keep in mind that this undertaking 
is a long-term and costly commitment that must be sustained in the 
future. Equipment provided in 1999 will need to be upgraded or replaced 
in the future as newer, improved technologies become available. New 
protective equipment may also be needed to respond to changes in the 
chemical, biological, and nuclear threat. Basic training must be 
available for State and local employees who will be hired in the 
future. Advanced training must be provided to State and local personnel 
who have completed basic training to maintain competencies.
    The proposed National Domestic Preparedness Office is part of our 
long-term commitment to sustaining State and local first responder 
readiness. Through this office, we hope to provide better, more 
coordinated service and assistance to State and local communities and 
reduce duplication among federal programs.
    Another initiative being undertaken by the FBI to improve State and 
local readiness capabilities is the expansion of training and 
modernization of facilities at the Hazardous Devices School, located at 
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. Through the Hazardous Devices School, the 
FBI trains and certifies federal, State, and local bomb technicians in 
accordance with standards developed through the National Bomb Squad 
Commanders Advisory Board. The Hazardous Devices School is the only law 
enforcement training facility offering certification for public safety 
bomb technicians. The 5-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and 
Technology Crime Plan recommends increasing the availability of federal 
pre-blast and post-blast bomb technician training for first responders.
    With the funding provided by the Congress in 1998, we were able to 
train 963 students, an increase of 48 percent over the previous year. 
In particular, we provided training to 386 students in a new Weapons of 
Mass Destruction Bomb Technician Emergency Actions Course. Beginning 
this year, the weapons of mass destruction course is being integrated 
into the basic bomb technician course so that all new bomb technicians 
receive this training. We will also continue to offer the separate 
course to those bomb technicians already certified.
    The expansion of training at the Hazardous Devices School is 
placing great demands on current facilities. These facilities, 
consisting of three aging metal buildings and small test ranges located 
an inefficient distance from other facilities, limit the quantity of 
personnel trained and the quality of instruction permissible. 
Additionally, there is an increasing demand for basic and advanced 
courses, as well as speciality courses that require advanced 
techniques, that cannot be met with existing facilities.
    For 2000, the FBI is requesting $9,000,000 to construct a practical 
problems training course at Redstone Arsenal as a first step toward 
improving instructional facilities. The proposed practical problems 
training course would be comprised of a series of mock buildings that 
would permit more realistic training scenarios and exercises for 
students.
    State and local bomb technicians may be among the first emergency 
responders to encounter a terrorist device, including devices that may 
combine the use of explosives and a chemical, biological, or 
radiological agent. Recognizing the importance for providing State and 
local bomb technicians with a capability for detecting the presences of 
such agents, the FBI developed a multi-year initiative to provide basic 
equipment and chemical/biological detection technology to the 
approximately 630 State and local bomb technician squads across the 
Nation. Congress directed the Attorney General in the 1999 Justice 
Appropriations Act to provide $25,000,000 from the Department's Working 
Capital Fund to begin this initiative. For 2000, the Department is 
requesting $45,000,000 to continue this initiative which is being 
managed by the FBI. This request directly supports the recommendation 
contained in the 5-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology 
Plan to prepare bomb technicians to address incidents involving a 
combination of explosives and chemical, biological, or radiological 
agents.
    International Partnerships and Cooperation.--If, as recent events 
seem to indicate, terrorists are going to strike against the United 
States through its presence and citizens in foreign countries, then it 
is in our national interest to develop and expand ``cop-to-cop'' 
relationships with friendly foreign law enforcement, provide basic 
counterterrorism crime scene and related training, and share with them 
our forensic and related technologies.
    As I indicated earlier, FBI Legal Attaches from Cairo and Pretoria 
were the first non-resident United States law enforcement officials to 
arrive on the scene of the terrorist bombings in Dar es Salaam and 
Nairobi. Both of these individuals were instrumental in establishing 
productive relationships with the host governments and local law 
enforcement authorities so that our main body of agents, technicians, 
and others could do their jobs once they arrived. Our Legal Attaches 
provided critical advice to local authorities on protecting the crime 
scenes so that key evidence was not destroyed. And, as I also noted 
earlier, our Legal Attache on scene in Nairobi was instrumental in 
persuading Kenyan authorities to turn over to the United States two 
individuals taken into custody.
    This Subcommittee has strongly supported my efforts to increase the 
number of FBI Legal Attache Offices. I am hopeful that we can continue 
to depend upon your support as we complete the four year expansion 
strategy that was started in 1996.
    Both Tanzanian and Kenyan authorities expressed interest in 
receiving training and technical assistance so that they will not only 
be better prepared in the event of future acts of terrorism, but also 
out of a desire to provide more effective basic law enforcement 
services--modeled after those of American law enforcement--to their 
citizens. Investments in these types of cooperative programs, such as 
the Antiterrorism Training Assistance program of the Department of 
State and the International Law Enforcement Academy in Budapest, will 
help provide foreign law enforcement with basic knowledge, such as 
taking the steps needed to protect terrorism crime scenes until the 
arrival of FBI rapid deployment teams and prevent the contamination or 
destruction of evidence that could eventually be used in a United 
States Court to prosecute an international terrorist.
    In support of the Attorney General's leadership efforts within the 
G-8 to strengthen international cooperation to combat terrorism, the 
FBI is developing the WorldFACTS system, which will provide G-8 
countries with access to four FBI forensic systems: EXPRESS, which 
correlates information from bombing crime scenes and undetonated 
explosives devices, and provides a reference base for explosives; 
comparing and matching firearms evidence from shooting incidents and 
seized firearms; searching and matching latent fingerprints from crime 
scenes and evidence; and storing and sharing of terrorist-case related 
DNA information. Funding for this effort was provided by the 
Subcommittee in 1997. In 1998, we successfully completed a test of the 
telecommunications line between Italy and the United States. We have 
shipped WorldFACTS equipment to Italy in anticipation of the 
finalization of operational guidelines between the FBI and Italian 
authorities.
    The FBI also assists the Department of Defense in its 
counterproliferation program. The goals of this program are to train 
and equip foreign law enforcement personnel to detect, prevent, 
investigate, and prosecute incidents involving the illegal trafficking 
in weapons of mass destruction and to deter the possible proliferation 
and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction in Eastern Europe, the 
Baltic States, and the countries of the former Soviet Union. Under this 
interagency program, which also involves the United States Customs 
Service, the Department of Energy, the Department of State, the 
Department of Commerce, and other agencies, the FBI has provided 
counter-proliferation training for government officials from the 
republics of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and Moldova. 
Reducing the opportunity for terrorists to obtain radiological and 
similar materials at the source is the first step toward preventing 
their use against the United States.
Conclusion
    To adequately understand the terrorist threat currently facing the 
United States, we must appreciate the unique position America occupies 
in the world today. As the sole superpower, the politics of the United 
States are viewed with intense interest by nations around the world. To 
some individuals and groups who feel powerless to affect their own 
destinies through legal means, the breadth of influence and power 
wielded by the United States represents a stunning contrast--and an 
attractive target for their frustrations. Despite our successes against 
various terrorist groups and individuals, new groups and new 
individuals step onto the scene to take up the cause against America.
    The FBI has developed a broad-based response to many external 
threats that confront the United States today. Due to the strong 
support of this Subcommittee, we are much better prepared to address 
the terrorist threat at home and abroad than we were six years ago. 
With the continued support of Congress and the Executive Branch, and in 
cooperation with our partners in the intelligence and law enforcement 
communities, we will continue to enhance our ability to protect the 
American people from the threat of international terrorism.

                         Top down coordination

    Senator Gregg. I congratulate all of you for your effort in 
this area. My view 3 years ago when we got started on this was 
that it was going to be impossible to get everybody to 
coordinate. There were just so many different agencies. I think 
we counted 24 different agencies involved.
    I do think you have made immense strides. I think this 
interagency report that you and the Attorney General and the 
Director put together is superb. People have described it as 
the bible for getting ready for terrorist activity. I think it 
can be effectively described as that type of document, and it 
shows coordination. I know that the departments are working 
together. I have been to every department, I think, that is 
involved in this issue, and I have been very impressed with the 
willingness of people to work with each other.
    I know the State Department has worked very hard on its 
Accountability Review Board and is trying to respond to the 
Accountability Review Board in an aggressive and positive way 
and I congratulate you for that.
    The sincerity of effort has been genuine and I think it has 
been very positive. I do feel we have made great strides, but I 
think we have to also acknowledge that there is a long way to 
go, which you recognize.
    I have got to come back to this frustration about this 
Presidential press conference, because it just so antagonized 
me because I think it was just the wrong message to send. When 
we were trying to coordinate--because it was not coordinated--I 
will not put you on the spot, but I do not think anybody at 
this table was consulted about this press conference in any 
depth. Maybe you were. Maybe you would like to correct that 
statement. But I do not think you were. It really came out of 
the blue. It is obvious that it has no consistency with the 
interagency plan, the proposal that is put forward.
    So my question is this: I know you are all trying hard, but 
can we really do this if we do not have a top-down coordinated 
effort? How are we going to do this if we set out a game plan 
for accomplishing it, and then, suddenly, we have a side-
tracking event where a whole set of proposals just come out of 
the blue, which is inconsistent with the proposals which have 
just been agreed to?
    Attorney General Reno. I think we are in a growing process, 
and I think the instrument that we present to you this March 
that reflects the cross-cutting budget, with the message that 
you are sending, I think we can use that as a means of bringing 
to the budget process the same working relationship that we 
have at this table.
    Senator Gregg. I appreciate that comment. I guess I was 
just venting a little frustration. The message is not to you 
because you folks are doing your job, and you are doing it very 
well in this area. It is to the White House, which is not doing 
its job, and not doing it very well in this area in my opinion.

                            Embassy security

    Let me go on to another subject: there are two players not 
at this table, of really huge significance, which are the CIA 
and the military. I know you are working with them, but I would 
be interested if you could give me your evaluation of two 
issues.
    Number one, from the Secretary, I would be interested in 
your evaluation of progress relative to the expansion of 
Marines and Marine security which is necessary at your 
facilities.
    And with the Attorney General and the FBI Director, I would 
be interested in your thoughts on this concept of using the 
National Guard as the second responder, setting up ten 
districts of National Guard units, ten areas or regions that 
the National Guard will be responsible for. It makes a lot of 
sense to me, but I know there has been a lot of controversy 
about it. I would like to hear your thoughts on it. Do we have 
any Posse Comitatus issues there and does it make sense and how 
will you tie it in with the FBI?
    Let me start with the Marine issue, which goes to Secretary 
Albright.
    Secretary Albright. Thank you, also, Mr. Chairman. I really 
think that you have prodded us on all these issues in a 
remarkable way and have been ahead of your time in this, and we 
appreciate everything that you are doing. I, for one, pledge 
myself to work with you as closely as possible on this because 
I think that all the issues that you have raised are key to our 
cooperative activity on this.
    Let me just say that I think there are two responsibilities 
in terms of guarding our embassies. The Marine security guards 
at our embassies and consulates are there for internal defense, 
and this includes preventing compromise of classified material 
and equipment and the protection of personnel and government 
property there. At present, there are Marine security guard 
detachments at 122 of our diplomatic posts, and we are in the 
process now of adding 37 new Marine security guard detachments 
around the world.
    I recently had a conversation with the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs about how we would work more closely together in 
terms of protection around the embassies. This is clearly one 
of the issues that we have to deal with, and again, how to do 
this without stretching our military beyond what it can do. It 
is being called upon to do a lot of work in other parts of our 
readiness and defense. But I think it is important for people 
to understand that the Marine guards are for internal security.
    Senator Gregg. While we are on that subject, the 
Accountability Review Board pointed out that there has to be an 
overhaul of a large number of facilities. What percentage of 
the facilities have done the initial steps and how far do we 
have to go?
    Secretary Albright. Well, we have begun, really, to upgrade 
a lot of the embassies in terms of Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. 
In terms of rebuilding other embassies, however, I do not have 
the percentage. We have taken a lot of steps in order to put 
barriers around them, to try to look at ways to have our host 
governments assist us in closing off roads, buying extra 
property and creating set-backs for places before we can 
relocate them. About 10 percent of the work has been done. But 
this is, I think, an on-going process that we are dedicated to 
working on.
    Senator Gregg. What is your build-out time frame? You have 
gotten 10 percent done. In a year from now, will we have 50 
percent done?
    Secretary Albright. We will keep proceeding on the basis of 
the resources that we have, and I will have to give you a 
better estimate. I do not know. But this is a steady process 
and we are doing everything we can at a number of embassies in 
responding as best we can to the various requests that are 
being made.
    But I can just assure you that we have decided that there 
is no such thing as a low-threat embassy, so we are looking in 
every place to do upgrades in terms of how to protect the 
surrounding area, giving training to the people within the 
embassies and working with the host governments for increased 
protection. But this is a steady program and I believe that as 
we work out our plan there will be an increased rate of getting 
the work done because we will be able to let contracts in a way 
that allows us to do better work across the board.
    I think that we are going to be able to do a lot of this 
within 2 years. But we have a program that has been set out, 
and it takes longer, obviously, to rebuild some of these 
embassies, such as Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. But there is a 
consistent program, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Gregg. I will go back to the National Guard in a 
moment, but just so there is some continuity here, the 
President has asked for $300 million in his budget for next 
year. We have got emergency appropriations of $1.4 billion. 
Obviously, we are not going to spend the $1.4 billion and it 
will be available, and the $300 million, as you said in your 
statement, was minimum. It is $700 million less than what the 
review panel suggested.
    My question is, at some point, your ability to rebuild and 
your ability to fix up these embassies is going to outstrip the 
money that has been put into the budget for you. That line is 
going to cross fairly quickly, I would think, as you start to 
rebuild these embassies and restructure them. Maybe you can get 
by on $300 million this coming year, but I think it jumps to, 
what, $450 million the next year?
    Secretary Albright. Four-fifty in fiscal year 2002.
    Senator Gregg. Those numbers are not going to work. At that 
point, you will be close to $1.3 billion behind what the 
Accountability Review Board suggested.
    Secretary Albright. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, we have for 
some time, obviously, been working on security within the 
overall budget. This is not an easy issue because we have been 
operating within the Budget Act and within the constraints of 
trying to eliminate the deficit and also within what we have 
for our Function 150, which deals not only with security and 
buildings but the operations of the State Department and our 
overall policies.
    Senator Gregg. I understand that. My point is, I do not 
want to strip those accounts. I want to fund what is needed in 
order to make sure your embassies are safe and that your 
personnel are safe. But I do not think under the numbers we are 
being presented with that you are going to be able to do that 
unless I go back and find some money somewhere else. Am I 
wrong?
    Secretary Albright. Well, we are trying to work within what 
we have available, but as I said, it is a minimum requirement. 
We are looking at various ways that we can use the money in the 
best way possible and, obviously, would be very grateful to 
you.
    Senator Gregg. But I have to find $1.3 billion. Now, 
obviously, Senator Hollings has laid a marker down this 
morning. He said he is going to have some serious reservations 
about going forward at the levels that the Accountability 
Review Board asked for.
    But my point to you is, OMB has sent up a budget that is 
not going to work in order to protect the embassies, in my 
opinion, and I do not want to go into your other accounts and 
have to take $1.3 billion out over the next 2 years. So I would 
like to work with you and go back to the drawing board and 
figure out if we cannot find some other way to address this, 
because I do feel very strongly that you are going to get to a 
point here where you are not going to have the money to fix up 
the embassies to make them secure.
    Secretary Albright. Mr. Chairman, can I just say this? I 
think that, as the Attorney General said, we are at the 
beginning stages of a lot of aspects of this, and we are 
working very hard. I think the most important point here is 
that we all need to work together on this and try to develop a 
budget that not only provides us what we need to do but also is 
within what is available.
    I want very much to work with you and I appreciate greatly 
your interest in this and your ability to see the fact that we 
need more. So I am very grateful to you.

                          National Guard role

    Senator Gregg. I am sorry to get off track here. I do that. 
Can you respond to this issue of the National Guard's role, 
which I see as a major component of this whole exercise. It is 
not necessarily under this committee's jurisdiction, but I 
would be interested in your thoughts as to how it works.
    Mr. Freeh. Mr. Chairman, our view is that, first of all, 
there is no Posse Comitatus issue, at least as the proposal is 
understood. The National Guard units, which come under the 
jurisdiction not only of the Department of Defense but also the 
State governors, would be in a role to assess, advise, and 
facilitate emergency response by State and local responders.
    Senator Gregg. How do you see them interfacing with your 
chemical weapons people, your chemical threat people in your 
offices?
    Mr. Freeh. If we had a situation where a combination of 
Federal, State, and local resources could not respond to a 
crisis of such a proportion that we needed platoons or 
companies of trained National Guardsmen, we would certainly 
call on them and rely on them as part of the response plan. We 
have a National Guard detailee in the proposed National 
Domestic Preparedness Office which would give us that liaison. 
They would be under the supervision and authority of the 
Attorney General in terms of the PDD 39 crisis management. They 
would also come under the authority of FEMA as regards 
consequence management. So we would see them as a support 
asset, a facilitator, and not interfering with the Federal 
plan.
    We also need, as you very well know, to make sure that this 
is done in a coordinated fashion. We were pleased to learn 
about that and we certainly welcome the commitment of 
resources. But it has to be put into the domestic response 
plan, and there has to be a clear demarcation between what 
would be the law enforcement responsibilities and their 
supporting facilitation responsibilities.
    Senator Gregg. If there is a weapon of mass destruction 
used against a community, the first contact would obviously be 
with the local police and the local health agencies, and then 
the next step, in your opinion, is to contact the regional 
office of the FBI who would be immediately in charge of the 
scene. Is that your view of the way it would work?
    Mr. Freeh. Yes. Under a crisis response, the crisis manager 
would become the FBI officer on the scene.
    Senator Gregg. And would that person have the capacity 
under the plan, as it is presently structured, to call in the 
National Guard, or would that be left up to the governor?
    Mr. Freeh. That part of the plan is not addressed, only 
because it is a very new card on the table. But it is going to 
be incorporated in terms of the crisis management response. The 
authority that I would not only recommend but foresee is the 
ability of the on-scene commander to call exactly that resource 
into the scene.
    Senator Gregg. How about the CDC? Who would have the 
authority to bring them in?
    Mr. Freeh. The same authority, the on-scene commander.
    Senator Gregg. Through that commander?
    Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
    [The information follows:]

     Clarification of the Authority to Activate The National Guard

    The FBI On-Scene Commander will be able to request the 
assistance, support, and resources of the National Guard 
through the Governor of the affected state, which has occurred 
in past situations. It should be noted that only the State 
Governor has the statutory authority to activate the National 
Guard.

                 FBI-local law enforcement cooperation

    Senator Gregg. How are you going to get over, to put it 
nicely, the institutional barrier that exists today between 
local law enforcement and the FBI?
    Mr. Freeh. Well, I suppose, the same way we got over it in 
Oklahoma City and in downtown Manhattan when the Trade Tower 
bombing went off. We do not take it for granted that they are 
going to work as successfully as they did in both of those 
cases. In both of those cases, however, we had in the case of 
the Trade Tower an already existent terrorism task force which 
combined not only all the Federal agencies, including FEMA, but 
also the New York City Police Department. So the SAC in our 
office was not negotiating with the commissioner of 40,000 
police officers over who was going to do what. That was a pre-
planned and coordinated effort.
    Senator Gregg. How many other cities are at that level of 
capability in this country?
    Mr. Freeh. In terms of those types of joint task forces, 
there are 18 of them now, with several more being proposed. But 
in every city, and we can give you the details on this, we are 
doing not only planning, but also conducting exercises with 
respect to crisis management responses to nonconventional acts 
of terrorism and other acts that would be contemplated.
    For instance, just recently in South Carolina, we have 
conducted a major exercise with respect to the Savannah River 
facility that involved not just the law enforcement components 
but the State and local components.
    Senator Gregg. There were two exercises that I am familiar 
with. Is that one of them, then, that was referred to?
    Mr. Freeh. I think you are referring to the one in Norfolk, 
which was where not only the people represented here and their 
agencies, but whole regional departments participated.
    [The information follows:]

                   FBI Planning and Exercise Efforts

    The FBI has devoted much attention to improving the 
coordination and integration of state and local agencies with 
national-level Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) terrorism 
contingency plans. In September of 1998, the FBI distributed 
the WMD Incident Contingency Plan (WMDICP) to all FBI Field 
Offices. These plans provide FBI agent responders and field 
office crisis management personnel with guidance and 
instructions on how to respond to a WMD threat or incident. 
While previous plans have been classified, this year's plan was 
not. The plan directed FBI Special Agents-in-Charge (SAC) and 
WMD Coordinators to provide the WMDICP to state and local first 
responders to insure a multi-agency domestic emergency response 
to a WMD incident.
    The FBI recognizes that coordination ahead of time will 
insure our success during the response, investigation and 
reconstruction stages of an incident. All FBI field offices 
have been tasked to conduct WMD exercises in each of their 
regions. With the promulgation of the above-mentioned plan, 
field offices have even greater guidance and assistance in 
forming a united approach amongst Federal, state, and local 
responders.
    The FBI's commitment to the WMD program and our 
counterparts is growing. For example, this past summer, the FBI 
deployed 350 agent and support personnel from 32 field offices 
along with 6 SACs/On-Scene-Commanders for a one week period, 24 
hours a day, in a Department of Defense led exercise. Other 
agencies including the Federal Emergency Management 
Administration, Department of Energy, Public Health Service, 
Environmental Protection Agency, and others participated in 
this extensive full-field exercise which brought nearly 2,000 
participants together to test various areas of a Federal 
response. Additionally, a major exercise, which engaged 
Federal, state, and local participants in the Los Angeles area 
in both crisis and consequence management was conducted in 
February 1999. In the fall of this year, a full-field WMD 
exercise is planned for the east coast which will further test 
Federal, state and local crisis and consequence response. The 
FBI plans to hold one full-field WMD exercise each year to 
include all levels of government and test our response, 
especially to a Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear 
(CBRN) terrorist act.

                            Top off exercise

    Senator Gregg. Whatever happened to the surprise exercises 
that this committee suggested be done about a year ago?
    Mr. Freeh. With respect to the one mentioned in the report, 
we are currently planning to undertake a no-notice exercise.
    Senator Gregg. But we are not going to tell people we are 
planning to undertake that.
    Mr. Freeh. According to the Attorney General's plan, there 
will be a no-notice exercise. This would be a surprise call-out 
and exercise, but there is a great deal of planning that is 
involved in it and we are in the process of doing that now.
    Senator Gregg. I hope we will do it sooner rather than 
later so that we can figure out--we ought to do two or three of 
them, to be honest with you, so we find out just what we can do 
and what we cannot do. We know we are not going to be able to 
do a lot. I mean, we know it is going to be abysmal, in my 
opinion, but we ought to figure out where the problems are 
sooner rather than later.
    Yes.
    [The information follows:]

 Role of the National Guard in Response To Domestic Terrorist Incidents

    It is recognized that the National Guard may play a vital 
role in the response to a major domestic terrorist incident, 
including incidents involving Weapons of Mass Destruction 
(WMD). The National Guard possesses critical resources that 
could be essential to crisis and consequence management if such 
an event were to occur. For example, the National Guard 
currently uses 10 Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID) 
teams, which are fielded in each of the 10 Federal Emergency 
Management Administration regions. These teams are designed to 
assess a suspected nuclear, biological, chemical, or 
radiological event; advise civilian responders regarding 
appropriate actions; and facilitate requests for assistance.
    The FBI is currently coordinating the integration of the 
National Guard Bureau (NGB) resources and plans with existing 
plans to assist state and local jurisdictions in preparing for 
WMD incidents. To ensure that resources available to the NGB 
are integrated into strategies currently being developed to 
address counterterrorism preparedness, a representative of the 
NGB participated in several working group sessions that the FBI 
hosted in formulating these strategies.
    Moreover, the NGB has assigned a National Guard Officer to 
the FBI on a full-time basis to ensure continued coordination 
between the FBI and the NGB.

    Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, I think it is 
important to put in perspective, it is going to differ from one 
jurisdiction to another in terms of what the issues are, what 
the resources are in the State. So that is the reason I think 
it is so important that the FBI is engaged in this planning 
effort at the State and local level, not reinventing the wheel 
but using FEMA plans where appropriate and emergency response 
plans where appropriate, developing the contacts and 
understanding what the resources are up front. In some 
instances, the National Guard may play a role, and in another 
instance, they may be prepared. But what I would like to do is 
come back to you with a further report on the National Guard 
and how that is going to be used.
    Your question is what happens, who is first on the scene. 
That is going to again depend on the circumstance, because with 
the World Trade Center, a New York police officer may be the 
first on the scene, but immediately with the plans they had in 
place, they were able to respond.
    When you talk about the cooperation between State and local 
law enforcement and the FBI, it is not just happening in the 
big cities. You talk to some of the sheriffs and the law 
enforcement personnel in Montana in another situation where the 
FBI responded and you see, whether it be in a rural area or an 
urban area, they have made real progress in developing that 
two-way street and that respect. We have a way to go.
    Senator Gregg. I agree. I think, Director Freeh, you have 
made great, great strides on getting these turf issues dampened 
down that have existed for so long between law enforcement and 
certainly are not your creation. I feel very strongly that the 
concept of a single person who is responsible for weapons of 
mass destruction then coming on the scene who has the capacity 
to call in whatever is needed and has the knowledge to do it is 
absolutely critical to the whole exercise.
    But I think, also, that we have to recognize that all this 
stuff works in theory, but until we actually do a few practice 
runs, we are not going to know where all the holes are, and 
they are going to be different in New York, which is much more 
sophisticated, than they are going to be, for example, in 
Vermont. I could have used New Hampshire. [Laughter.]
    I mean, the fact is, we have got to--and you are, 
obviously, and I am just trying to prod you a little bit, but 
you are obviously very attentive to this, and do not take my 
questions as criticisms. They are just expressions of concern 
which I know you also share.

                               Y2K impact

    How are we doing with Y2K and the effects that it might 
create for opportunities for terrorists' action due to networks 
being down or other systems not being responsive and terrorists 
being able to take advantage of that?
    Attorney General Reno. I will follow up with a more 
specific report for you so that you can be fully advised, but 
we are very sensitive to the issues and are looking at every 
point, with worldwide connections, with State and local 
connections, where failure of other countries and failure of 
State and local officials to correct the problem would produce 
a significant impact on the Federal system and our Federal 
ability. I think it is going to be a very difficult issue and 
it is something that we are working through.
    [The information follows:]

     Preparations for Possible Year 2000 (Y2K) Terrorist Activities

    The FBI has reason to believe that the potential failure of 
computer networks and other automated systems as a result of 
the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer malfunction may impact on the 
activities, plans, and ideology of domestic terrorist groups. 
To paraphrase a belief common among extremists, the Y2K 
computer crisis to the extent that it occurs may be the final 
fuse that will lead to the New World Order that has so long 
been desired by forces seeking to do harm to United States 
citizens. Any Y2K related problems, such as electric grid 
problems and food shortages, will likely reinforce extremists' 
beliefs that computer problems are part of a purposeful plan to 
declare martial law and enslave United States citizens.
    In preparation for such a scenario, domestic terrorist 
groups are currently stockpiling weapons and food, and 
conducting training based on their beliefs. Should there be 
widespread computer failures, it is possible that domestic 
terrorist groups will take action to prevent what they perceive 
to be the imminent declaration of martial law.
    The FBI is currently assessing the potential impact that 
the Y2K problem may have on the domestic terrorism threat. The 
assessment is expected to be completed in June of 1999, and 
will serve as a guide for FBI preparations.

    Senator Gregg. State?
    Secretary Albright. The same is true for us. I mean, we 
have a huge job, because in terms of Y2K, we are not only 
responsible for ourselves but trying to make sure that the 
countries in which we are involved are also moving forward with 
the Y2K issue. It is something that I discuss with every one of 
my counterparts, as do people at different levels within the 
State Department. We just had a report at a meeting that I had 
which really showed that we are on target, moving with getting 
everybody that we have any dealings with at least conscious 
about the problem.
    But I am not underestimating here. There is an issue, and 
it is not just a matter of us but the various countries that we 
are dealing with. But we are very much aware that this is 
something that we have to keep pushing.

                   Additional legislative authorities

    Senator Gregg. What do you need from the Congress that you 
are not getting or from--well, let us start from the Congress, 
that you are not getting to give you support to address these 
issues?
    Mr. Freeh. Senator, there are some discussions going on, as 
you know, beginning with legislative authorities as well as 
other changes. One area is to incorporate into some of the 
current Federal statutes, particularly the racketeering and the 
wiretapping authorities, crimes of terrorism. That is an issue 
that the Department is preparing to address and hopefully we 
will do that in the next few months.
    With respect to the coordinating mechanisms that are in 
place, under the statutory authorities as well as the PDDs, it 
is our belief--I think I can speak for the Attorney General 
here--that we have the requisite authorities. What we need to 
do now is establish the coordinating mechanisms that have to be 
stood up, in some cases are already stood up, and then have 
them interface successfully.
    With respect to the 2000 requests, of course, we in the FBI 
have asked for support, continued support, and we thank this 
committee and your leadership particularly for this, for 
technology enforcement expertise. Now, we call it technology 
crimes, but they are areas of computer investigations as well 
as evidence and information collection that really span both 
the criminal enforcement, as well as counterintelligence and 
counterterrorism.
    We would like to also pursue the provision of funding for 
our State and local departments to receive training, 
particularly hazardous devices incorporating weapons of mass 
destruction elements. The support you have given us in the 
Hazardous Devices School in Redstone, expanding it 48 percent, 
is a trend that we would like to continue.
    Certainly, our overseas capacity with respect to the 
establishment of legats has been very well appreciated. As I 
mentioned, in East Africa, our presence there, in my view, went 
a large way toward giving us the ability to work much more 
efficiently and carefully.
    Those are the general areas where we have----

                               Encryption

    Senator Gregg. Have you given up on encryption?
    Mr. Freeh. I have not given up on encryption, and I am----
    Senator Gregg. I thought you might have.
    Mr. Freeh [continuing]. Pleased to report that both the 
Attorney General and I have had very good discussions with 
leaders of the industry. We have reached some agreement on the 
support of a technical center. In fact, legislation that was 
passed in October gives us the authority to receive their offer 
of services and personnel to solve some of these problems on a 
case-by-case basis, if not on a global basis. We are very 
optimistic about that. We also believe, however, that we need 
to come back to the Congress for authority and certainly for 
support in implementing a program where we have non-mandatory 
controls and incentives which will give industry the impetus to 
continue to support what we want to establish.
    Senator Gregg. Does anybody else have anything they wish to 
add?
    Secretary Albright. I think, from our perspective, we do 
not need any more legislative authority. But we do need, as you 
pointed out, money. I think that is something that, as we 
assess our needs and are able to absorb the lessons that we are 
learning here, an accelerated pace of getting the money is 
something that we will need.
    Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, we would be very 
grateful if you would approve the National Domestic 
Preparedness Office.
    Senator Gregg. OK.
    Attorney General Reno. Let me talk just in a larger picture 
for a moment. I am trying to make sure that the Justice 
Department looks at itself as a whole, because I have had too 
many instances in which I arrive at a field office and the FBI 
SAC, when I ask him what he needs, says, I need more 
prosecutors. That is kind of a change when a SAC is asking for 
more prosecutors as opposed to more agents.
    We would like to work with you to make sure that as we add 
agents, that we add the prosecutors to prosecute the cases and 
look at the whole picture in terms of long-range planning. We 
have tried to develop some long-range planning efforts that 
would assist in that and we would love to sit down and talk to 
you about it and show you what we have done on that.
    Senator Gregg. OK. I guess I should not have asked that 
question. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Freeh. It is a good question.
    Senator Gregg. Senator Campbell, I understand the Secretary 
has to leave and I suspect the Attorney General probably does, 
too, so I will let you wrap up questioning.
    Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to 
certainly assure all three of you that Chairman Gregg and I 
have both, he chairing this committee and me with Treasury, 
have tried to make sure there are adequate resources for all 
the agencies that deal with law enforcement.
    I did not really have any questions for you, Madam 
Secretary, or for the Attorney General. Really, I did have some 
for Director Freeh. If you have to leave or something, I 
understand that.
    I had some photos I shared before Madeleine Albright came 
in. I will have them put back up there. They dealt with a fire 
at Vail. You saw them a while ago, Director Freeh.
    Mr. Freeh. Yes.

                       Special events management

    Senator Campbell. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions 
because I am so concerned about that component of terrorism. I 
mean, we hear the big picture, the big press, of course, always 
focuses on the bombings at the embassy or things of that 
nature, but we have 26 ski areas in Colorado alone, as an 
example. It is a major component of our--really, the backbone 
of our tourist industry.
    I have really been worried since this fire started, and I 
told you it was a $12.5 million fire. There have been, to my 
knowledge, no one who has any leads, and I do not want you to 
tell me anything you should not be telling me, but what can I 
tell the people of Colorado and Vail that are really worried 
that there may be some copycat efforts because of this fire in 
some of our other ski resorts.
    I mentioned a while ago that it seems like sporting events, 
because of the international focus, they have become a bigger 
and bigger target. This happened to be done by the Earth 
Liberation Front. Of course, they are the ones that took the 
credit for it. But it seems to me that these big events with 
national media are going to become more and more targets simply 
because of the statement they can make. Can you tell me 
anything about how we are doing on that?
    Mr. Freeh. Yes, Senator Campbell.
    Senator Gregg. Excuse me, Senator. Did you say you had no 
further questions?
    Senator Campbell. No, I had no questions for Secretary 
Albright or Attorney General Reno. If you have to run to 
another thing, I----
    Attorney General Reno. I will wait.
    Mr. Freeh. Senator, with respect to this specific 
investigation, it has been very intensively pursued, not just 
by the FBI, but there is an FBI-ATF task force which has worked 
exceptionally well and has addressed this investigation from 
its inception.
    We do actually have a number of what we think are very good 
leads. We have a number of individuals who we have focused on. 
We are not at this point, certainly not here, able to give you 
a lot more details on that. I think I might be able to do so in 
a separate session with you, which I would be happy to do. But 
we are pursuing the investigation and we have, I believe, some 
good investigative opportunities as well as some suspects to 
focus on.
    On the larger issue with respect to concern for copycat 
violations, of course, this is always an issue. As you see now 
around the country, every day there is an anthrax letter 
supposedly arriving someplace. This has become a very 
disruptive and also dangerous phenomenon which we are trying to 
respond to.
    Special events management, not just the Alpine games but 
the Denver summit, the State of the Union several days ago, and 
really all major national events, including the Pope's recent 
visit to St. Louis, are now routinely the subject of not just 
great preparation, which you saw in Denver, but integrated 
command posts, cross-designation of officers and very extensive 
planning, including WMD contingency response planning in almost 
every major event, including the ones I have mentioned.
    We do not have the ability, unfortunately, to guarantee the 
avoidance of problems. The Olympic games in Atlanta were 
certainly a good example of that. Although all the other areas 
were very, very secured, a public-accessed park was not--could 
not be, probably, and there, of course, we experienced a very 
tragic event.
    So the special events planning has really matured 
significantly over the years. Under PDD 62, there is a 
structure, as well as a coordinating mechanism, to address 
these events with combined resources and we feel fairly 
confident about that progress.
    But the events that you mentioned in Vail are certainly of 
great importance and investigative focus for us. The 
environmental groups who have not just claimed credit, but in 
some cases have been proved to have committed criminal acts, 
are a very, very serious part of our domestic terrorism focus.
    Senator Campbell. And you are trying to make necessary 
adjustments for future events, too, I assume. I just mention 
some of this because we all have to be responsible to 
constituents and when we spend money around here, we always get 
criticized on spending it for frivolous activities. Since I 
have been here, these international events, I have always tried 
to support the resources that go with people that I think need 
to be there, from your agency, from ATF and other agencies.
    But when you go home and people question you, you mean to 
tell me you voted for money for a sporting event? Some people 
see it as kind of a frivolous waste of money. I do not think so 
because of this new focus. I would hope you are also taking 
adequate preparations for Utah, if the Olympic Committee out 
there does not self-destruct all by themselves, and at the rate 
they are going, they may, but I would hope you recognize that 
is going to be another major focal point.
    Mr. Freeh. Yes. That has been underway for a year in terms 
of the security planning. We also have been supporting, 
directly and otherwise, the Olympic games in Australia next 
year where, of course, we will have many U.S. persons and 
interests at risk.
    Senator Gregg. This committee has committed a fair amount 
of resources to Utah, and I have two kids at college and I am 
paying for them.
    Senator Campbell. You did not get any land deals out there, 
did you? [Laughter.]
    I am just teasing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                            Aviation support

    Senator Gregg. I was wondering about the airplane 
situation. Are we making any progress with getting you the 
capacity to move around quickly?
    Mr. Freeh. We are, Senator, on the fast jet subject matter, 
for which I am very thankful to you and Chairman Stevens and 
the chairmen in the House. We are working on drafts of a 
memorandum of agreement between the Department of Defense and 
the FBI with respect to access to a fast jet, which, as you 
know, is critical for not only the insertion of an advance team 
but for medical evacuation, and as we learned in East Africa, 
for moving prisoners and defendants. In cases such as those, 
many countries, including some of our closest allies, have 
great concern about us using their territory for refueling, so 
we need that long-range capacity and theater operations. So I 
am pleased with the progress with respect to the fast jet.
    On the larger issue of air support to move, in this case, 
500 personnel, not just to East Africa but back and forth, we 
still have a lot of work to do. I do not feel confident at this 
point that we have all of the arrangements in place where if I 
had to move one of the five rapid deployment teams that we have 
set up from Los Angeles to New York, we could in unimpeded 
fashion have access to that aircraft and be anyplace in the 
world in 24 hours. We were pleased, as you know, to be in East 
Africa in 40 hours, but that is much too long, and most of that 
delay was because of aircraft problems. So we need to do some 
work in that area and I certainly appreciate your support.

                        First responder training

    Senator Gregg. This NDPO issue which you raised, before you 
leave, let me just ask you, one of the hang-ups that I 
understand that we are concerned about is the question of 
training the first responders and whether that is going to stay 
with OJP or whether it is going to end up with NDPO. Our 
understanding was that that was going to be an expediting group 
as versus an operational group.
    Attorney General Reno. OJP is going to have responsibility 
for the training, for the equipping. But I do not want them to 
do it in a vacuum. I want them to listen to what others are 
saying at the Federal level, as well, through the NDPO, and I 
think it can work out as a very effective partnership. I think 
OJP is comfortable with it. I followed this very closely 
because I know----
    Senator Gregg. Are the consortia comfortable with it that 
we put together for this training?
    Attorney General Reno. I have not checked with that and I 
will do so and follow up on that and get back to you. But there 
has got to be someplace. As I say, I did not say, let it be us. 
I consulted with my partners in this, the Departments of 
Defense, Health and Human Services, FEMA, and they all said 
that the FBI is the logical place for it.
    Senator Gregg. Well, there does have to be someplace. You 
are absolutely right about that.
    Attorney General Reno. So I think it is the best place. I 
think Tom Kuker is doing a good job of addressing the issue. I 
think the spirit is there for a two-way street to hear from 
local law enforcement. OJP has that experience. They are the 
ones that had the foresight to call the stakeholders meeting in 
August, at which I participated. It is one of the best programs 
that I have seen. The feedback was excellent. But the message 
was, we need one contact point.
    Senator Gregg. I agree 100 percent with that as the 
structure.
    Attorney General Reno. If you decide not to approve it, can 
I come see you before you do?
    Senator Gregg. I think it will get approved. It is just a 
question of making sure we have got the proper comfort zone.
    Attorney General Reno. Thank you.

                     Additional committee questions

    Senator Gregg. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. 
It is possible that other questions will be submitted by other 
Senators. In fact, I know Senator Domenici may want to submit 
some.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE
            Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
    Question. The 2000 budget includes a request for five years of 
advance appropriations totalling $3 billion for the State Department 
embassy security initiative. These appropriations would begin in 2001. 
If security is such an immediate threat, why are these funds not 
requested for fiscal year 2000?
    Answer. There should be no misunderstanding--security is an 
extremely high priority for the Department and the Administration.
    However, the budget request for fiscal year 2000 contains a modest 
increase for security requirements--with $36 million for design and 
some site acquisition of facilities at high threat posts and $3 billion 
in advance appropriations for building construction in fiscal years 
2001-2005.
    As the President mentioned to Hill leaders in their meeting on 
February 22, we need to work together to address the problem of 
vulnerable overseas diplomatic facilities. The Administration wants to 
work with the Congress to fit the best program we can within the 
constraints of the budget. Moving more quickly presents a challenge 
that is welcome but it will do little to improve the long-term safety 
of American officials abroad unless longer-term commitments are made to 
finance the many new facilities required.
    Question. By asking for advance appropriations you take away most 
of the flexibility for Congress to deal with this problem. Could you 
explain how the State Department knows exactly what our needs will be 
in the year 2001, let alone 2004?
    Answer. In its facility management function, the Department has 
records detailing its worldwide inventory of facilities, their 
condition (including maintenance needs), and their security situation. 
In addition, each post is measured against various threat assessments 
to determine levels of vulnerability. With this information, we have 
historically developed our annual budget requests for capital 
construction and major repair and renovation projects.
    In addition, as a result of the bombings, the Department dispatched 
teams composed of security and facility specialists to posts considered 
the highest threat terrorist posts. The results of these reviews and 
consultations among regional policy folks, the intelligence community, 
and others have allowed us to develop and cost out a prioritized list 
of projects for the next five years. By funding design and site 
acquisition one year and construction funding the next, we could 
execute an aggressive schedule of overseas building that will not only 
allow our posts to be more secure, but more modern and an appropriate 
facility from which all U.S. Government agencies with overseas 
operations can conduct their business and pursue U.S. policy 
objectives.
    We would of course welcome discussions with the Congress on the 
best way to achieve our overall objective of a firm multi-year 
commitment to a capital construction program.
                                 ______
                                 
           Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
    Question. In December, President Clinton, speaking at the memorial 
service for the victims of Pan Am 103 marking the tenth anniversary of 
that heinous terrorist act, pledged to seek tougher U.N. sanctions at 
the February sanctions review to compel Libya to turn over the suspects 
for the trial. Do you plan to follow through on your commitments to the 
victims' families to seek an embargo on Libyan oil exports? And will 
you use the law withholding 5 percent of aid from sanctions violators 
to improve compliance with U.N. sanctions measures?
    Answer. UNSCR 1192 endorses the U.S.-U.K. initiative to try the 
Lockerbie bombing suspects before a Scottish court in the Netherlands 
and calls on Libya to transfer the suspects to Dutch custody. We are 
currently working through the UNSYG and the UNSC to effect Libyan 
compliance with UNSCR 1192.
    If Libya refuses to surrender the suspects, the UNSC indicated in 
UNSCR 1192 its intention to consider additional measures. We are in 
consultation with our UNSC colleagues on such measures, but the SYG has 
asked that there be no precipitate action while he awaits Libya's 
response to his most recent message.
    Most countries respect the U.N. sanctions on Libya. Over the past 
six months, however, numerous African states may have violated the UNSC 
prohibition on direct flights to and from Libya and servicing of Libyan 
aircraft.
    Those who may have violated sanctions more than once include: Chad, 
Mali, the Gambia, Djibouti, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, 
Sudan, Burkina Faso, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Tanzania and Egypt.
    Tunisia may also have transgressed the letter of the sanctions 
regime by providing last-minute landing clearance for a direct flight 
from Libya and then allowing the aircraft to depart. We recognize the 
violations of others can place Tunisia in a position which it may lack 
the means to effectively counter.
    In a number of cases, the GOL has resorted to what appears to be 
active deception to arrange offending flights.
    In response to the apparent violations, we have taken a strong 
position both in capitals and in New York. Where appropriate, we have 
made direct approaches to the governments of states suspected of 
sanctions violations. We have also supported action by the U.N. Libya 
Sanctions Committee to question and castigate suspected violators.
    In cases of violators that receive non-development assistance 
monies from the USG, we cut assistance, as consistent with existing 
legislation. Such cuts are primarily in the areas of peacekeeping 
operations, international military education and training (IMET) and 
foreign military financing (FMF). We are currently studying reports of 
violations by Uganda, Mali, Tunisia, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Chad, Tanzania 
and Eritrea for possible action.
    Question. Secretary Albright, laws adopted in the past few years 
allow American citizens to sue foreign state sponsors of terrorism in 
U.S. courts. Steve Flatow won a $247 million judgment against Iran as 
the sponsor of a bus bombing which killed his daughter Alisa. The 
families of the Brothers to the Rescue pilots shot down by Cuba and 
former Hizbollah hostages in Lebanon also won damages under this law. 
Do these judgments provide a deterrent against state sponsorship of 
terrorism? And why is the Administration not doing more to help its own 
citizens to ensure that Iran and Cuba satisfy these awards to pay the 
price for supporting terrorism?
    Answer. The Administration conveys its deepest sympathy to the 
families who have lost loved ones as a result of terrorist acts and 
deliberate murders.
    As is well known, the Administration has been unrelenting in its 
efforts to combat state-sponsored terrorism.
    It is too early to tell whether court judgments like those referred 
to can make any meaningful contribution to these efforts.
    Thus far, we have not seen any specific deterrent effect on Iran or 
Cuba as a result of the existing judgments. Iran continues to provide 
funding for the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the group which 
conducted the bus attack in which Ms. Flatow was killed, and it also 
continues to support HAMAS and Hizbollah. Cuba's attitudes also do not 
appear to have changed.
    The countries who are sued under the amended law tend not to 
recognize U.S. jurisdiction in these situations and so are unlikely to 
cooperate with our judicial process.
    It remains unclear to what extent legally available assets are 
present in the U.S. to enforce a resulting default judgment.
    The Administration has looked for ways to provide information to 
plaintiffs that may assist them in locating unblocked commercial assets 
that are legally available for attachment.
    In many cases, however, assets are diplomatic, or subject to 
ongoing arbitral proceedings, or blocked for U.S. national security 
reasons or otherwise not subject to attachment.
    We will have to continue to look to all the tools available to the 
U.S. Government to seek changes in the behavior of countries on the 
terrorism list that poses a continuing threat to our citizens.
    Question. In those countries where new embassy facilities need to 
be constructed to address security concerns, will sufficient office 
space for USAID be included within those new facilities?
    Answer. We are working with OMB and USAID to prioritize other 
planned projects, to identify specific USAID funding requirements, and 
to ensure that USAID is included in all future planning and funding 
request. We expect in the future as the Department of State constructs 
new facilities that meet all security standards; USAID will be 
collocated in these new facilities.
    Question. Are there ways to regionalize some of our diplomatic 
efforts?
    Is the State Department going through a process to evaluate the 
utility of all our facilities worldwide, to decide which ones we should 
keep?
    Answer. In the wake of the tragic bombings in Nairobi and Dar es 
Salaam, the Department put together a study group to look at how we 
might reorganize functions in East Africa. We hope to have their 
results in the coming months, and following on this we will consider 
how to apply lessons we will learn elsewhere.
    While the Department is considering regionalizing functions, we 
remain committed to the principle of universality--the need to maintain 
an American diplomatic presence wherever possible around the globe. 
However, we do feel that it is time to look at how appropriate presence 
in each country is determined. As a result we are setting up a high-
level panel to examine the overall question of worldwide presence at 
our diplomatic posts.
    Question. The Administration has requested $8 million to upgrade 
overseas facilities used by the Agency for International Development 
(USAID). How is that $8 million possibly adequate to fully address 
USAID's security needs?
    Answer. The $7.7 million Operating Expenses (OE) request is to 
finance USAID's Office of Security, which was transferred in fiscal 
year 1999 from the Office of the Inspector General to USAID's OE 
budget.
    The funds will be used for: Salaries and expenses for the 35 FTE in 
the Security Office; Planned security projects for existing USAID 
facilities overseas; and Procurement of armored vehicles and security 
communication equipment for selected overseas missions.
    The funds are not intended to finance construction costs or 
relocation of existing facilities overseas.
                                 ______
                                 
                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
            Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                        first responder training
    Question. Attorney General Reno, the Administration has touted its 
commitment to fighting terrorism both domestically and internationally. 
Last year, the Department established the National Domestic 
Preparedness Consortium to coordinate the Department's efforts in 
training first responders to a terrorist act. I was at the ceremony and 
supported funding for the Consortium at $20 million for fiscal year 
1999--$8 million for Fort McClellan Headquarters, and $3 million each 
for the four consortia members doing the actual training of state and 
local law enforcement personnel. You reference the four consortia 
members, including the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 
on page 12 of your testimony.
    With all the Administration's focus on counterterrorism and the 
push to adequately train state and local first responders, why does the 
Administration propose to eliminate support approved for the Consortia 
members in 1999 and redirect this $12 million to other expanded or new 
programs in 2000?
    Answer. In 1999, Congress appropriated a total of $20,000,000 to be 
distributed among five members of the National Domestic Preparedness 
Consortium. Of this amount, $16,000,000 is available under the First 
Responder Training Program and $4,000,000 is available under the First 
Responder Equipment Acquisition Program.
    As provided in the 1999 Department of Justice Appropriations Act, a 
total of $3,000,000 will be provided to each of the following four 
Consortium members: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, the 
National Center for Bio-Medical Research and Training, Louisiana State 
University, the National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center, 
Texas A&M University, and the National Exercise, Test, and Training 
Center, Nevada Test Site. A total of $8,000,000 will be provided to the 
Center for Domestic Preparedness, Ft. McClellan.
    The funding requested for counterterrorism programs under the 
Office of Justice Programs includes an overall increase of $38,500,000. 
This increase, along with $6,500,000 from OJP's counterterrorism base 
resources, are proposed to be used to fund the FBI bomb tech equipment 
program at a total level of $45,000,000, $20,000,000 more than is 
available in 1999. As you are aware, Congress allowed the Department to 
use $25,000,000 from the Working Capital Fund to pay for this program 
in 1999. The bomb tech equipment program was supposed to be multi-year, 
and the Department cannot assume that funding will be available from 
the Working Capital Fund in 2000 to continue this program. We believe 
that we can work with congressional appropriators within the total 
level of counterterrorism program funding proposed in the 2000 budget 
to continue the training programs begun in 1999 by the consortium 
members while providing some permanent base of funding for the bomb 
tech equipment program.
    Also, within the limited base resources available in 2000, 
$17,000,000 was included for the Center for Domestic Preparedness at 
Fort McClellan, which is a member of the National Domestic Preparedness 
Consortium; this is an increase of $9,000,000 from 1999. OJP will 
assume full responsibility for the live agent training infrastructure 
at the base in 2000, and this increase is necessary to fund first 
responder training at Fort McClellan as well as the additional overhead 
costs that will be incurred once the transition is complete.
    Question. Congress has provided two years of funding for the four 
members of the National Consortium, and they are actively involved in 
hands-on training of these personnel. New Mexico Tech has done classes 
for Seattle, St. Louis, Chicago, Phoenix, and Fairfax County, Virginia, 
for example. Each of these four institutions have existing expertise 
and facilities to bring to the first responder training program and are 
doing the job. Why does the Administration propose to eliminate both 
1999 funding and propose no funding for other than the Center for 
Domestic Preparedness in 2000?
    Answer. In 1999, Congress appropriated a total of $20,000,000 to be 
distributed among five members of the National Domestic Preparedness 
Consortium. Of this amount, $16,000,000 is available under the First 
Responder Training Program and $4,000,000 is available under the First 
Responder Equipment Acquisition Program.
    As provided in the 1999 Department of Justice Appropriations Act, a 
total of $3,000,000 will be provided to each of the following four 
Consortium members: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, the 
National Center for Bio-Medical Research and Training, Louisiana State 
University, the National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center, 
Texas A&M University, and the National Exercise, Test, and Training 
Center, Nevada Test Site. A total of $8,000,000 will be provided to the 
Center for Domestic Preparedness, Ft. McClellan.
    The funding requested for counterterrorism programs under the 
Office of Justice Programs includes an overall increase of $38,500,000. 
This increase, along with $6,500,000 from OJP's counterterrorism base 
resources, are proposed to be used to fund the FBI bomb tech equipment 
program at a total level of $45,000,000, $20,000,000 more than is 
available in 1999. As you are aware, Congress allowed the Department to 
use $25,000,000 from the Working Capital Fund to pay for this program 
in 1999. The bomb tech equipment program was supposed to be multi-year, 
and the Department cannot assume that funding will be available from 
the Working Capital Fund in 2000 to continue this program. We believe 
that we can work with congressional appropriators within the total 
level of counterterrorism program funding proposed in the 2000 budget 
to continue the training programs begun in 1999 by the consortium 
members while providing some permanent base of funding for the bomb 
tech equipment program.
    Also, within the limited base resources available in 2000, 
$17,000,000 was included for the Center for Domestic Preparedness at 
Fort McClellan, which is a member of the National Domestic Preparedness 
Consortium; this is an increase of $9,000,000 from 1999. OJP will 
assume full responsibility for the live agent training infrastructure 
at the base in 2000, and this increase is necessary to fund first 
responder training at Fort McClellan as well as the additional overhead 
costs that will be incurred once the transition is complete.
    Question. How does the Administration propose to continue its first 
responder training program without the four major training partners of 
the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium?
    Answer. As mentioned above, in 1999, Congress appropriated a total 
of $20,000,000 to be distributed among the five members of the National 
Domestic Preparedness Consortium. Of this amount, the Center for 
Domestic Preparedness, Ft. McClellan will receive $8,000,000 and the 
balance of $12,000,000 will be equally divided among the remaining four 
members. In 2000, $17,000,000 is requested to continue training 
activities at the Center for Domestic Preparedness, Ft. McClellan.
    The 2000 budget request for counterterrorism programs within the 
Office of Justice Programs is $173,500,000, which is a $38,500,000 
increase above the amount appropriated in 1999.
    This request contains $17,000,000 for the Center for Domestic 
Preparedness (CDP) at Fort McClellan. During 1998, the CDP operated as 
a tenant of the U.S. Army and shared training facilities (including the 
``live agent'' training facility), lodging, and dining facilities. 
Through 1999, all operations, maintenance, and facilities' support will 
be provided by Army personnel, based on an agreement between OJP and 
the Army. This agreement terminates with the Army's departure from Fort 
McClellan at the end of fiscal year 1999. As a result, in 2000, CDP 
plans to occupy and maintain buildings and other structures at Ft. 
McClellan necessary for administration, classes, lodging, dining, 
maintenance, storage, and support. Transition of operation, support, 
and maintenance of the facility to OJP is estimated to cost around 
$11,500,000 in 2000. Some of these costs include providing a 24-hour 
security guard force for the training facility, physical security plans 
of all the CDP property including the live agent facility, and physical 
security systems, such as fencing and intruder detection.
    The remainder of the $173,500,000 for counterterrorism programs 
under the Office of Justice Programs will be used as follows:
  --$17,000,000 for continued base funding for three OJP 
        counterterrorism programs that have been in existence since 
        1997: $5,000,000 for the Firefighter and Emergency Services 
        Training Program, $2,000,000 for the State and Local 
        Antiterrorism Training Program, and $10,000,000 for the 
        Development of Counterterrorism Technologies Program.
  --$81,500,000 for the Equipment Acquisition Program, which is the 
        second of a proposed multi-year effort to provide equipment for 
        first responders.
  --$6,000,000 to provide technical assistance for each of the 
        jurisdictions receiving equipment grants. Technical assistance 
        is an integral part of OJP's grant programs. In 2000, OJP 
        anticipates providing resources to more than 200 state and 
        local jurisdictions; this is significantly higher than the 41 
        grantees we provided funding to in 1998.
  --$7,000,000 in new funding for the Law Enforcement Training Program. 
        This program was developed by the New Mexico Institute of 
        Mining and Technology (with $2,000,000 in funding provided by 
        OJP in 1998). Of this amount, $5,000,000 will be used to 
        deliver basic first responder training to 47,000 law 
        enforcement officers and 750 qualified trainers from the 
        targeted jurisdictions. The remaining $2,000,000 will be used 
        to (1) modify the command level and tactical training programs, 
        which are currently being developed for fire and emergency 
        medical services, to address the similar unmet needs of the 
        first responder law enforcement community and (2) initiate the 
        process of integrating OJP's curricula into states' law 
        enforcement certification processes--ensuring that state-
        mandated basic and advanced training requirements for all law 
        enforcement personnel are maintained.
  --$45,000,000 in new money for the State and Local Detection 
        Equipment Program, a program run in coordination with the FBI 
        to provide specialized equipment and training to state and 
        local bomb tech squads. This represents the second year of a 
        multi-year effort to support and protect state and local bomb 
        squads by outfitting them with equipment to enhance their 
        capabilities to render safe improvised or conventional 
        explosive devices and to detect and render safe chemical, 
        biological, radioactive, or nuclear (CBRN) explosive devices. 
        The goal of this program is to provide equipment to the 
        existing 229 accredited state and local bomb technician squads 
        throughout the United States with a baseline of render safe 
        equipment and also to another 200 state and local bomb 
        technician squads receiving accreditation through the FBI's 
        Hazardous Devices School (HDS) at the Redstone Arsenal. In 
        1998, the FBI's HDS created a one-week specialized Weapons of 
        Mass Destruction (WMD) Bomb Technician Emergency Action Course, 
        based on the realization that even though bomb technicians may 
        be among the first emergency responders to encounter a 
        terrorist explosive device, they are relatively unprepared to 
        address incidents involving the combined use of explosives with 
        CBRN enhancements. In 1999, the FBI has begun the first year of 
        a multi-year equipment and training program for accredited 
        state and local bomb technician squads with $25,000,000 from 
        the Working Capital Fund, consistent with language contained in 
        the 1999 Justice Department's appropriations act. The 
        Department had proposed in our amendment last year that we 
        receive a direct appropriation of $49,000,000 for this program 
        in 1999, so that we would have base funding available to 
        continue this multi-year program in 2000 and beyond. The 
        funding provided from the Working Capital Fund is one-time in 
        nature, and we cannot assume that we will have this funding 
        available in future years.
    Question. On page 142 of the Department of Justice ``2000 Budget 
Summary,'' the Department of Justice indicates that the Center for 
Domestic Preparedness at Fort McClellan is the only ``live-agent'' 
training facility in the U.S. that provides the hands-on training to 
respond to domestic terrorism involving various weapons of mass 
destruction. The other four members of the consortia include the Nevada 
Test Site; the National Center for Bio-Medical Research and Training at 
Louisiana State University; the National Emergency and Response and 
Rescue Training Center at Texas A&M University; and the New Mexico 
Tech, a leading expert in conventional explosives. How can the 
Department make such a sweeping statement when there are these existing 
assets to train first responders?
    Answer. The Chemical Defense Testing Facility--housed at Ft. 
McClellan--is the only facility of its kind, where live chemical agents 
are used in actual training. This statement did not, in any way, 
detract from the fact that the other Consortium member facilities are 
indeed excellent assets in our training architecture.
    Question. I believe the most important outcome of the first 
responder program is training real people. Congress tapped existing 
facilities with the expertise to do the job to carry out the first 
responder training program. Will you please provide for the 
Subcommittee an accounting of the number of state and local personnel 
trained by each member of the National Consortia in fiscal year 1998 
and the projected training program in fiscal year 1999?
    Answer. In 1998, $2,000,000 each was appropriated for the New 
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMIMT) and Ft. McClellan to 
provide first responder training. As a result, in 1998 540 first 
responders were trained at NMIMT and an additional 500 first responders 
were trained at the Center for Domestic Preparedness, Ft. McClellan. In 
1999, it is estimated that the Center for Domestic Preparedness will 
train approximately 1,300 first responders and that each of the four 
other Consortium members will train approximately 331 first responders, 
for a total of 1,324.
    Question. I have learned that the Office of Justice Programs, in 
implementing the first responder training program, originally committed 
to fund the $1,000 per student stipend and other miscellaneous costs 
for state and local personnel who are trained through the first 
responder program. After the fiscal year 1998 funding was committed to 
the consortia members, OJP changed its mind and now requires that the 
consortia members pay those stipends out of their $2 million training 
budget. OJP has received healthy funding increases and should pay the 
stipend costs so that more personnel can be trained. How can the 
Department justify this policy when it means that for every four 
classes held, the consortia member loses one class simply to pay the 
stipend costs?
    Answer. In order to make training available to our nation's state 
and local first responder community, it has always been and continues 
to be OJP's intention that the training resources provided to 
Consortium members would be used to fund the full cost of training--
which includes the costs associated with the development and delivery 
of training, as well as the costs necessary to transport, house, and 
feed first responders.
    Question. Last year, Congress added an equipment component to the 
First Responder Training program, and as one of the sponsors of that 
funding, I can tell you that it was our intent to allow the additional 
$1 million in equipment funding to be used for both equipment purchase 
and training in the use of that equipment. I believe this will ensure 
that the proper use of the equipment is well understood and that the 
federal dollars spent on equipment and at the state and local level are 
well spent. Why does the Administration refuse to allow the consortia 
members to use these funds in a flexible manner to maximize the first 
responder training program?
    Answer. The Department is following direction from the 1999 
Conferees in requiring that the additional funds be used for equipment. 
The Conference Report on 1999 appropriations includes language, on page 
998, directing that of the $75.5 million provided for equipment 
purchases, ``* * * $4 million is for equipment for the National 
Domestic Preparedness Consortium to be distributed as described below 
under Training.'' Under Training, the Conference Report states that 
each of the four members of the consortium, besides Ft. McClellan, is 
to receive an additional $1 million from the equipment grant program.
                                 ______
                                 
           Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
                  fundraising in support of terrorism
    Question. Director Freeh, your testimony highlights the importance 
of controlling fund-raising by terrorist groups. You even point out 
that the World Trade Center bombings could have been much more 
devastating had the perpetrators not run short of money. Are the laws 
now in place sufficient for you to stop fund-raising in support of 
terrorism?
    Answer. Using the authorities provided under Section 302 of the 
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the 
Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the 
Secretary of the Treasury, has designated 30 groups as foreign 
terrorist organizations. This designation allows the United States 
Government to take actions to block the transfer of funds in the United 
States in which these organizations have an interest.
    We believe these provisions provide law enforcement with a 
potentially powerful tool to disrupt the ability of terrorist 
organizations to fund their destructive activities. Investigation into 
the financial operations of clandestine organizations can be 
particularly complex, time consuming, and labor intensive. As with 
measures of this type, its most powerful impact may be from its 
deterrent effect. As investigators and prosecutors build successful 
cases and precedents to enforce anti-fund-raising activities, targeted 
groups may decide that fund-raising in the United States is too 
difficult and risky.
    The AEDPA provided the statutory support needed to address 
terrorism. However, modifications to existing legislation are needed to 
strengthen laws intended to combat terrorism. This includes adding 18 
U.S.C. Sec.  2339B, which relates to providing material support or 
resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization, as a 
predicate offense to the money laundering statute.
    The Department of Justice is the lead agency for fund-raising 
investigations. The Attorney General's ``Five-Year Interagency Counter-
Terrorism and Technology Crime Plan'' calls for a nationally-
coordinated approach to terrorist fund-raising investigations.
    Question. Are you working with your counterparts in other countries 
to track and control the flow of funds to terrorist organizations?
    Answer. Yes, where we can, we are cooperating with our foreign 
allies. Cooperation with foreign countries in the investigation and 
collection of evidence necessary to prosecute these cases is essential. 
In fund-raising investigations, the United States enjoys the 
cooperation of a number of our allies both on an informal and formal 
basis. We have raised this issue at the international level in both 
formal and informal meetings. Fund-raising has been discussed in 
meetings of the G-8, the European Union, the Organization of American 
States and the Financial Action Task Force.
    The Counterterrorism Experts Group of the G-8 placed major emphasis 
on countering terrorist fund-raising and did substantial work to 
advance a French draft international convention to make such fund-
raising illegal. The first round of negotiations was initiated in March 
1999, at the United Nations. The next round of negotiations is planned 
for the fall.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
    interoperable communications between federal, state, and local 
                emergency and law enforcement personnel
    Question. I am concerned about the possibility that Federal, state 
and local law enforcement personnel will not be able to communicate 
with each other during a terrorist attack. Although we are well into 
the information age, many police officers, firefighters and emergency 
medical service personnel cannot communicate with each other or the 
appropriate Federal officials because their communications systems are 
not interoperable.
    I believe we must provide leadership at the Federal level to find 
the answers to make interoperable law enforcement communications a 
reality. For instance, I have worked with Chairman Gregg to improve 
police communications between New Hampshire and Vermont law enforcement 
agencies after the Carl Drega shootout in our states in August 1997.
    Effective communication between Federal, state and local emergency 
and law enforcement personnel should be key to any counter terrorism 
strategy. What steps are the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal 
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) taking to help ensure interoperable 
communications between Federal, state, and local emergency and law 
enforcement personnel?
    Answer. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is addressing 
interoperability with Federal, state, and local public safety 
organizations through a series of complementary efforts. The DOJ is 
consolidating the development and management of wireless communications 
systems through the activities of the Justice Management Division (JMD) 
Wireless Management Office (WMO), through coordination with the Public 
Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) and the Federal Law Enforcement Wireless 
Users Group (FLEWUG). Where feasible and appropriate, the WMO will 
begin to consolidate DOJ component land mobile radio (LMR) assets and 
systems, determine a complementary mix of commercial services and LMR 
solutions, develop formal relationships with Federal, state, and local 
public safety forums, foster interoperability, and begin planning a 
consolidated Justice Wireless Network (JWN). The WMO is also sponsoring 
pilots or initiatives in Seattle, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, and San 
Diego to investigate the operational and technical issues involved with 
a shared DOJ LMR systems environment. Solutions to interoperability 
with other Federal, state, and local public safety organizations are a 
significant element of each pilot. By June 1, 1999, the WMO will have 
the technical basis to begin the full-scale design of the Justice 
Wireless Network. This response includes WMO activities, WMO efforts 
with the PSWN, and WMO efforts with the FLEWUG.
    In addition, the Department is also a co-sponsor with the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Treasury on 
the Federal Communications Commission's newly established Public Safety 
National Coordination Committee (PSNCC). The PSNCC was established to 
help plan and administer the newly allocated non-government spectrum 
for public safety communications. The DOJ role in the PSNCC is to 
foster Federal, state, and local shared use of this new spectrum to 
assist public safety in achieving interoperability.
WMO Efforts
    The following is an overview of the Wireless Management Office's 
five point plan for 1999.
            Established the JMD Wireless Management Office (WMO)
    Plan and oversee LMR system development and implementation.
    Develop department-wide procurement vehicle for infrastructure 
equipment, operations and maintenance, and installation and 
administration.
    Consolidate site management, maintenance, and leases where 
possible.
    Establish formal relationships with other Federal, state, and local 
public safety organizations and forums.
            Develop a comprehensive technical assessment for the 
                    Justice Wireless Network
    Develop technical/systems design based on an analysis of existing 
systems to protect and maximize investments.
    Conduct spectrum analysis to determine the feasibility of migrating 
all components into the VHF band.
    Analyze the costs, benefits, and risks of various commercial 
wireless services (e.g., cellular, PCS, Nextel).
            Halt or slow new infrastructure development
    New system development will be halted except for instances of 
failing systems, National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA) relocation orders due to NTIA mandates, or 
existing contractual obligations.
    Immigration and Naturalization Service.--Complete ongoing 
installations funded in 1998. Defer further system implementation until 
June 1 when the technical analysis is complete.
    Drug Enforcement Administration.--Complete ongoing installations 
funded in 1998. Defer further system implementation until June 1 when 
the technical analysis is complete.
    Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Marshals Service, 
Office of Inspector General.--No major infrastructure improvements 
planned for 1999. However, normal replacement of aged infrastructure 
will continue.
            Sponsor pilots and initiatives related to the development 
                    of the Justice Wireless Network
    San Diego Consolidated Network Pilot--will transition all or part 
of each DOJ component's radio traffic onto the new INS radio network. 
The new INS system will comply with NTIA narrowband requirements. The 
pilot will focus on operational and technical issues associated with a 
shared LMR resource environment. In addition, solutions to 
interoperability with other Federal, state, and local public safety 
organizations will be tested.
    Salt Lake City Consolidated Network Pilot--will transition all or 
part of each DOJ component's radio traffic onto the FBI LMR 
infrastructure. In addition, solutions to interoperability with state 
and local public safety organizations will be tested. The pilot will 
also provide a platform for systems expansion and planning for 2002 
Winter Olympics.
    Los Angeles Commercial Wireless Services Pilot--will test the 
functionality, reliability, cost effectiveness, security, and 
performance of Nextel Communications' service as a public safety 
communications tool.
    Seattle Consolidated Dispatch Center Initiative--will consolidate 
dispatch functions and assets for all DOJ components in the FBI's new 
office building in downtown Seattle. The pilot will promote the 
development of department-wide standard operating procedures for 
dispatch service. The pilot will significantly enhance the scope and 
availability of dispatch services for most components.
            Coordinate the purchase of subscriber equipment
    Develop a department-wide mobile and portable standard radio 
configuration.
    Negotiate best rates based on volume and analysis of existing 
contract vehicles; one-time consolidation of component subscriber 
equipment yielded more than $800,000 of cost savings.
    Investigate ways to foster competition in subscriber equipment 
market.
WMO Efforts with FLEWUG
    The DOJ Wireless Management Office is coordinating its efforts with 
the Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG) to foster 
interoperability among Federal law enforcement organizations. The 
FLEWUG is jointly managed through a memorandum of understanding between 
the Departments of Justice and Treasury. The FLEWUG was established as 
a result of a recommendation in National Performance Review that 
recognized interoperability shortfalls in the public safety community. 
The FLEWUG provides a common Federal forum to investigate, review, and 
analyze wireless solutions that support overall Federal law enforcement 
wireless capabilities. The WMO, along with the components, participates 
in the FLEWUG to provide DOJ representation and to leverage FLEWUG 
activities.
WMO Efforts with PSWN
    To address interoperability outside the Federal arena, the FLEWUG 
oversees the Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) program. The PSWN 
program is conducting case studies in several areas of the country to 
identify interoperability needs and solutions. Some of these efforts 
include case studies in Salt Lake City and San Diego. The WMO sponsored 
pilot initiatives in Salt Lake City and San Diego are related to these 
two PSWN case studies as a part of the total public safety requirements 
for these target areas. The development of the WMO pilot initiatives 
will complement the PSWN case study effort that will coordinate the 
Federal requirements with those of state and local public safety 
organizations to enhance interoperability in those two cities. A goal 
of the WMO pilot initiatives is to identify solutions to 
interoperability within DOJ that can be replicated in other areas of 
the country. A goal of the PSWN case studies is to identify 
communications requirements of Federal, state, and local public safety 
users and provide solutions that achieve interoperability.
Conclusion
    The DOJ is developing wireless solutions that improve DOJ wireless 
capabilities, ensure effective and efficient communication, and foster 
interoperability among Federal, state, and local public safety 
organizations. The DOJ is designing these solutions to address the 
range of law enforcement missions, including counter terrorism, border 
patrol, drug interdictions and enforcement, among many others. In 
developing these solutions, the DOJ is conducting several pilots to 
ensure the operational effectiveness of solutions and to achieve cost 
savings, as possible.
    Question. The DOJ 2000 budget request includes a new proposal to 
fund $80 million for the Public Safety Wireless Telecommunications 
Assistance Program. According to DOJ budget documents, the goal of this 
new program is ``to ensure that state and local public safety wireless 
communications systems are compatible with Federal law enforcement 
radio systems.'' Please describe in detail how the Public Safety 
Wireless Telecommunications Assistance Program would be implemented and 
how the award of grants would be determined if this new program is 
funded in 2000.
    Answer. The Public Safety Telecommunications Assistance Program is 
proposed for the first time in the 2000 budget at a funding level of 
$80,000,000. Currently, every Federal, state, and local law enforcement 
agency operates separate tactical networks in every metropolitan area 
in the country. This program would provide planning grants (to states), 
technical assistance and demonstration programs that would help to 
ensure that the next generation of radio systems used by Federal, 
state, and local law enforcement officials are interoperable. The 
$80,000,000 will be used as follows:
  --$51,000,000 will be used to provide planning grants to the States 
        and eligible territories for the purposes of encouraging these 
        jurisdictions to include several criteria in their planning 
        process, including interoperability across all local, State, 
        and Federal public agencies. This competitive grant program 
        will assist States by providing Federal resources to allow them 
        to (1) recognize the security risks associated with public 
        safety communications systems and (2) create comprehensive 
        statewide public safety telecommunications system plans through 
        collaborative efforts at all levels of government and with 
        different agencies. It is estimated it will take States and 
        municipalities approximately 19-24 months to plan and develop 
        their systems and 2 to 3 years to implement them.
  --$9,000,000 is requested for NIJ to administer a technical 
        assistance program to assist States and municipalities in the 
        planning and design of improved public safety communications 
        systems, structured to account for States at differing stages 
        of system development. This flexibility is necessary because of 
        the large number of agencies currently procuring replacement 
        communications systems because they currently lack existing 
        systems leaving them unable to take advantage of new 
        technologies.
  --$20,000,000 is requested to provide the Commerce Department's 
        National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) 
        with funds for demonstration grants that will assist a limited 
        number of states and municipalities in implementing public 
        safety communication systems. NTIA has played a major role in 
        the demonstration of new uses of the National Information 
        Infrastructure by public safety agencies, and its Office of 
        Spectrum Management advises the Administration on public safety 
        communication issues.
                            counterterrorism
    Question. Does the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) consider the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service Law Enforcement Support Center 
(LESC) as one of its resources to track and locate criminal aliens? If 
so, how does the JTTF use the LESC and do all JTTF agents have access 
to a query link with the LESC?
    Answer. Currently, certain FBI field offices are authorized to make 
formal electronic inquiries to the LESC. Nationally, the FBI does not 
have a formal agreement with the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) for JTTFs to utilize the LESC. JTTFs, through use of assigned INS 
agents, can access INS databases independently. Access to the LESC is 
not required for the local JTTF to obtain INS information. The FBI is 
interested in obtaining national access to the LESC for JTTFs to 
supplement the specialization of the INS agents currently assigned, 
i.e., in the absence of those agents should they be detailed away, on 
leave, or during non-business hours. The FBI and the INS intend to 
explore the development of a formal agreement on access to, and 
dissemination of, LESC information.

                         conclusion of hearing

    Senator Gregg. We will be having another hearing on March 9 
where we will be seeing the Attorney General again. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., Thursday, February 4, the 
hearing was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to 
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]