think about that. The pressure, I mean, through our oversight, I mean, having someone from the executive branch explain why this cannot or is not being integrated or what would it take to integrate would be very useful.

Mr. SHAYS. I might say that the gentleman's time is up, but we certainly will make sure that the administration is, in fact, represented and testifies before the committee to point out how they're going to be integrating these; all of them being very important strategies, but how are they integrated? And I thank the gentleman for his questions.

At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Bell for 10 minutes. Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think I share some of my colleagues' frustration in that there does seem to be somewhat of a grab-bag approach to fighting the war on terrorism. It's everybody's responsibility, and then at the end of the day if something happens, where are we to look? Who is responsible?

And I want to take just one area, one of the strategies, and that is the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, because in looking at the document that was provided, the public-private partnership has suggested it will be again sort of everybody's responsibility, the Federal Government, the private sector, State governments, local officials. Who is going to be responsible for implementing the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace?

Mr. DECKER. Sir, let me direct that question to Mr. Caldwell. Mr. CALDWELL. Let me answer your question. In terms of the cyberspace, we have difficulties in a lot of these areas, because we've created a new department. There are incredible challenges ahead for this department, and the infrastructure protection is one of those responsibilities that has now shifted even within the Federal Government from the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board to a Cabinet-level department, and it has a division within there that would look at those kinds of issues.

And the problem that you were talking about in terms of the private partnerships, the partnerships with State and local governments as well, I mean, these are just things we're going to have to get used to in terms of the Federal system we live in, and the sovereignty and autonomy of our State governments, and the autonomy we give to the private sector, and rightly so. I don't think we want to change some of our basic precepts here in terms of what should be private and public in government and what shouldn't, because of these other things. I think that there are incentives, and government will use the normal incentives it always uses to try to get the private sector to do things, to do either taxation, revenue, subsidization, other types of partnership that—to try to get the government to or the private sector to

Mr. BELL. And that's fine. Let me interrupt, because that's all well and good, but at the end of the day somebody has to be responsible, and it needs to make sense, and it needs to be logical. And the area of cyberspace, if you're to believe the story in the Washington Post, and it appeared to be quite credible, that appeared several weeks ago, the Department of Defense is in the process of engaging in massive plans and having regular discussions about the ethics involved in cyberwarfare and mounting a

giant cyberwar effort, if you will. It seems that it would make sense that the Department of Defense would actually-or would also head up the effort to decide how to best guard against cyberwarfare in this country. Those who are developing the offense, it seems logical, would be in a pretty good position to also design a defense. Does that not make sense to you?

Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir, it does, and, in fact, I believe in the cyberdefense area, there are quite a few participants that are in the Federal area, some in the State, local, private. Some of the different institutions are involved. There are national security issues. There are criminal issues. There are terrorism issues. There are private citizen issues. I mean, there are a lot of participants in that.

One comment I would make with what Mr. Caldwell said about the strategy. When we looked at the strategy, there are some things that are directed, and then there are some things that are hoped, that are less-more of a voluntary nature, and my sense is that when you're dealing with Federal, State, local, private sector, international partners, it's a very delicate walk between what you can direct and what you hope will be the outcome of voluntary participation. I think that's one of the challenges with the critical infrastructure piece and the cyber piece is people have to be willing to agree with your strategy and maybe the investment in those areas that they have to allow for this comprehensive security framework. That's going to be the real big challenge.

I heard this when I was out in California last year, talking to an audience of people that were involved with the port authority at Los Angeles and Long Beach. The issue was how much funding was the Federal Government going to give to help on port security. There were partners in there from the union, from private owners, from the State, local, the Federal Government. What came out of the private sector was, you know, when we need to fix the security here, we're also going to need to fix a lot of the infrastructure issues, because these ports were built back in World War II-era, and the ships can't get close enough. There are a lot of issues.

So it's very complicated when you're asking people to put investment in for, in this case, security, be it cyber or physical infrastructure, and there's other ramifications on that investment, and it's very difficult for a lot of entities outside the Federal Government to know exactly what to do.

Mr. BELL. While there's still time, I want to touch on one other area that I consider quite important. Obviously, as the Chair pointed out, I'm a freshman member, so I've just been here a couple months. Most of the focus has been on Iraq. A tremendous amount of the focus has been on international terrorism, and I've always felt that we have a very reactive government, and we tend to adopt this mindset that yesterday's problem mattered yesterday. Now we need to move on to today's problem and tomorrow's problem, forgetting that yesterday's problem can very easily creep back and become today's problem. And not too many years ago back in 1995, 1996, the major threat to many people or many people considered one of the major threats on the terrorism front to be domestic terrorism, fringe groups within our own borders.

Now, as I said, I've been here 2 months, and I've heard no talk about domestic terrorism whatsoever or any efforts to infiltrate and to make sure that those types of extremist groups are not going to be creeping back into the forefront and doing the kind of damage that we saw in Oklahoma City several years back. I'm curious, have we moved on? Are we just focusing on international tier and threats from abroad? I understand obviously there will be some overlap in these efforts that would not only be effective against international terrorists, but would also be effective against those types of efforts within our own borders, but it does seem that an overwhelming amount of the concentration is on terrorists abroad, and I'm curious as to what that's doing to our focus here at home, if you could comment on that.

Mr. DECKER. Sir, recently the FBI has released a national threat assessment, which we have asked for and the committee has requested that this be done as well going back to 1999, and we've not had a chance to review it in its totality, but if it's a good threat assessment, it should have the domestic whether they are the home-grown variety or farm variety threat, be it from terrorism, in that document. My understanding is that it is a classified document, and there's two versions, but there's a law enforcement sensitive. We plan to review that document to better understand is it a comprehensive assessment.

Mr. BELL. Just to humor us, if you all could start including some of these domestic efforts in these overall plans, that would be great. Mr. DECKER. Sir.

Mr. BELL. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much, Congressman Bell.

We are joined by Mr. Turner, who is the vice chairman of the committee, and it's kind of interesting for me to think that one of our Members is a former Governor and had that kind of chief executive approach to his questions. And Mr. Turner is the chief executive in Dayton and helped balance budgets, and we're just delighted that you're the vice chair of the committee and just would recognize you. And I think your wish is that we get on to the next panel; is that correct?

I would just note for the record that last week we had-this committee did have a briefing by the FBI on the threat assessment of the FBI, and one of the challenges we have is that-and I say this to you, Mr. Bell-is that it is basically a classified document. It's not something the press can talk about. But while some people are focused on Iraq and some in Korea, we've got some who couldn't tell you anything about Iraq or Korea, but can tell you a lot about the threat assessment that we're dealing with domestically. A lot has happened. It's pretty impressive.

At this time I thank you, Mr. Decker and Mr. Caldwell. I think the highlight for me was the question to you on the cyberspace stuff, and I thank both of you for your very fine answers and for the committee's participation. We've been keeping the other panel waiting a bit longer than I thought, but it's been very interesting having you both testify.

At this time we will go to the next panel. Is there anything I guess I should have said, Mr. Decker, that you want to put on the record before we go?

Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir, if I could make one comment. I would hope in a year from now when this issue is revisited, that it will have been totally sorted out so that we are on an effective path for implementation.

Mr. SHAYS. Guess what? We're going to have you here in 6 months, and we're going to hope in 6 months it's done. Is that a deal?

Mr. DECKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. And you guys will be pushing the administration, and we will, and we're kind of the catalyst, and they'll do their job,

too.

Mr. DECKER. Thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much.

At this time the Chair will announce the second panel. Our second panel is the Honorable James Gilmore III, former Governor of Virginia; chairman, Advisory Panel to Assess the Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction. That's why we call it the Gilmore Commission. I think if you want to have a commission named after yourself, you just give it a long title, and then they just decide to use the chairman's

name.

We have Dr. Michael O' Hanlon, senior fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, the Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair, the Brookings Institution. We have Dr. Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment; and Mr. John Newhouse, senior fellow, Center for Defense Information.

I welcome all four to the panel. I'm going to have you stand up, and stay standing, because I'm going to swear you guys in. If you'd raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. We'll note for the record a response in the affirmative.

Mr. Newhouse, I'm going to have you move your chair over a little slightly.

Dr. O'Hanlon, you can move yours over slightly, too.

OK. We're changing the batting order a bit. We're going to have Governor Gilmore speak first, and then, Dr. O'Hanlon, you'll be second. Mr. Newhouse, we're going to have you third, and we're going to have Mr. Krepinevich be the cleanup batter here.

Let me say to you first, Governor Gilmore, you have been before our committee on a number of occasions, and if it hasn't been you, it's been someone else on the Gilmore Commission, and we appreciate what you did before September 11th, and we appreciate what you're doing now. I have read the testimony that was submitted that was available to me last night, and this is an excellent panel. We're really delighted you all are here. Looking forward to what you'll have to say.

Mr. GILMORE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much

Mr. SHAYS. I'm going to have you turn that mic on. Let me just do what I said before and ask unanimous consent that all members of the subcommittee be permitted to place an opening statement in

the record, and that the record remain open for 3 days for that purpose, and without objection, so ordered.

I ask further unanimous consent that all witnesses be permitted to include their written statements in the record. Without objection, so ordered.

I would say to the witnesses that if you want to touch on any of the questions that you've heard, we forced you to listen to the first panel but if there are some points that you think need to be addressed, feel free to do that. Regretfully, some of your statements are even longer than 10 minutes, so I know you'll have to summarize, so we welcome that, but your statements were excellent. Sorry for the interruption. We'll start all over again, Governor. STATEMENTS OF JAMES S. GILMORE III, CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY PANEL TO ASSESS THE DOMESTIC RESPONSE CAPABILITIES FOR TERRORISM INVOLVING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION; MICHAEL E. O'HANLON, SENIOR FELLOW, FOREIGN POLICY STUDIES, THE SYDNEY STEIN, JR. CHAIR, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION; JOHN NEWHOUSE, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION; AND ANDREW F. KREPINEVICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS

Mr. GILMORE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I will summarize, I believe, within the timeframe, maybe offer one or two additional thoughts than are contained within the written presentation.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be here with you and with the others-not only with the other Members of Congress. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for the chance to be here with you, and particularly my former colleague Governor Janklow, who is an old pal of mine. So nice to see you, Governor-Congressman.

Ladies and gentlemen, the September 11th, of course, has changed everything. It seems to me like that much of what we are doing and what we're thinking about and the way we're evolving as a Nation is simply being driven by the September 11th attack. It certainly was traumatic and continues, in my judgment, to be traumatic to this day, and as a result we're dealing with issues we previously have not dealt with, and we may even deal with them in ways that we probably-would be different than the previous time.

Our reports as you know, we have now four reports. We are the official advisory body to the U.S. Congress. We were established through the House of Representatives. Congressman Curt Weldon, I think, initiated it. The Congress passed it. The Senate did as well, and we're your official panel.

The Commission was accomplished in January 1999. At that time there was no public commission involving this kind of issue. We began to go to work on it. In the first year, in a somewhat academic way, we established a threat assessment. We called it a national strategy. We, I believe, appropriately assessed the threat, and our most recent discussions have confirmed all that.

The second year we did major policy work, recommending an Office of Homeland Security; recommending the formation of a national strategy; focusing on the Federal, State and local involve