any major case. But as you know, there are sometimes communities where that relationship does not always work out as it should.

I would hope that the immediate action for any foreign terrorism would be what is called for under law because the FBI does have jurisdiction over acts of terrorism if they are defined as such, an issue which Dr. Alexander raised. Similarly, FEMA would have responsibility to assist State and local authorities immediately at the Federal level, depending on the size of the incident. But the critical issue you have raised is the size of the incident and what happens when local capabilities break down.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I just think in reality, having been there during a riot, it is very difficult. I happen to believe there ought to be someone in the Federal Government, that once a mayor presses a button or makes a phone call and expresses what kind of an attack it is, can immediately bring onto the scene whatever Federal reinforcements are available or helpful.

The White Night riot, when the assassin of my predecessor as mayor and another supervisor was just given a very brief sentence and there was an explosion in the city and police cars were being blown up and buildings were being attacked with rocks, was a very difficult situation. It took a long time to get everybody together, and then finally I called the Governor to exercise mutual aid. It all takes time before you know exactly what you have.

We became much more sophisticated about it after that, training police, how they work, all the details of it. But it is a little bit of a lesson to me that if you have, let's say, the Federal building blown up right next to city hall, you are into something entirely different and mutual aid isn't going to help very much. You are going to need immediate reinforcement. It may be military, it may be FBI. Some of it may be FEMA, but someone has got to make that decision, and make it quickly.

I am coming to believe that there ought to be someone on a Federal level that a local jurisdiction is able to consult with immediately, 24 hours day, that is helpful in making the decisions as to who is alerted, who is brought in, what the time line is. I think that would become particularly more important in a biological or a chemical reaction.

Mr. Alexander, would you like to comment?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes. Again, it comes, Senator, to the question of perception. Because the United States fortunately was not as victimized as some of the other countries that you mentioned, usually terrorism was looked upon as an irritant, a nuisance, something that will go away, very cyclical. So the culture was not there in terms of the concern of the people.

Today, the situation is changing. As Senator Kyl mentioned, the United States is really target No. 1 abroad and we have had terrible tragedies in Oklahoma and elsewhere. So I think the American people are much more sensitive to the issue of terrorism, and if the public would try to get involved and cooperate with Congress on what is needed, what kinds of tools are necessary to deal with the problem in terms of policies, in terms of organizational structure, in terms of upgrading intelligence and strengthening law enforcement, for example, perhaps, Senator Feinstein, as mayor this

wouldn't be your role to deal with a bioattack. Sometimes, you have to wait a couple of days before you know you are really under attack.

Therefore, I think what this Subcommittee is doing and other committees in Congress is extremely useful. As you know, there are probably 80 Federal agencies involved in different aspects of terrorism, and therefore certainly it is like an orchestra without a conductor. I think something has to be done to coordinate many of these activities. Some work, some don't, and therefore I think we have to monitor the operations very, very closely. First, we must assess the nature of the threat in order to know what kinds of responses are really suitable at home and abroad.

Senator FEINSTEIN. If you are really going to look at this as a practical application, every mayor, at least in California, has different authorities. Some city councils rotate a city council person as mayor every year. Some are strong mayors, and some are very weak mayors who just don't have the control. Some frankly don't have the ability to cope with a terrorist incident. I think in this country we are wide open to chaos without the ability to really have somebody who is able to send out an immediate assessment team, make the assessment, and set into motion a chain of events. I am truly of the view, Mr. Chairman, that we really ought to write a big bill, a real reorganization of counterterrorism policy. We have been doing this now for 3 years, and we listen to report after report after report, all of which suggest that we are really unprepared. Even when we had our classified briefing a while ago, I didn't come out with a great sense of confidence that we were ready to respond to a terrorist event.

It seems to me that there is a recommendation somewhere in this, and I can't remember where it is but I thought it made sense, and that is that each President really ought to come forward with a plan as to how the administration would approach this in terms of a chain of command, an instant response, emergency provisions, investigative needs, and military precautions. It might be something that we could request the administration to do.

Chairman KYL. I might just note that just before you arrived, Dr. Cordesman made the point that while planning is certainly necessary, the tendency might be for yet one more planning document, one more reorganization, all of which reshuffles the chairs on the deck. That is my analogy, not his, but it adds very little value to the response.

I was going to follow up with a question that ties in directly with what you were just saying. Basically, what you want is a 911 for any kind of help that might be out there that the local group isn't immediately able to provide. If it is clearly a law enforcement kind of an attack and a conventional explosive blows up a building, the law enforcement people are going to be on the spot and they are going to be the ones who take charge. If, all of a sudden, everybody within a 10-block area is getting really sick from something, the health care people are going to come in and figure out that there is some kind of a problem.

But in either event, if there is a 911 number at the Federal level that people can call to get whatever kind of help might be available and a general plan at the Federal level, it seems to me that that

is one way of providing whatever kind of help might be available in a fairly efficient way. But I too would be skeptical of focusing our attention too much on reorganization, strategy documents, and the like. I am really interested in getting beyond that to the valueadded components of dealing with terrorism as well.

A response from either one of you to that comment would be appreciated.

Mr. CORDESMAN. Let me give you, I think, a tangible example. Congress legislated that there be a document provided by OMB describing the programs that are currently underway. As far as I know, I have not talked to anybody who has held hearings on what we are actually spending the money on. It is $11.7 billion in the last fiscal year; $1.5 billion of it is dedicated to deal with the effects of weapons of mass destruction. It is spread out among 17 different groups.

On paper, Senator, for example, there is a Biological Response Team. The problem is it may have 17 people and 2 doctors in it, and I am not sure that is going to help any city on the West or East Coast in the event of a biological incident.

I think that when you talk about organization, it is very important to have one person in charge, and there have been proposals putting it in the Office of the Vice President, having a Cabinetlevel official, having someone on the order of the drug czar, putting the response elements in FEMA, and strengthening coordination within the FBI. I don't know which of these the President would prefer, but it is clear that you not only need someone to call, but somebody who can do something in response.

My suggestion to you would be that the kind of examination which is already being made of where the Federal money is going needs very careful examination to see what really needs to be fixed. It is fairly obvious, looking at the numbers, that right now virtually all the money we spend is on improving Federal buildings and their resistance to high explosives. That is the one threat on which about $7 billion of the money has been going.

I think as you look into this you are going to find there is no long-term planning. Agencies improvise and compete from year to year. In program after program, they don't know what they would have to spend to develop a real capability. Technologies are being funded, but nobody knows what system they would go into if they worked, whether they would really deal with the threat of future technology, or what they would cost to deploy and whether it would be a State, local, or Federal deployment that would be required.

So we have one organizational study after another trying to figure out who it is that answers the telephone, but no review of Congress' traditional function, which is to look at where the money is really going and whether it is being spent to a purpose.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I have been brought up to believe that the primary role of government is to protect the people, and I really believe that. If I am mayor and something blows up, I want to maximize every resource I have as fast as I possibly can.

I really agree with you, Dr. Cordesman. I think that domestic terrorism is something that is very appropriate to be part of the portfolio of either a Vice President or a Cabinet member. When a building has just blown up and the suspicions are that it is terror

ism, I can pick up the phone and say we have got a major incident on our hands, we need help, we need it right now. I want a team that can come out and take a look at this situation, and also help us with A, B, C, D, and E.

Californians pay more than $20 billion in taxes a year that they don't get back in services. It is not too much to ask that the Federal Government be able to provide counterterrorism assistance. Terrorism is increasing in this world, and we ought to be prepared for it. And to be prepared for it means that certain people have to be accountable to do certain things.

I have been looking at this for 3 years. It is still unclear to me of who is really in charge of what, or where as a mayor I would go to get help. That is not clear; it is not clear out there anywhere in the United States. I think the time has come for us to try and make that clear to people.

End of speech.

Mr. ALEXANDER. May I just make another footnote here? I fully agree with you. I wanted to call you mayor, Senator, in terms of your experience, and this is life. I mean, someone has to be on the front line and be able to save lives and minimize the threat.

But I would like to submit to you that we have to see it in a broader perspective, not only in terms of what is happening in the United States but what is happening abroad. Particularly, I am talking about Americans and American citizens who are all over the world, as we know, about 10 million of them at a time, and they need protection as well; of course, the military or the diplomats, and we have seen that.

My concern is that we are not putting that together in terms of also the international protection. And recalling the tragedies that American servicemen went through for so many years, and I have seen some firsthand, I believe that we have to learn the lessons of the past; that is to say, the State Department after the attacks on the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania immediately tried to figure out what could they do to protect members of the State Department. So they instituted some measures both at the State Department right here in Washington as well as at embassies abroad. Then they started training against weapons of mass destruction, and so forth.

But that particular action did not prevent the terrorists from attacking the U.S. Destroyer Cole and killing Americans on the ship. And this really means that there is a need somehow, No. 1, to strengthen the intelligence capability, the quality, in terms of human and technological to deal with future threats to Americans abroad, and also to work with like-minded nations to coordinate the activities.

For example, Tony mentioned emergency medical preparedness. Not only in the United States are there not enough beds, but when we talk about the situation abroad and how to save those who are injured, if it takes about 12 hours to get some assistance, then it is too late.

So what I am really suggesting is, Senator, that we have to see it as a comprehensive threat to the United States. It is not a nuisance, it is not an irritant. It is a national security threat, and therefore I think we have to mobilize all the capabilities and to

look at the recommendations-some of them are really excellentin terms of responsibility, in terms of organizational structure, and so on and so forth.

If we are not going to do it, especially the United States as a super-power, as the leader of the Free World, if I may use this term, I really believe that we have a special responsibility to provide the leadership.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.

Chairman KYL. Let me just close with this question, since you raised the issue, Dr. Alexander, and in his written testimony Dr. Cordesman makes the same point. Obviously, you would like to try to thwart the terrorist incident in the first instance. Intelligence is key to that capability, and while we have some success with signals intelligence, human intelligence is the primary source of information that enables us to thwart terrorist attacks.

Incidentally, for those in the audience who might be interested, we have had testimony each year for I think 3 years from the Director of the FBI that each year our intelligence agencies are able to thwart about a dozen major terrorist attacks through the use of good intelligence. These are very rarely made public. We know of the attacks that are successful, but we rarely hear about those that have been prevented through good intelligence and there are a number of them.

Dr. Cordesman, you specifically testified that human intelligence is underfunded and that it is critical to this effort. Why do you think it is so underfunded, and what can we do?

Since both of us also serve on the Intelligence Committee, even though that is not directly related to the Judiciary Committee, the intelligence-sharing questions do arise. In any event, we are all interested in the subject.

How can we better fund our human intelligence?

Mr. CORDESMAN. Well, I was saying to one of your staff, Senator, that several centuries ago I was the Director of Intelligence Assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Congress decided it would be a good idea to recommend an increase in human intelligence resources and 1 year later we were having RIFS.

In general, any time anybody in Congress seems to propose this-I am not sure there is a cause and effect relationship the resources end up mysteriously being cut. So I have to be very careful about what I say here.

I think frankly you have, in general, a very effective intelligence community. We always underfund the human dimension and the analytic dimension, and we always tend to put lots of money into national technical means. I am not sure there are any savings to be made in national technical means, and it is not glamorous to say that you simply give people in the community more resources to plus-up the capabilities they already have. But I think that is part of the problem that everybody wants to reorganize or make it more efficient, but they don't want to spend more money in a focused way where it is really needed.

I think, too, you need to be very cautious because human intelligence, as you know, is often defined as collection; it is getting more sources overseas. Dr. Alexander mentioned the need for bet