In a statement in the Senate, U.S. Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) addressed several of the issues raised by the White House's revelations last week that President Bush had been briefed on August 6, 2001, on Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and on plans by Al Qaeda to hijack airplanes. Senator Akaka's statement follows:

I understand that there was no advance knowledge that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. I understand that there was no advance warning that this was to take place on September 11th.

I believe the President when he states that had he known that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were going to be attacked on September 11th by hijacked planes, he would have taken immediate action. Likewise, I believe none of my Democratic colleagues have suggested otherwise. I am certain that the President would have acted swiftly and effectively to prevent those attacks. In retrospect there are numerous actions which I am certain both the Administration and the Congress wished we had taken when the Director of Central Intelligence first warned the President about terrorist attacks in the United States. An inquiry into what was done and what went wrong are legitimate questions which should be answered by the Administration, and I hope will be.

But rather than concentrating on the past, I would like to focus my remarks on what now needs to be done to prevent future attacks. I do not agree with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's recent conclusion that it is inevitable that terrorists will gain access to weapons of mass destruction and will use them. Our policy should be designed to deter terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction in the first place. If we have the right strategy and implement it effectively, then the eventuality Secretary Rumsfeld assumes will not take place.

The Administration is demanding that all agencies and departments produce performance plans and strategies to ensure that they are meeting their missions and using their budgets effectively. The Congress should be allowed to ask if the Administration is managing homeland security effectively and meeting its mission. Three factors that can be used in judging success are transparency, public benefit, and leadership.

Transparency refers to how the Administration communicates with the public and policy makers. Is the Administration sharing information effectively? Is the information easily found and understandable? The confusion surrounding the anthrax exposures and the spate of recent terrorist warnings indicate that it is failing.

Public benefit refers to how clearly the Administration establishes the cause and effect relationship between its actions and the general good. Do people feel safer in the aftermath of the Administration's efforts? Is it clear that the Administration's actions will result in a safer and more secure society? Vice President Cheney's remarks on Sunday that the question is 'when" not "if" a terrorist will attack the United States suggests that the Administration has not met its most basic mission of homeland security and the war on terrorism.

Leadership is a broad term. Partly, it refers to using past and current information for future decisions. Leadership also refers to admitting when mistakes were made and identifying where failures occurred. Have we learned from past mistakes and are the lessons being used? Do the Administration's actions inspire confidence in their ability to enhance our lives?

The Administration is right when it suggests that the Congress received many of the same warnings that it did in the months leading up to September 11th. But it is the White House and Executive Branch agencies which have the responsibility and the capability of ensuring an adequate response to those warnings. One of the first hearings I held after becoming chairman of the International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services Subcommittee of the Governmental Affairs Committee was a hearing on July 23, 2001, on "FEMA's Role in Managing a Bioterrorist Attack and the Impact of Public Health Concerns on Bioterrorism Preparedness." Since that hearing, we have come some distance in improving our capability but we still have a long way to go.

For example, the Administration needs to implement a long-term homeland security strategy that matches the threats we face. The Office of Homeland Security is still a work in progress. When my colleagues suggest that the head of that office should be Senate confirmable, they are right.

Governor Ridge is well-meaning but lacks the authority or the instruments to affect sufficient coordination and implementation by a diverse set of federal agencies all charged with overseeing different aspects of homeland security. That is why I support S. 2425, introduced by Senator Lieberman, to establish a Department of National Homeland Security and the National Office for Combating Terrorism. I am pleased to note that the Committee on Governmental Affairs reported favorably the bill this week.

I call on the Administration to do the following:

• Carefully evaluate how agencies are structured to respond to terrorism. Eliminate fragmentation to achieve cohesive government operations. Reorganization alone will not fix communication problems.

• Ensure that federal agencies have the information they need and know what to do to protect against terrorism. Government organizations must have the proper internal structure and resources to identify, share, and act upon information swiftly.

• Direct federal agencies on what a "high state of alert" means and what agencies need to do to respond. Organizations lose the ability to respond if the agencies remain on a prolonged state of high alert. There needs to be clearer communication of a relatively lower state of alert so that agencies can respond more effectively. Agencies need to have accurate information so that they may "stand down" in periods of relative calm.

• The Administration needs to clarify the proper role of the military in homeland defense responses before a massive attack requires its extensive involvement.

• Federal agencies should know what "success" means and have an idea of what the agencies need to accomplish to make progress.

The most effective way to respond to terrorist attacks is to prevent them from happening. The only way to do this is through intelligence and coordination. This was the real failure prior to 9-11 and it continues to be a problem today. Communication and intelligence sharing between federal law enforcement and the intelligence community are dysfunctional. Local and state leaders are crying out for some way to share information and intelligence.

These are enormous challenges but these are critical times. I fear the atmosphere in Washington is still one of "business-as-usual," and I am concerned that the Administration is reluctant to make the changes which are needed in as timely fashion as is required if we are going to be better prepared for the "perhaps more devastating attack" which Vice President Cheney predicted would next come, or if we are going to avoid the type of attack by a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction as imagined by Secretary Rumsfeld.