Good morning. I want to thank you for being here while we discuss how the new Department of Homeland Security should address threats from weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I would like to thank my good friend, Senator Lieberman, for calling this hearing. Thank you for being what I consider the man of the hour. You are truly a leader in the Senate on this issue and sponsored legislation on a Department of Homeland Security before the President announced his proposal.

You and I have been working on emergency preparedness and bioterrorism for some time now. We first asked - can a bioterrorism attack happen? This was a little time ago. Today, we ask - how can we reduce the threat?

The threats we face will continue to change as our adversaries mature and new adversaries emerge. Therefore, whatever format we choose for this new Department must be flexible enough to adapt to these changes quickly.

Unlike the Chairman's bill, the President's proposal would establish a fourth division in the Department of Homeland Security to develop policies against weapons of mass destruction. However, transferring bioterrorism and public health activities out of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and into a new agency has the potential to fracture, rather than consolidate, functions.

We must be very careful to enhance rather than diminish our capability to meet emerging threats.

This new agency should coordinate and facilitate research and development activities, which would encourage cooperation across agencies and disciplines. The new Department should identify research priorities. The proposed division can make sure that new countermeasures, tools meet the needs of local, state, and federal partners.

American ingenuity and creativity are among our greatest assets. There is no question. We must harness this spirit and draw upon the vast resources of the private sector in our search for effective countermeasures. I recently met with inventors from Hawaii who are developing environmental detection techniques and air filtration devices. They contacted me because of their confusion over who they should approach within the government. Why not make this new Department a one-stop clearinghouse for information and guidelines on research and development opportunities?

Research and development alone will not be effective if used inappropriately in preparedness efforts and training. The ability of local firefighters, police officers, and doctors to respond to WMD terrorism must be improved. I am not convinced that splitting mitigation and response activities between two different under-secretaries, as proposed by the President will do this. Will shifting the authority for biomedical research to a Department of Homeland Security, while leaving the expertise within HHS, improve our ability to fight disease? Such actions seem unnecessary and could degrade our emergency preparedness efforts.

The goal must be to reduce the loss of life and property, and restore public confidence following a terrorist attack. We should focus our efforts not only on research and development but in training appropriate individuals and the general public in what actions to take should we face a WMD event. As we work toward that objective, we should enhance the government's response to natural disasters and public health events. For example, we would need to ensure that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has the resources and personnel to continue to protect Hawaii's fragile ecosystem while meeting its proposed new homeland security functions.

We must be careful not to create a system that will divert personnel and resources from homeland security and core agency missions, thus making both less effective. We need a national strategy to identify how this new Department will make America safer and her people more secure. That is what we are here to do and I thank everyone for being here today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to our witnesses testimonies.