Combating Terrorism: Comments on Counterterrorism Leadership and 
National Strategy (27-MAR-01, GAO-01-556T).			 
								 
In fiscal year 2001, the federal government will spend		 
approximately $11 billion to combat terrorism. In the event of a 
domestic terrorist incident, states and the affected local	 
governments have the primary responsibility for managing the	 
consequences of a terrorist attack. However, the federal	 
government can assist state and local authorities if they lack	 
the capability to respond adequately. Based on GAO's prior and	 
ongoing work, two key issues emerge that the new President and	 
Congress will face concerning programs to combat terrorism.	 
First, the overall leadership and management of such programs are
fragmented within the federal government. No single entity acts  
as the federal government's top official accountable to both the 
President and Congress. Fragmentation exists in both coordination
of domestic preparedness programs and in efforts to develop a	 
national strategy. The Department of Justice worked with other	 
agencies to develop the Attorney General's Five-Year Interagency 
Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan. While this plan is	 
the current document that most resembles a national strategy, GAO
believes it still lacks some critical elements to include	 
measurable desired outcomes, linkage to resources, and a	 
discussion of the role of state and local governments.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-556T					        
    ACCNO:   A00687						        
    TITLE:   Combating Terrorism: Comments on Counterterrorism	      
             Leadership and National Strategy                                 
     DATE:   03/27/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Emergency preparedness				 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Local governments					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     State governments					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Terrorism						 
	     DOJ Five-Year Interagency				 
	     Counterterrorism and Technology Crime		 
	     Plan						 
								 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-556T

For Release on Delivery Expected at 10: 00 a. m. Tuesday,

March 27, 2001

GAO- 01- 556T COMBATING TERRORISM Comments on

Counterterrorism Leadership and National Strategy

Statement for the Record Raymond J. Decker, Director Defense Capabilities
and Management Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and
International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives United States General Accounting Office GAO

GAO- 01- 556T 1

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to submit this
statement for the record to comment on the need for overall leadership and a
national strategy to combat terrorism. We have conducted extensive
evaluations of programs to combat terrorism- many of them for this
subcommittee- going back almost five years. We list our related reports and
testimonies at the back of this statement. In fiscal year 2001, the federal
government will spend approximately $11 billion to combat terrorism. In the
event of a domestic terrorist incident, states and the affected local
governments have the primary responsibility for managing the consequences of
a terrorist attack. However, the federal government can assist state and
local authorities if they lack the capability to respond adequately.

SUMMARY Based on our prior and ongoing work, two key issues emerge that the
new President and Congress will face concerning programs to combat
terrorism. First, the overall leadership and management of such programs are
fragmented within the federal government. No single entity acts as the
federal government's top official accountable to both the President and
Congress. Fragmentation exists in both coordination of domestic preparedness
programs and in efforts to develop a national strategy. The Department of
Justice worked with other agencies to develop the Attorney General's Five-
Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan. While this plan
is the current document that most resembles a national strategy, we believe
it still lacks some critical elements to include measurable desired
outcomes, linkage to resources, and a discussion of the role of state and
local governments.

ADDRESSING OVERALL LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT Overall leadership and
management efforts are fragmented because there is no single leader in
charge of the many functions conducted by different federal departments and
agencies. The President appointed a National Coordinator for Security,
Infrastructure Protection and Counterterrorism within the National Security
Council in May 1998 who was tasked to oversee a broad portfolio of policies
and programs related to counterterrorism. However, this position had no
budget authority over areas in which essential decisions were being made on
federal efforts in combating terrorism. Furthermore, despite the creation of
the National Coordinator, no single entity acts as the federal government's
top official accountable to both the President and Congress.

Coordinating domestic preparedness programs is another example of fragmented
leadership and management with the federal government. Our past work has
concluded that the multiplicity of federal assistance programs requires
focus and attention to minimize redundancy of efforts and eliminate
confusion at the state and local level. Both the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and Department of Justice provide liaison and assistance
to state and local governments.

GAO- 01- 556T 2

The Federal Emergency Management Agency provides grant assistance to the
states to support state and local terrorism consequence management planning,
training, and exercises. In addition, states work with two offices in the
Department of Justice- the National Domestic Preparedness Office and the
Office of State and Local Domestic Preparedness. Justice's National Domestic
Preparedness Office was authorized by Congress in 1999 and established for
the purpose of coordinating federal terrorism crisis and consequence
preparedness programs for the state and local emergency response community.
1 The Office of State and Local Domestic Preparedness currently assists
states in the development of their State Domestic Preparedness Strategic
Plans. This effort includes funding, training, equipment acquisition,
technical assistance, and exercise planning and execution. The overlap of
federal efforts and lack of a single federal focal point for state and local
assistance have highlighted the need for improved leadership and management.

Efforts to develop a national strategy provide additional evidence that
there is fragmented leadership and management. In addition to the existing
Attorney General's 5- year plan, the National Security Council and the
Department of Justice's National Domestic Preparedness Office are each
planning to develop national strategies. The danger in this proliferation of
strategies is that state and local governments- which are already confused
about the multitude of federal domestic preparedness agencies and programs-
may become further frustrated about the direction, execution, and management
of the overall effort.

Several recent congressional proposals, commission recommendations, and
associations' remarks share our concerns about the fragmentation of
leadership and management. Their observations suggest the usefulness of a
single entity within the federal government to administer programs to combat
domestic terrorism.

DEVELOPING A NATIONAL STRATEGY Combating terrorism requires our nation to
focus on a comprehensive national strategy. A national strategy should
articulate a clear vision statement that defines what the nation hopes to
achieve through its combating terrorism programs. Key aspects of the
national strategy should include (1) roles and missions of federal, state,
and local entities and (2) establish objectives, priorities, outcome-
related goals with milestones, and performance measures to achieve those
goals. 2 Ultimately, a national strategy should serve as an effective
mechanism for ensuring that all elements of the national effort are clearly
integrated and properly focused to eliminate gaps and duplication in
programs to combat terrorism. Furthermore, this will provide a framework to
guide top- level decisions affecting programs, priorities, and funding
considerations.

1 P. L. 106- 113, Nov. 29, 1999. 2 In our view, the national strategy should
incorporate chief tenets of the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (P. L. 103- 62). The Results Act holds federal agencies accountable for
achieving program results and requires federal agencies to clarify their
missions, set program goals, and measure performance toward achieving those
goals.

GAO- 01- 556T 3

In December 1998, the Department of Justice issued the Attorney General's
Five- Year Plan as mandated by Congress. 3 Congress intended the plan to
serve as a baseline for the coordination of a national strategy and
operational capabilities to combat terrorism. This classified plan, which
represents a substantial interagency effort, includes goals, objectives,
performance indicators and recommends specific agency actions to resolve
interagency problems. In March 2000, the Department of Justice released an
update on the plan, which reported on the accomplishments made by various
agencies during fiscal year 1999 on their assigned tasks. The Department of
Justice contends that this plan, taken in combination with related
presidential decision directives, represents a comprehensive national
strategy. We agree that the Attorney General's Five- Year Plan is the
current document that most resembles a national strategy. However, we
believe that additional work is needed to build upon the progress the plan
represents and develop a comprehensive national strategy. Specifically,
additional progress should be made in the following areas.

Based upon our review, the Five- Year Plan does not have measurable desired
outcomes. We have reported that a national strategy should provide goals
that are related to clearly defined outcomes. For example, the national
strategy should include a goal to improve state and local response
capabilities. Desired outcomes should be linked to a level of preparedness
that response teams should achieve. Without this specificity in a national
strategy, the nation will continue to miss opportunities to focus and shape
combating terrorism programs to meet the threat.

Also based upon our review, the Five- Year Plan also lacks linkage to budget
resources. We have reported that the nation lacks a coherent framework to
develop and evaluate budget requirements for combating terrorism programs
since no national strategy exists with clearly defined outcomes. The
establishment of a single focal point within the federal government for
combating terrorism can provide a mechanism to direct and oversee combating
terrorism funding. Moreover, this focal point could ensure that adequate
funding is applied to key priorities while eliminating unnecessary spending
in duplication efforts to combat terrorism.

Other experts, such as the Gilmore Commission testifying today, suggest that
a national strategy should be developed in close coordination with state and
local governments since they play a major role in preparing against and
responding to acts of terrorism. Based upon our preliminary analysis, we
agree with this position. Local responders will be the first response to
mitigate terrorist incidents. Therefore, they should participate in the
development of a national strategy and their roles and responsibilities
should be clearly defined.

3 The Plan was mandated in the Conference Committee Report of the 1998
Appropriations Act for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State; the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies.

GAO- 01- 556T 4

As with the need for a single focal point, recent congressional proposals,
commission recommendations, and associations' remarks share our views on the
continued need for a national strategy.

--- Today, various experts will testify on the need for a single national
entity to lead and manage programs to combat terrorism and to develop a
national strategy. Based on our research and analysis and the efforts of
these experts, there appears to be a growing consensus that the federal
government needs to address both of these issues now.

GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For future contacts about this
statement for the record, please contact Raymond J. Decker, Director,
Defense Capabilities and Management at (202) 512- 6020. Individuals making
key contributions to this statement include Stephen L. Caldwell, Deborah
Colantonio, and Krislin Nalwalk.

GAO- 01- 556T 5

RELATED GAO PRODUCTS

Combating Terrorism: Federal Response Teams Provide Varied Capabilities;
Opportunities Remain to Improve Coordination (GAO- 01- 14, Nov. 30, 2000).

Combating Terrorism: Linking Threats to Strategies and Resources (GAO/ T-
NSIAD- 00- 218, July 26, 2000).

Combating Terrorism: Comments on Bill H. R. 4210 to Manage Selected
Counterterrorist Programs (GAO/ T- NSIAD- 00- 172, May 4, 2000).

Combating Terrorism: How Five Foreign Countries Are Organized to Combat
Terrorism

(GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 85, Apr. 7, 2000).

Combating Terrorism: Issues in Managing Counterterrorist Programs (GAO/ T-
NSIAD- 00- 145, Apr. 6, 2000).

Combating Terrorism: Need to Eliminate Duplicate Federal Weapons of Mass
Destruction Training (GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 64, Mar. 21, 2000).

Critical Infrastructure Protection: Comprehensive Strategy Can Draw on Year
2000 Experiences (GAO/ AIMD- 00- 1, Oct. 1, 1999).

Combating Terrorism: Need for Comprehensive Threat and Risk Assessments of
Chemical and Biological Attack (GAO/ NSIAD- 99- 163, Sept. 7, 1999).

Combating Terrorism: Observations on Growth in Federal Programs (GAO/ T-
NSIAD- 99- 181, June 9, 1999).

Combating Terrorism: Issues to Be Resolved to Improve Counterterrorist
Operations

(GAO/ NSIAD- 99- 135, May 13, 1999).

Combating Terrorism: Observations on Federal Spending to Combat Terrorism
(GAO/ TNSIAD/ GGD- 99- 107, Mar. 11, 1999).

Combating Terrorism: Opportunities to Improve Domestic Preparedness Program
Focus and Efficiency (GAO/ NSIAD- 99- 3, Nov. 12, 1998).

Combating Terrorism: Observations on Crosscutting Issues (GAO/ T- NSIAD- 98-
164, Apr. 23, 1998).

Combating Terrorism: Threat and Risk Assessments Can Help Prioritize and
Target Program Investments (GAO/ NSIAD- 98- 74, Apr. 9, 1998).

GAO- 01- 556T 6

Combating Terrorism: Spending on Governmentwide Programs Requires Better
Management and Coordination (GAO/ NSIAD- 98- 39, Dec. 1, 1997).

Combating Terrorism: Federal Agencies' Efforts to Implement National Policy
and Strategy

(GAO/ NSIAD- 97- 254, Sept. 26, 1997). (350060)
*** End of document ***