Combating Terrorism: Observations on Options to Improve the	 
Federal Response (24-APR-01, GAO-01-660T).			 
								 
This testimony discusses three bills that would change the	 
overall leadership and management of programs to combat 	 
terrorism. The three bills--H.R. 525, H.R. 1158, and H.R.	 
1292--vary in scope. H.R. 525 focuses on federal programs to	 
prepare state and local governments for domestic terrorist	 
attacks. Both H.R. 1158 and H.R. 1292 focus on the larger issue  
of homeland security, which includes terrorism and additional	 
threats such as military attacks. The bills are similar in that  
they all advocate a single focal point for programs to combat	 
terrorism. However, some bills place the focal point in the	 
Executive Office of the President and others place it with a lead
executive agency. In addition, the three bills provide the focal 
point with different, but often similar, duties to improve the	 
management of federal programs. To the extent that these three	 
bills--or some hybrid of them--address these problem areas, GAO  
believes that federal programs to combat terrorism will be	 
improved. It will be important to develop a consensus on these	 
matters and provide the focal point with legitimacy and authority
through legislation are important tasks that lie ahead. 	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-660T					        
    ACCNO:   A00880						        
  TITLE:     Combating Terrorism: Observations on Options to Improve  
             the Federal Response                                             
     DATE:   04/24/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Emergency preparedness				 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     National defense operations			 
	     Proposed legislation				 
	     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-01-660T

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
and Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
and the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and
International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 3: 00 p. m. Tuesday, April 24, 2001
COMBATING TERRORISM

Observations on Options to Improve the Federal Response

Statement of Raymond J. Decker, Director, Defense Capabilities and
Management

GAO- 01- 660T

Page 1 GAO- 01- 660T Combating Terrorism

Messrs. Chairmen and Members of the Subcommittees: We are pleased to be here
to discuss three bills- H. R. 525, H. R. 1158, and H. R. 1292- to change the
overall leadership and management of programs to combat terrorism. Federal
efforts to combat terrorism are inherently difficult to lead and manage
because the policy, strategy, programs, and activities cut across many
agencies. Given that $11 billion will be spent during fiscal year 2001 and
that more than 40 federal agencies are involved in this matter, we view this
hearing as a positive step in the ongoing debate about the overall
leadership and management of programs to combat terrorism.

We will also discuss additional related proposals from other congressional
sources, such as Committee reports and commissions. One of these, the Hart-
Rudman Commission, had a scope beyond terrorism, including the broader issue
of homeland security.

Our testimony is based upon our extensive evaluations- many of them for your
Subcommittees- of federal programs to combat terrorism. 1 Most of our
experience is in evaluating programs to combat terrorism, and not the
broader topic of homeland security. First, we will discuss the three bills
and related proposals and how they are similar and different. Second, we
will discuss key problems we have noted in federal programs to combat
terrorism and how each of the bills might provide a solution to these
problems. In the course of this discussion, we will highlight specific
provisions of each bill that could enhance the others.

The three bills and related proposals vary in scope. H. R. 525 focuses on
federal programs to prepare state and local governments for dealing with
domestic terrorist attacks. Both H. R. 1158 and H. R. 1292 focus on the
larger issue of homeland security, which includes terrorism and additional
threats such as military attacks. Other proposals include both domestic and
international terrorism and/ or both crisis and consequence management. 2
The bills and related proposals are similar in that they all

1 Our related reports and testimonies are listed in appendix I. 2 Crisis
management includes efforts to stop a terrorist attack, arrest terrorists,
and gather evidence for criminal prosecution. Consequence management
includes efforts to provide medical treatment and emergency services,
evacuate people from dangerous areas, and restore government services.
Summary

Page 2 GAO- 01- 660T Combating Terrorism

advocate a single focal point for programs to combat terrorism. However, the
bills and proposals vary in where they place the focal point. Some of them
place the focal point in the Executive Office of the President and others
place it with a Lead Executive Agency. Both locations have potential
advantages and disadvantages.

Based upon the problems we have identified during 5 years of evaluations, we
believe the following actions need to be taken: (1) create a single
highlevel federal focal point for policy and coordination, (2) develop a
comprehensive threat and risk assessment, (3) develop a national strategy
with a defined end state to measure progress against, (4) analyze and
prioritize governmentwide programs and budgets to identify gaps and reduce
duplication of effort, and (5) coordinate implementation among the different
federal agencies. To the extent that these three bills- or some hybrid of
them all- address these five actions, we believe that federal programs to
combat terrorism will be improved.

Three recent bills have been introduced to change the overall leadership and
management of programs to combat terrorism and homeland security. On
February 8, 2001, Representative Gilchrest introduced H. R. 525, the
Preparedness Against Domestic Terrorism Act of 2001, which proposes
establishing a President?s Council on Domestic Terrorism Preparedness within
the Executive Office of the President to address preparedness and
consequence management issues. On March 21, 2001, Representative Thornberry
introduced H. R. 1158, the National Homeland Security Act, which advocates
the creation of a cabinet- level head within the proposed National Homeland
Security Agency to lead homeland security activities. On March 29, 2001,
Representative Skelton introduced H. R. 1292, the Homeland Security Strategy
Act of 2001, which calls for the development of a homeland security strategy
developed by a single official designated by the President.

Related proposals from congressional committee reports and congressionally
chartered commissions provide additional, often complementary, options for
structuring and managing federal efforts to combat terrorism. These include
Senate Report 106- 404 to Accompany H. R. 4690 on the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriation Bill 2001, submitted by Senator Gregg on September 8, 2000;
the report by the Gilmore Panel (the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic
Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction,
chaired by Governor James S. Gilmore, III) dated December 15, 2000; and the
report of the Hart- Rudman Background

Page 3 GAO- 01- 660T Combating Terrorism

Commission (the U. S. Commission on National Security/ 21st Century, chaired
by Senators Gary Hart and Warren B. Rudman) dated January 31, 2001. 3 H. R.
1158 is based upon the report of the Hart- Rudman Commission.

The bills and related proposals vary in the scope of their coverage. H. R.
525 focuses on federal programs to prepare state and local governments for
dealing with domestic terrorist attacks. Both H. R. 1158 and H. R. 1292
focus on the larger issue of homeland security that includes threats other
than terrorism, such as military attacks. However, only H. R. 1292 includes
a specific definition of homeland security. The Senate Report 106- 404
proposal is limited to domestic terrorism preparedness, including programs
for both crisis and consequence management. The Gilmore Panel report
includes both international and domestic terrorism programs. The Hart-
Rudman Commission report (like H. R. 1158) focuses on the larger issue of
homeland security.

The bills and related proposals also vary in where they locate the focal
point for overall leadership. Federal efforts to combat terrorism are
inherently difficult to lead and manage because the policy, strategies,
programs, and activities to combat terrorism cut across more than 40
agencies. The bills and related proposals would create a single focal point
for programs to combat terrorism, and some would have the focal point
perform many of the same functions. For example, some of the proposals would
have the focal point lead efforts to develop a national strategy. The
proposals (with one exception) would have the focal point appointed with the
advice and consent of the Senate. The various bills and proposals differ in
where they would locate the focal point for overall leadership and
management. The two proposed locations for the focal point are in the
Executive Office of the President or in a Lead Executive Agency.

Table 1 summarizes the various bills and proposals regarding the focal point
for overall leadership, the scope of its activities, and its location.

3 Another congressionally mandated commission, the National Commission on
Terrorism chaired by Ambassador Paul Bremer, is not included in our analysis
because it was primarily focused on international terrorism and did not
address domestic terrorism or homeland security. Bills and Related

Proposals Vary in Scope and the Location of Overall Leadership

Page 4 GAO- 01- 660T Combating Terrorism

Table 1: Proposals to Create a Focal Point for Overall Leadership and
Management of Programs to Combat Terrorism Source of proposal Focal point
for overall leadership Scope of responsibilities Location of focal point

H. R. 525 President?s Council on Domestic Terrorism Preparedness Domestic
terrorism preparedness Executive Office of the

President H. R. 1158 Cabinet- level head of proposed

National Homeland Security Agency

Homeland security (including domestic terrorism, maritime and border
security, disaster relief and critical infrastructure activities)

Lead Executive Agency (National Homeland Security Agency)

H. R. 1292 Single official to be designated by the President Homeland
security (including

antiterrorism and protection of territory and critical infrastructures from
unconventional and conventional threats by military or other means)

To be determined based upon the President?s designation

Senate Report 106- 404 Deputy Attorney General for Combating
Counterterrorism Domestic terrorism preparedness

(crisis and consequence management)

Lead Executive Agency (Department of Justice)

Gilmore Panel National Office for Combating Terrorism Domestic and
international terrorism

(crisis and consequence management)

Executive Office of the President

Hart- Rudman Commission Cabinet- level head of proposed

National Homeland Security Agency

Homeland security (including domestic terrorism, maritime and border
security, disaster relief, and critical infrastructure activities)

Lead Executive Agency (National Homeland Security Agency)

Source: GAO analysis of various proposals.

Based upon our analysis of legislative proposals, various commission
reports, and our ongoing discussions with agency officials, each of the two
locations for the focal point- the Executive Office of the President or a
Lead Executive Agency- has its potential advantages and disadvantages. An
important advantage of placing the position with the Executive Office of the
President is that the focal point would be positioned to rise above the
particular interests of any one federal agency. Another advantage is that
the focal point would be located close to the President to resolve cross
agency disagreements. A disadvantage of such a focal point would be the
potential to interfere with operations conducted by the respective executive
agencies. Another potential disadvantage is that the focal point might
hinder direct communications between the President and the cabinet officers
in charge of the respective executive agencies.

Alternately, a focal point with a Lead Executive Agency could have the
advantage of providing a clear and streamlined chain of command within an
agency in matters of policy and operations. Under this arrangement, we
believe that the Lead Executive Agency would have to be one with a dominant
role in both policy and operations related to combating terrorism. Specific
proposals have suggested that this agency could be

Page 5 GAO- 01- 660T Combating Terrorism

either the Department of Justice (per Senate Report 106- 404) or an enhanced
Federal Emergency Management Agency (per H. R. 1158 and its proposed
National Homeland Security Agency). Another potential advantage is that the
cabinet officer of the Lead Executive Agency might have better access to the
President than a mid- level focal point with the Executive Office of the
President. A disadvantage of the Lead Executive Agency approach is that the
focal point- which would report to the cabinet head of the Lead Executive
Agency- would lack autonomy. Further, a Lead Executive Agency would have
other major missions and duties that might distract the focal point from
combating terrorism. Also, other agencies may view the focal point?s
decisions and actions as parochial rather than in the collective best
interest.

Based upon the problems we have identified during 5 years of GAO
evaluations, we believe the following actions need to be taken: (1) create a
single high- level federal focal point for policy and coordination, (2)
develop a comprehensive threat and risk assessment, (3) develop a national
strategy with a defined end state to measure progress against, (4) analyze
and prioritize governmentwide programs and budgets to identify gaps and
reduce duplication of effort, and (5) coordinate implementation among the
different federal agencies. The three bills would collectively address many
of these actions. We will now discuss each of these needed actions,
executive branch attempts to complete them, and how the three bills would
address them.

In our testimony last May, we reported that overall federal efforts to
combat terrorism were fragmented. 4 To provide a focal point, the President
appointed a National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection,
and Counterterrorism at the National Security Council. 5 This position,
however, has significant duties indirectly related to terrorism, including
infrastructure protection and continuity of government operations.
Notwithstanding the creation of this National Coordinator, it was the
Attorney General who led interagency efforts to develop a

4 Combating Terrorism: Comments on Bill H. R. 4210 to Manage Selected
Counterterrorist Programs (GAO/ T- NSIAD- 00- 172, May 4, 2000). 5 In May
1998, the President established the Office of the National Coordinator for
Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism within the
National Security Council, which is tasked to oversee a broad variety of
relevant policies and programs. The Three Bills Would

Address Some Key Actions Needed to Combat Terrorism

Need for a Single Focal Point

Page 6 GAO- 01- 660T Combating Terrorism

national strategy. Thus, at least two top officials are responsible for
combating terrorism, and both of them have other significant duties.

 H. R. 525 would set up a single, high- level focal point in the
President?s Council on Domestic Terrorism Preparedness. In addition, H. R.
525 would require that the new Council?s executive chairman- who would
represent the President as chairman- be appointed with the advice and
consent of the Senate. This last requirement would provide Congress with
greater influence and raise the visibility of the office.

 H. R. 1158 would designate the Director of the proposed National Homeland
Security Agency as the focal point for policy and coordination. As with H.
R. 525, the appointment of the Director by the President and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, provides Congress with greater influence and
raises the visibility of the office.

 H. R. 1292 would require the President to designate a single official
within the U. S. government to be responsible and accountable to the
President concerning homeland security.

We testified in July 2000 that one step in developing sound programs to
combat terrorism is to conduct a threat and risk assessment that can be used
to develop a strategy and guide resource investments. 6 Based upon our
recommendation, the executive branch has made progress in implementing our
recommendations that threat and risk assessments be done to improve federal
efforts to combat terrorism. However, we remain concerned that such
assessments are not being coordinated across the federal government.

 H. R. 525 would require a threat, risk, and capability assessment that
examines critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, evaluates federal and
applicable state laws used to combat terrorist attacks, and evaluates
available technology and practices for protecting critical infrastructure
against terrorist attacks. This assessment would form the basis for the
domestic terrorism preparedness plan and annual implementation strategy.

6 Combating Terrorism: Linking Threats to Strategies and Resources

(GAO/ T- NSIAD- 00- 218, July 26, 2000). Need for a Threat and Risk

Assessment

Page 7 GAO- 01- 660T Combating Terrorism

 Although H. R. 1158 would not require the National Homeland Security
Agency Director to conduct a threat and risk assessment, it directs this
individual to establish and maintain strong mechanisms for sharing
information and intelligence with U. S. and international intelligence
entities. Information and intelligence sharing may help identify potential
threats and risks against which the United States could direct resources and
efforts.

 H. R. 1292 would require the President to conduct a comprehensive homeland
security threat and risk assessment. This assessment would be the basis for
a comprehensive national strategy.

In our testimony last July, we noted that the United States has no
comprehensive national strategy that could be used to measure progress. 7
The Attorney General?s Five- Year Plan 8 represents a substantial
interagency effort to develop a federal strategy, but it lacks defined
outcomes. The Department of Justice believes that their current plan has
measurable outcomes about specific agency actions. However, in our view, the
plan needs to go beyond this to define an end state. As we have previously
testified, the national strategy should incorporate the chief tenets of the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (P. L. 130- 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 these goals. 9

 H. R. 525 would require the new council to publish a domestic terrorism
preparedness plan with objectives and priorities; an implementation plan; a
description of roles of federal, state, and local activities; and a defined
end state with measurable standards for preparedness.

 H. R. 1158 would require the annual development of a federal response plan
for homeland security and emergency preparedness and would

7 Combating Terrorism: Linking Threats to Strategies and Resources

(GAO/ T- NSIAD- 00- 218, July 26, 2000). 8 In December 1998, the Attorney
General published the classified Five- Year Interagency Counterterrorism and
Technology Crime Plan. An annual update on accomplishments is to be
published.

9 Combating Terrorism: Comments on Counterterrorism Leadership and National
Strategy (GAO- 01- 555T, Mar. 27, 2001). Need for a National

Strategy

Page 8 GAO- 01- 660T Combating Terrorism

require the Director to provide overall planning and guidance to federal
agencies concerning homeland security. The bill would require the Director
to work with state and local governments, but it would not explicitly
require that the plan include the roles of state and local governments.

 H. R. 1292 would require the President to develop a strategy and multiyear
phased implementation plan and budget for antiterrorism and consequence
management. The bill requires the inclusion of specific, measurable
objectives based on findings identified in a threat and risk assessment.
Furthermore, it requires the strategy to (1) define federal agencies?
responsibilities; (2) permit the selective use of military personnel and
assets without infringing on civil liberties; (3) provide for the use of
intelligence assets and capabilities; and (4) augment existing medical
response capabilities and equipment stockpiles at the federal, state, and
local levels.

In our December 1997 report, we reported that there was no mechanism to
centrally manage funding requirements and requests to ensure an efficient,
focused governmentwide approach to combat terrorism. 10 Our work led to
legislation that required the Office of Management and Budget to provide
annual reports on governmentwide spending to combat terrorism. 11 These
reports represent a significant step toward improved management by providing
strategic oversight of the magnitude and direction of spending for these
programs. Yet, we have not seen evidence that these reports have established
priorities or identified duplication of effort.

 H. R. 525 would require the new council to develop and make budget
recommendations for federal agencies and the Office of Management and
Budget. The Office of Management and Budget would have to provide an
explanation in cases where the new council?s recommendations were not
followed. The new council would also identify and eliminate duplication,
fragmentation, and overlap in federal preparedness programs.

 H. R. 1158 would not explicitly require an analysis and prioritization of
governmentwide budgets to identify gaps and reduce duplication of effort.
Rather, it would require the Director to establish procedures to ensure

10 Combating Terrorism: Spending on Governmentwide Programs Requires Better
Management and Coordination (GAO/ NSIAD- 98- 39, Dec. 1, 1997). 11 National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (P. L. 105- 85 section 1051).
Need to Analyze and

Prioritize Governmentwide Programs and Budgets

Page 9 GAO- 01- 660T Combating Terrorism

that the planning, programming, budgeting, and financial activities of the
National Homeland Security Agency use funds that are available for
obligation for a limited number of years.

 H. R. 1292 would provide for the development of a comprehensive budget
based on the homeland security strategy and would allow for the
restructuring of appropriation accounts by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget as necessary to fulfill the organizational and
operational changes needed to implement the national strategy.

In our April 2000 testimony, we observed that federal programs addressing
terrorism appear in many cases to be overlapping and uncoordinated. 12 To
improve coordination, the executive branch created organizations like the
National Domestic Preparedness Office and various interagency working
groups. In addition, the annual updates to the Attorney General?s Five- Year
Plan now tracks individual agencies? accomplishments. Nevertheless, we have
noted that the multitude of similar federal programs have led to confusion
among the state and local first responders they are meant to serve.

 H. R. 525 would require the new council to coordinate and oversee the
implementation of related programs by federal agencies in accordance with
the proposed domestic terrorism preparedness plan. The new council would
also make recommendations to the heads of federal agencies regarding their
programs. Furthermore, the new council would provide notification to any
department that it believes has not complied with its responsibilities under
the plan.

 H. R. 1158 would require extensive coordination among federal agencies-
especially those under the National Homeland Defense Agency- concerning
their activities relating to homeland security. For instance, the bill would
require the agency?s Directorate of Critical Infrastructure Protection to
coordinate efforts to address vulnerabilities in the U. S. critical
infrastructure by working with other federal agencies to establish security
policies, standards, and mechanisms and to share intelligence. Additionally,
H. R. 1158 would instruct the Directorate for Emergency Preparedness and
Response to coordinate activities among private sector

12 Combating Terrorism: Issues in Managing Counterterrorist Programs

(GAO/ T- NSIAD- 00- 145, Apr. 6, 2000). Need to Coordinate

Implementation

Page 10 GAO- 01- 660T Combating Terrorism

entities and federal agencies and the bill would delegate the coordination
of all U. S. border security activities to the Directorate of Prevention.

 H. R. 1292 would require a national strategy to provide for the
coordination of federal programs. For example the strategy would identify
federal agencies and their respective roles and responsibilities for
homeland security.

In our ongoing work, we have found that there is no consensus- in Congress,
the Executive Branch, the various panels and commissions, and among
organizations representing first responders- on the matters discussed in our
testimony. Specifically, there is no consensus on the required scope of
duties or the location for a single focal point. In addition, the three
bills provide the focal point with different, but often similar, duties to
improve the management of federal programs. To the extent that these three
bills- or some hybrid of them all- address the problem areas we have
identified above, we believe that federal programs to combat terrorism will
be improved. Developing a consensus on these matters and providing the focal
point with legitimacy and authority through legislation, is an important
task that lies ahead. We believe that this hearing and the debate that it
engenders, will help to reach that consensus.

This concludes our testimony. We would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.

For future questions about this testimony, 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 and Krislin Nalwalk. Conclusion

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgment

Page 11 GAO- 01- 660T Combating Terrorism

Combating Terrorism: Comments on Counterterrorism Leadership and National
Strategy (GAO- 01- 556T, Mar. 27, 2001)

Combating Terrorism: FEMA Continues to Make Progress in Coordinating
Preparedness and Response (GAO- 01- 15, Mar. 20, 2001).

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/ T- NSIAD/ GGD- 99- 107, Mar. 11, 1999).

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

Page 12 GAO- 01- 660T Combating Terrorism

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).

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).

(350070)
*** End of document ***