For Release on Delivery

Expected at 1:30 p.m.

Thursday,

May 4, 2000

GAO/T-NSIAD-00-172

COMBATING TERRORISM

Comments on Bill

H.R. 4210 to Manage

Selected Counterterrorist

Programs

Statement for the Record of Norman J. Rabkin, Director

National Security Preparedness Issues

National Security and International Affairs Division

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations,

and Emergency Management, Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure, House of

Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO
Page 1 GAO/T-NSIAD-00-172

Madam Chairman:

We are pleased to submit this statement for the record to comment on a

bill introduced before this subcommittee at your April 6, 2000 hearing—the

Terrorism Preparedness Act of 2000 (H.R. 4210). The bill creates a new

Office of Terrorism Preparedness to coordinate and make more effective

federal efforts to assist state and local emergency and response personnel

in preparation for domestic terrorist attacks.

Overall, we believe that H.R. 4210 would address some of the problems of

fragmentation and duplication that we and others have found in programs

to combat terrorism. Specifically, the bill would create a new Office of

Terrorism Preparedness to centralize leadership and coordination of

federal programs to help state and local governments prepare for terrorist

incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. However, the duties of

the new office, as currently described in the bill, may overlap with some

functions of the recently created National Domestic Preparedness Office.

Our work on the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), on

which the Office of Terrorism Preparedness is patterned, suggests that

success in achieving the bill’s goals depends on the Office head’s ability to

build consensus among the involved agencies. In addition, the new office

may take some time to accomplish its objectives as laid out in the bill. The

limited scope of the new statutory office would not address some of the

larger problems with fragmented leadership and coordination in federal

programs to combat terrorism.

H.R. 4210 would address some of the fragmentation problems that we and

others have found in providing assistance to state and local governments

to prepare for terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction.

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. The Advisory Panel to

Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons

of Mass Destruction—also known as the Gilmore Panel—recently testified

about similar problems before your subcommittee.

To eliminate these types of problems, the bill would create a new Office of

Terrorism Preparedness within the Executive Office of the President. The

new Office would have, among others, the following specific duties.

Summary

H.R. 4210 Would

Address Some

Fragmentation Issues
Page 2 GAO/T-NSIAD-00-172

• Establish, coordinate and oversee policies, objectives and priorities of the

Federal government for enhancing the capabilities of state and local

emergency preparedness and response personnel.

• Publish a Domestic Terrorism Preparedness Plan and an annual strategy

for carrying out the plan.

• Review terrorist attack preparedness programs of state and local

governments, and establish voluntary minimum standards for such

programs.

As currently proposed in the bill, the Office may overlap with some

functions to be performed by the existing National Domestic Preparedness

Office. The Attorney General established this office within the Department

of Justice to be responsible for interagency leadership and coordination of

federal efforts to provide assistance for state and local governments to

prepare for terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. As

an example of potential duplication, the National Domestic Preparedness

Office recently issued a “blueprint” for federal assistance, which is

analogous to the new Office of Terrorism Preparedness function to

prepare a national plan and strategy.

In addition, the bill would limit the scope of the new Office of Terrorism

Preparedness to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction.

According to intelligence and law enforcement officials, terrorists are least

likely to use these types of weapons. The Subcommittee may want to

consider authorizing the Office of Terrorism Preparedness to assist state

and local governments to prepare for both weapons of mass destruction

and the more likely threat of conventional explosives.

The proposed Office of Terrorism Preparedness is patterned after ONDCP.

The ONDCP was created by Congress in 1988 to better plan the national

drug control effort and assist Congress in overseeing the effort. ONDCP is

the President’s primary policy office for drug issues and has three Major

responsibilities.

• Develop a national drug control strategy with short and long term

objectives and annually revise and issue a new strategy.

• Develop an annual consolidated drug control budget providing funding

estimates for implementing the strategy.

• Oversee and coordinate implementation of the strategy by the various

federal agencies.

Lessons to Be

Learned From

ONDCP
Page 3 GAO/T-NSIAD-00-172

We believe that many of the experiences of ONDCP may be useful for the

Subcommittee in refining this bill and, if enacted, overseeing the

operations of the Office of Terrorism Preparedness. We have issued

several reports on ONDCP’s efforts to develop and implement a national

strategy and to assess the adequacy of federal budgets and programs to

carry out that strategy. There are several important lessons to be learned.

• Fragmentation had hampered federal efforts to control drugs, therefore

strong central leadership was needed to overcome longstanding problems

with agencies not sharing information and not coordinating programs.

• As established in the Executive Office of the President, ONDCP was

positioned to rise above the particular interests of any one federal agency.

• Getting consensus among federal agencies with diverse missions, for

whom drug control was a minor role, was difficult and time-consuming.

• After its creation, it took ONDCP almost ten years (from 1988 to 1997) to

develop the current national strategy.

• Although called for in its 1988 legislation, ONDCP did not develop

performance indicators until 1998.

• Despite these problems, we supported the reauthorization of the ONDCP

due to the continuing need for a central agency to provide leadership,

planning, and coordination for the nation’s drug control efforts.

Although there are some similarities, the ONDCP’s broad scope of

activities sets it apart from the proposed Office of Terrorism Preparedness.

ONDCP is responsible for overseeing and coordinating the drug control

efforts for over 50 agencies and programs, with an annual budget of almost

$20 billion. The ONDCP is involved in the entire range of drug control

efforts—both supply reduction (interdiction, international, and law

enforcement efforts) and demand reduction (education and treatment

efforts). There is no equivalent of the ONDCP for the broader management

of counterterrorism programs.
Page 4 GAO/T-NSIAD-00-172

H.R. 4210 would not resolve some of the overall fragmentation problems in

federal programs to combat terrorism. In May 1998, the President

appointed a National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection

and Counterterrorism within the National Security Council, who is tasked

to oversee a broad variety of relevant policies and programs related to

counterterrorism, produce an annual Security Preparedness Report,

provide advice regarding budgets for counterterrorism programs and

coordinate guidelines for managing crises. Despite the creation of this

position, overall federal efforts remain fragmented because key

interagency management functions are conducted by different

departments and agencies. We believe that this is one cause for the

following problems in federal efforts to combat terrorism that we have

reported.

• There is a lack of linkage between the terrorist threat, a national strategy,

and agency resources.

• Federal efforts to combat terrorism have been based on worst case

scenarios which are out of balance with the threat.

• Without coordination, agencies could develop their own programs in

isolation, creating the potential for gaps and/or duplication.

• Federal agencies have not completed interagency guidance and resolved

some command and control issues.

• Efforts to develop a national strategy continue, but to date they have not

included a clear desired outcome to be achieved.

• Efforts to track federal spending across agencies have started, but they

have only begun efforts to prioritize programs.

Because the proposed Office of Terrorism Preparedness is limited to the

function of providing assistance to state and local governments, it will not

address these larger issues of fragmentation in interagency leadership and

management. As stated earlier, there is no equivalent of the ONDCP for the

broader management of counterterrorism programs. As shown in Table 1,

ONDCP centralizes key interagency management functions for drug

control that are not centralized for combating terrorism.

H.R. 4210 Would Not

Address Larger

Fragmentation of

Federal

Counterterrorism

Programs
Page 5 GAO/T-NSIAD-00-172

Table 1. Organizations Currently Responsible for Key Interagency

Management Functions for Counterdrug and Counterterrorism Programs

Function Counterdrug Counterterrorism

Act As Top Official

Accountable To President

ONDCP National Security Council (National

Coordinator For Security,

Infrastructure Protection And

Counterterrorism)

Act as Top Official

Accountable to Congress

ONDCP Numerous officials

(including the Attorney General,

Director of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, Secretary of State,

Secretary of Defense)

Develop a National

Interagency Strategy

ONDCP Attorney General

Set Priorities within

National Strategy

ONDCP Office of Management and Budget

in theory, but actually done by

individual agencies

Develop and Monitor

International Programs

ONDCP Secretary of State (via Coordinator

for Counterterrorism)

Provide Liaison and

Assistance to State and

Local Governments

ONCDP Department of Justice (National

Domestic Preparedness Office) and

Federal Emergency Management

Agency

Monitor Budgets Across

Federal Agencies

ONDCP Office of Management and Budget

Develop and Monitor

Overall Performance

Measures

ONDCP No agency assigned to do this

overall task.

Manage Research and

Development

ONDCP National Security Council (via the

Technical Support Working Group)

Source: GAO analysis of counterdrug and counterterrorist programs.

This concludes our statement for the record. If you have any questions

about this statement, please contact me at (202) 512-5104. Stephen L.

Caldwell and Raymond Wyrsch made key contributions to this statement.

(702072)
Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send

an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs