and responsibilities for Federal, State and local entities, and

provide minimum standards for preparedness.

Over and over again, experts, state and local

governments and other stakeholders told our

Subcommittee that we need a national plan and strategy

that will provide coordination and accountability. These are not difficult concepts. They make good old-fashioned

common sense.

We owe it to our constituents and to our nation.

We must work together to provide the citizens of this country with a national plan and comprehensive strategy to achieve preparedness against terrorism before it is too late.

I believe that H.R. 525, The Preparedness Against

Terrorism Act of 2001 which will amend the Robert T

Stafford Act to update Title VI of the Act and to provide

coordination for federal efforts with regard to preparedness

against terrorist attacks in the United States will help us

achieve this goal. I am a proud co-sponsor of this seriously needed legislation.

Today, we are here today to receive testimony

from some of the authors of these proposals and some experts in the field. We all know that we need to make some major improvements to the federal response to

terrorism and we need to address the situation now. I

welcome the witnesses and look forward to hearing from

them.

Summary

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.' 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.

Background

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