Support for Panel Activities and Reports

Mr. Chairman, the enabling legislation directed that analytical and other support for the Advisory Panel would be provided by a Federally Funded Research and Development Center. We have been exceptionally fortunate to have that support provided by The RAND Corporation. The breadth and depth of experience at RAND in terrorism and policy issues across a broad spectrum have made possible the panel's success in accomplishing its mandate. Its assessments of federal programs, its case studies and hundreds of interviews across the country and around the world, its seminal work in surveying state and local response entities nationwide, its facilitation of our discussion-leading to near unanimity of members on this broad spectrum of recommendations, its work in drafting reports based on our extensive deliberations, all have combined to make this effort a most effective and meaningful one.

Issues of Interest to the Subcommittee

Mr. Chairman and Members, I intend to outline for the record later in my testimony the key policy recommendations made by the Advisory Panel in each four reports to the President and the Congress.

Before I do that, let me address the specific questions posed by the subcommittee in your letter of invitation. You have asked that I comment on a number of the national strategies promulgated by the Bush Administration in recent months. Given both the nature and the timing of the release of those strategies, the Advisory Panel has only addressed one of those in any detail-The National Strategy for Homeland Security, released by the White House last July.

We commented on that National Strategy in some detail in our Fourth Report to the President and the Congress, dated December 15, 2002. We made both general comments and also addressed specific issues within each chapter. Here is what we said:

ASSESSING THE NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR HOMELAND SECURITY

The capstone recommendation in our Second Report was the need for a comprehensive, coherent, functional national strategy: "The President should develop and present to the Congress a national strategy for combating terrorism within one year of assuming office." In that report, we described, in considerable detail, our proposed framework for that strategy.

In July of 2003, the President approved for release the first National Strategy for Homeland Security. To lay the groundwork for most of the recommendations in the chapter of our fourth report entitled "Organizing the National Effort," we start with a commentary on that National Strategy from the panel's perspective, for the most part tracking the subject headings of the chapters on "critical mission areas" in that document.

General Comments

We applaud the President and his staff for publishing this comprehensive vision to serve as the framework for the entire national effort. It is a foundation document and an important first step. It should not--indeed it cannot-be seen as being all of the answers to the challenges that we face. It will require periodic updates: we suggest annually. It will require detailed implementation plans; some are already being developed.

It contains well-crafted "vision" statements of where we should be headed as a nation. It acknowledges as we have said before that any comprehensive strategy must-that there are significant international implications for "domestic" efforts.

It recognizes that this strategic approach must be a truly national, not just a Federal approach:

based on the principles of shared responsibility and partnership with the Congress, state and local governments, the private sector, and the American people. The National Strategy for Homeland Security belongs and applies to the Nation as a whole, not just

National Strategy for Homeland Security, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/hoineland/book/index.html. last accessed December 5, 2002, hereinafter the "National Strategy."

to the President's proposed Department of Homeland Security or the federal
government.

It contains-importantly-definitions of both homeland security and terrorism:

Homeland security is a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur.

The National Strategy for Homeland Security characterizes terrorism as any premeditated, unlawful act dangerous to human life or public welfare that is intended to intimidate or coerce civilian populations or governments.

It contains language about the importance of measures of performance but does not articulate what those measures should be. Importantly, in our view-being consistent with our expressions since our First Report-it eliminates the arbitrary, artificial, and confusing distinction between so-called “crisis management" and "consequence management" activities.

It recognizes the importance of creating a national incident management system with an “allhazards" approach-one that combines preparedness and response for natural disasters, accidents, and intentionally perpetrated attacks.

Definitional Issues

Despite a commendable attempt to reduce confusion by articulating certain definitions, it does not fully accomplish the task. The National Strategy uses CBRN or CBRNE and Weapons of Mass Destruction or WMD seemingly interchangeably.

It uses different terms apparently to describe the same function or category: "health," "public health,” “medical,” “medical care.” And it is unclear whether "emergency medical providers" does or does not include emergency medical technicians. It uses other terms interchangeably with not clear delineation or distinction: “anti-terrorism,” “counterterrorism," and "combating terrorism." And it is not clear whether "enemies" and "terrorists" are synonymous.

"Threat and Vulnerability" Chapter

This chapter of the National Strategy appropriately recognizes that the nature of our society—

our "American way of life--makes us inherently vulnerable to terrorist attacks. It also acknowledges the imperatives not only of safeguarding our security and economy but also our culture, our civil liberties, democracy itself.

It appropriately, in our view, disaggregates chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, conventional, and cyber attacks. But it suggests that chemical and biological weapons, generically, are "easy to manufacture," using “basic equipment." We have noted, in our threat assessments, including the one in the Fourth Report, that such broad categorizations are unfortunate. Many of the more sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, especially those that could cause fatalities in the thousands or tens or thousands are very difficult to produce, maintain, and deliver.

It appropriately recognizes the potential damage that could result from an attack on U.S. agriculture.

“Organizing for a Secure Homeland" Chapter

This chapter of the National Strategy recognizes and explains the interconnected and interdependent roles of the Federal government, States and localities, the private sector, and the American people in a united national effort. It stresses the "vital need for cooperation between the Federal government and State and local governments... horizontally (within each level of government) and vertically (among various levels of government)."

In a move that we strongly endorse, it announces the intention to retain the White House Office of Homeland Security, even after the formation of the new Department of Homeland Security, with

authority "to certify that the budgets of... executive branch departments will enable them to carry out their homeland security responsibilities."

It appropriately notes that the Department of Defense has important roles in homeland security. both for "homeland defense”—“military missions such as combat air patrols or maritime defense" in which the Department would "take the lead in defending the people and territory of our country-as well as "military support to civil authorities"-where the Department supports other agencies in responding to attacks, natural disasters, or “other catastrophes."

It appropriately, we believe, calls on the Governors of the several States "to establish a single Homeland Security Task Force (HSTF) for the state, to serve as his or her primary coordinating body with the federal government,” but unfortunately does not offer to do the same in return. (We address this issue directly later in the Fourth Report, as you will see in my testimony below.)

"Intelligence and Warning" Chapter

This chapter correctly notes that appropriate assessments—both "tactical" and strategic”—of terrorist threats must precede any realistic assessment of our vulnerability. We are arguably infinitely vulnerable. Only when we can realistically determine what threats exist that would seek to exploit particular vulnerabilities will we be in position to take preventive and defensive steps and other appropriate responses.

Unfortunately, the Strategy does not suggest what products of the tactical or strategic (especially strategic) assessments will be produced or how and to whom such products will be disseminated.

We address, in considerable detail, the issues of intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination and make specific policy recommendations with respect thereto in our Fourth Report, which are outlined later in this testimony.