Enclosed is our response to questions you asked us for the record related to our testimony during the Subcommittee's hearing on preparedness against terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. As with our testimony, our responses to your questions are based on prior work we have conducted on federal efforts to combat terrorism, especially those to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks involving chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear materials. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony and to answer questions for the Sincerely yours, Norman Patten Norman J. Rabkin Director, National Security ENCLOSURE ENCLOSURE Hearings on Preparedness Against Terrorist Attacks Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction Before the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Questions for the Record: (1) April 6, 2000 What is the effect of not having a national strategy in place to address federal and nonfederal roles in domestic preparedness against terrorist attacks? A national strategy with clear measurable outcomes would focus efforts and resources and help clarify federal, state, and local government roles in responding to terrorist attacks. Without a national strategy, federal and nonfederal roles in domestic preparedness against terrorist attacks will remain unclear, uncoordinated, unaligned, and possibly duplicative in programs and expenditure of resources. For example, several agencies have assistance programs and initiatives to provide training and/or equipment to deal with Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) terrorist attacks. Without a national strategy to provide focus, these programs may contain gaps and/or duplication, and lead to confusion on the part of state and local officials. Finally, the roles of the federal government, the states, and the local governments need further clarification, particularly in the matter of command and control at the site of a terrorist incident. (2) How would you assess the effectiveness of the National Domestic Preparedness Office? In response to requests from the first responder community for a single federal focal point, the Department of Justice has established the interagency National Domestic Preparedness Office within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The office was recently funded in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000, and it is being organized. The office will be staffed with representatives of the Departments of Justice, Defense, Energy, and Health and Human Services; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and state and local responder organizations that possess appropriate skills and experiences. The office will coordinate and serve as an information clearinghouse for federal programs devoted to supporting state and local emergency responder communities in the area of weapons of mass destruction related domestic preparedness planning, training, exercises, and equipment research and development. At the Subcommittee's request, we are starting to monitor the National Domestic Preparedness Office's progress, and we will have more ENCLOSURE ENCLOSURE (3) How supportive has the administration been in providing support to The administration has taken various steps in providing support to federal efforts for domestic preparedness against terrorist attacks. Among the major ones have been: Increased funding from $7.6 billion in 1998 to an $11.1 billion in the Presidential budget request for fiscal year 2001, to combat terrorism, combat weapons of mass destruction, and protect critical infrastructure. Federal agencies (such as the Departments of Defense and Justice; the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and the Public Health Service) multiple assistance programs for preparedness planning, training, exercises, and equipment research and development and equipment grants to state and local emergency responders. The establishment of the National Domestic Preparedness Office as a single point of contact for information and federal programs to state and local first responders in the event of a terrorist attack (see question 2 for more information on this office). The emergence of more federal response elements and capabilities such as the FBI's Hazardous Materials Response Unit and the Department of Defense'sspecialized teams. The Congress has also directed the administration to provide additional support. Among these steps are: The Office of Management and Budget's tracking of agencies budgets and spending by counterterrorist and CBRN programs to improve management and coordination of these activities. • The Attorney General's 5-year classified interagency plan on counterterrorism and technology crime. (4) What do you predict to be the outcome of the transition of the Domestic The Department of Defense developed the Domestic Preparedness Program to increase the knowledge and capabilities of local firefighters, law enforcement officials, hazardous materials specialists, and medical personnel who would first deal with a weapons of mass destruction incident. The Department of Justice has a similar programMetropolitan Firefighters and Emergency Medical Services Program- to train first responders. In a recently issued report,' we conclude that, as currently envisioned, the transition of the Domestic Preparedness Program from the Department of Defense to the Department of Justice will continue to produce duplicative training to some metropolitan areas, thereby resulting in inefficient use of limited resources. According to Justice officials, Justice will complete the Domestic Preparedness Program in 120 cities to honor Defense's commitment to those cities. Justice also plans to deliver its Metropolitan Firefighters Program to individuals in 255 cities and counties. Until Defense's program is completed Defense and Justice programs will overlap and thus, in the near term, some Combating Terrorism: Need to Eliminate Duplicate Federal Weapons of Mass Destruction Training (GAO/NSIAD-00-64, Mar. 21, 2000, pp. 24 and 25). |