Combating Terrorism

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building,. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Hastert, Souder, Mica, Barr, and Barrett.

Staff present: Robert B. Charles, staff director and chief counsel; Michele Lang, special counsel; Andrew Richardson, professional staff member; Amy Davenport, clerk; and Michael Yeager, minority counsel.

Mr. SOUDER [presiding]. Good afternoon. The subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice will come to order.

I yield to Mr. Hastert, chairman of the subcommittee for an opening statement.

Mr. HASTERT [presiding]. Well, thank you Mr. Souder.

Good afternoon. Today we will be examining the U.S. Federal agencies' efforts to combat terrorism.

I'd like to start by thanking Mr. Souder, the vice chairman of the subcommittee, for his willingness to take charge of this important issue for the duration of the 105th Congress. Mr. Souder will be spearheading the efforts of this subcommittee as we undertake a close examination of the Federal policies and organizations in place to combat terrorism. Comprehensive congressional oversight of this area is long overdue.

Before I turn the hearing over to Mr. Souder, I'd like to make some brief comments. There are a few issues that can place as much fear in the hearts of Americans as the specter of terrorism. Whether perpetrated by foreigners or our fellow citizens. I understand that fear.

While in the Middle East last November, I saw firsthand the destruction caused by a terrorist attack at a United States Air Force base in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 American servicemen, and injured hundreds of others. I vividly recall the horror of the bombing attacks in New York and Oklahoma City.

Eager to swiftly react to these incidents of international and domestic terrorism, Congress has legislated many Federal programs

to combat terrorism over the last few years. Unfortunately, although we have been quick to authorize and appropriate new programs, we have failed to scrutinize them. The results, which will be discussed today in detail, have been a predictable explosion in bureaucracy and a noticeable failure to successfully prioritize and coordinate our efforts against terrorism.

As members of this oversight committee, it is our duty to identify and remedy mismanagement and inefficiency in our government. It is within this mind, that we hold this hearing.

The vice chairman of this committee, Congressman Souder, has traveled with me to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. We watched our American troops and American officials work in a time of high pressure. It was a time when Saddam Hussein was threatening terrorism across southwestern Europe.

We saw a lot of different things. It was something that sobers us. We know that some of the things that were threatened there and protected against there can happen here. We have to be able to look at this with the best scrutiny and the best ability to find correct answers. We also need to correct things that are not working the way we had hoped they would.

So, I thank the gentleman from Indiana, for sharing this hearing and taking on this responsibility. I appreciate your fine work.

Mr. SOUDER [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. An article in this week's U.S. News and World Report entitled, "The Real Battle," read,

With the White House asking Congress for a record $6.7 billion to fight terrorism, turf wars are escalating across Washington. FBI officials are angry at the Secret Service, which is making a bid to oversee security at the Olympic Games and other special events.

The Army Reserve is angered at the National Guard for ignoring Army resources in planning how to respond to a biochemical attack in the United States. And the National Security Council, which proposes to create its own terrorism czar, is drawing fire from Justice and the Pentagon for what officials at both departments see as an NSC power grab.

As agencies begin lobbying appropriations committees, the battles are bound to intensify. But the bureaucrats may have little fear from a Congress anxious to show that it's tough on terrorists. "If the program has terrorism in the title," complains an insider, “it will get funded."

This article does an excellent job describing why we are here today. This hearing, the second in a series on U.S. efforts to combat terrorism, will be general in its approach in order to address the multifaceted and seemingly disjointed approach the Federal Government takes to combating terrorism both domestically and abroad.

In the aftermath of the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, combating terrorism became a top priority for the Federal Government. As a result, there has been tremendous growth in the number of agencies involved in efforts to combat terrorism and the number of terrorism-related programs, as well as the funding for such efforts. There are over 40 Federal agencies, bureaus, and offices involved in U.S. efforts to fight terrorism, spending nearly $7 billion on dozens of programs and activities.

For example, FBI resources increased fivefold from 1994 to 1997. The FBI now has 2,500 agents assigned to conduct counterterrorism work. Yet, the FBI will soon release its statistics

for 1996 which show that three incidents of domestic terrorism occurred, and five terrorist acts were thwarted.

At the request of several members, including Mr. Skelton and this subcommittee, the U.S. General Accounting Office has undertaken a major review of Federal efforts and programs designed to combat terrorism, which has resulted in the issuance of four reports to date. This subcommittee along with my colleague, Congressman Ike Skelton, recently released GAO's latest report entitled, "Combating Terrorism: Threat and Risk Assessments Can Help Prioritize and Target Program Investments."

These reports make several important observations about our country's current efforts to combat terrorism.

One, it is unknown how much money is actually spent on Federal programs to combat terrorism.

Two, as of December 1997, no agency was required to regularly collect, aggregate, and review funding and spending data relative to combating terrorism on a crosscutting, governmentwide basis.

Three, there exists no governmentwide prioritization of funding proposals and requirements for terrorism-related programs.

The $30.5 million Domestic Preparedness Program which provides training and equipment to local governments does not utilize any threat or risk assessment in order to define requirements and focus program investments.

And, although I withhold judgment on the quality of any particular program or activity at this time, these findings are indicative of poor management practices which inevitably lead to ineffective programs and duplicative efforts. The General Accounting Office's excellent work on U.S. efforts to combat terrorism should serve as a clarion call for better oversight from both Congress and the executive branch. The failure to implement these programs without sound management practices, and without a coordinated command and control structure dedicated to using valid threat and risk assessments is not simply an issue of indiscriminate spending and bureaucracy gone awry, it goes to the very heart of the security of our citizens and Nation.

For the duration of the 105th Congress, this subcommittee will conduct a thorough review of Federal programs designed to combat terrorism. Our overall objective is to identify duplicative programs and capabilities, persuade and compel Federal agencies and bureaus to coordinate and prioritize their budgets for counterterrorism activities, and eliminate unsound management practices which hinder rather than facilitate the fight against terrorists. While terrorist attacks at the New York World Trade Center in 1993, Oklahoma City in 1995, and Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, demand that America be prepared to respond swiftly and effectively to such acts, it is imperative that Congress, in an oversight function particularly, does not enact and fund programs haphazardly and lose sight of the need for a comprehensive framework through which to manage our counterterrorism programs.

Please note that this hearing is about process and programs. Accordingly, it is intended to address management and organizational issues, not to resolve honest disagreements regarding the capabilities or intentions of terrorist groups. Regardless of the severity of

« Previous Continue »

Books

Combating Terrorism: The Proliferation of Agencies' Efforts : Hearing Before ...