New Lineup Urged for Emergency Response Published: 09-17-01
By Tim Kauffman
FEDERAL TIMES STAFF WRITER
Lawmakers and the Bush administration are turning their focus to the task of reshuffling agencies to be more responsive to terrorist threats and attacks.
A report from a bipartisan commission, an administration proposal for a new office on disaster preparedness and a handful of bills in Congress all address the issue, and many say the attacks give momentum to the efforts.
“It’s always tough to make institutional changes, but this is the time to do it,” Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, sponsor of one bill, said Sept. 13.
Indeed, the jetliner crashes in New York City and at the Pentagon could accelerate a bill to restructure the government’s intelligence operations.
“There is clearly a new sense of urgency,” said Paul Anderson, spokesman for Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
The centerpiece of the Graham-backed proposal will be a White House office to coordinate counterterrorism efforts, from surveillance and defense to emergency preparedness and response.
The intent would be to improve coordination and information sharing among the half-dozen agencies with counterterrorism roles.
“It’s pretty well-known there’s been a pretty serious . . . resistance among agencies to working together,” Anderson said.
Graham and other intelligence committee members have been discussing the need to restructure intelligence operations for the past four months and were about a month away from introducing the legislation when terrorists struck Sept. 11.
Five senators are working on the bill: Democrats Graham, Dianne Feinstein of California, John Edwards of North Carolina and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana; and Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona.
The House is ahead of the Senate in addressing domestic terrorism, although consensus is lacking.
Three wildly disparate legislative proposals relating to domestic terrorism have been introduced since the beginning of the session.
Thornberry’s is the most aggressive. The bill, HR 1158, which was referred to a House Government Reform subcommittee , would create a National Homeland Security Agency that would build upon the functions of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and consolidate activities of the Coast Guard, Customs Service and Border Patrol.
Thornberry’s bill was a direct response to a January report by the Commission on National Security/21st Century, a bipartisan panel chartered by the secretary of Defense in 1998 in coordination with the White House and the secretary of State.
Former Sen. Warren Rudman, R-N.H., co-chairman of the 14-member panel, told Federal Times interest in the report has skyrocketed after the attacks.
“It’s the hottest-selling item in Washington,” Rudman said of the report, “Roadmap for National Security: Imperative for Change.” “I wish they had all felt that way eight months ago.”
The report predicted a “direct attack against American citizens on American soil” within 25 years.
“There are too many government agencies, with little effective coordination and accountability, to provide a coherent defense,” the report said.
In May, Bush directed FEMA to organize an Office of National Preparedness to coordinate preparation and recovery efforts across all levels of government from disasters and terrorist attacks.
Not all members of Congress are calling for a reorganization of the executive branch. The bill that is perhaps closest to what is being discussed in the Senate would direct the president to develop a homeland security strategy and designate an official responsible. That bill, HR 1292, introduced by Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo. , is to be considered by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee the week of Sept. 17.
“The problem is not a structural one,” a staff aide on the House Armed Services Committee said on condition his name not be used. “This is a problem of attention and prioritization.”
Former President Clinton created a counterterrorism position in 1998 to coordinate efforts of various federal agencies. But that position had neither the visibility nor the backing of the administration needed to determine policy or funding, critics said. Bush dropped the position when he reorganized the National Security Council at the beginning of his term.
The third bill, HR 525, directs the president to appoint a council to publish an annually updated domestic terrorism preparedness plan .
That bill, introduced by Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md. in February, has 45 co-sponsors and was the subject of a hearing before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in May. The panel will review the bill Sept. 20 for a possible vote.
In addition, Rep. J.C. Watts Jr., R-Okla., proposed a resolution in February urging Bush to create a plan to eliminate coordination and communication problems among agencies with domestic terrorism responsibilities. That measure, H.Res. 52, has 16 co-sponsors and has been referred to various committees.
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., appointed a working group in February to sift through the various bills and assess the nature of terrorist threats, but the group has not produced its findings thus far.
The House staffer said he did not believe the terrorist attacks would prompt House leaders to sudden action on such a complicated issue.
“The only thing that might occur is to force people who haven’t focused on it to focus on it,” he said.
Some feel differently. Retired Air Force Gen. Charles Boyd, the Rudman panel’s executive director, said the time is ripe for the Bush administration to retool its approach to national security.
“We knew that moving major pieces of these institutions would be very difficult,” Boyd told Federal Times Sept. 13. “But now the impetus is there, and Congress is now in a position to do whatever it can to accommodate the president’s plans.”
Special correspondents Amy Svitak and Gail Kaufman contributed to this report.
A nationally accepted definition of “Homeland Defense” does not currently exist, and is often a topic of debate. The potential scope of Homeland Defense is so immense that our approach for the first half of 2000 is to host a series of threat-specific workshops designed to help narrow the focus to those significant areas needing immediate attention. The workshops engage leading thinkers from government, industry, and academia in the fields of counter chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and cyber-terrorism analysis, strategy, policy, and operations. 