Introduction

Since the attacks of September 11th , we have seen the nation unite and  work to better coordinate preparedness efforts among federal, state, and  local agencies, as well as among private businesses, community groups,  and individual citizens. Our challenge now is to build upon this  commitment and to further improve our preparedness in a manner that can  be sustained over time.
It is critical that we have strong and sustained leadership to provide  effective security to our nation. President Bush took a number of important  steps in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks to strengthen the country’s  homeland security efforts, including the creation of an Office of Homeland  Security (OHS).  The creation of such a focal point is consistent with a  previous GAO recommendation.  At the same time, for reasons noted later  in this testimony, GAO had recommended that Congress should establish  this coordinating and planning entity by statute.
The success of a homeland security strategy relies on the ability of all levels  of government and the private sector to communicate and cooperate  effectively with one another. Such a strategy requires that the federal  government’s role be considered in relation to other levels of government.  The appropriate goals and objectives for homeland security must be set,  and the the tools and resources must be used to enable government and the  private sector to achieve these goals and desired outcomes.  Indeed, our  ongoing work for Congress indicates that federal agencies, state and local  governments, and the private sector are looking for guidance on how to  better coordinate their missions and more effectively contribute to a  comprehensive homeland security effort. Direction, coordination, and  collaboration are critical to effectively implement the homeland security  strategy.
Among other things, it is incumbent on the federal government to  formulate realistic budget and resource plans to support the  implementation of an efficient and effective homeland security program.   In this regard, extensive resources that have recently been designated for  homeland security, along with those resources proposed for the upcoming  fiscal year, clearly reflect a large and rapidly growing federal role involving  direct spending and assistance to others.  While we believe that a robust  homeland security program is critical to the nation’s protection and  prosperity, it must be developed in a manner that is targeted to areas of  greatest need and avoids wasteful, unfocused or “hitchhiker” spending.   Moreover, the new commitments will compete with and increase the  pressure on other important priorities within the budget.  As GAO’s long  term budget simulation notes, known demographic trends and rising health  care costs will place unprecedented pressures on our longer range fiscal  position.  A fundamental review of existing programs and operations can  create much-needed fiscal flexibility to address emerging needs by weeding  out programs that are out-dated, poorly targeted, or inefficiently designed  and managed.
The obvious and continuing importance of homeland security to all  Americans, in conjunction with the expected rapid growth in related  program expenditures, creates a vital need to involve both the Executive  and Legislative branches of government in ensuring optimum performance  and appropriate accountability of our homeland security activities.  In  fulfilling its Constitutional responsibilities, Congress retains its prerogative  to engage in oversight on how the federal government as a whole, and a  range of federal entities are preparing to prevent and respond to future  terrorist attacks.  In its efforts to review the effectiveness of homeland  security management and operations, Congress, as with other government  programs, has frequently called upon the GAO to conduct professional,  objective, fact-based non-partisan, and non-ideological audits,  investigations and evaluations.  We currently have over 60 congressional  requests to conduct reviews in the important area of homeland security.  At  this point in time, however, I must say that we have experienced some  access problems in connection with our OHS related efforts. We are,  however, hopeful that we will soon be able to agree on a course of action  that will enable us to meet the needs of the Congress while not placing any  unnecessary or unrealistic burdens on OHS.
My comments today are based on a body of GAO’s existing work on  terrorism and emergency preparedness, as well as on our review of many  other studies.

		Statutory Basis for Homeland Security

In October 2001, the president established OHS as the federal focal point to  develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national  strategy to secure the United States from terrorist attacks. While this action  represents a significant step, the role and effectiveness of OHS in setting  priorities, interacting with agencies on program development and  implementation, and developing and enforcing overall federal policy in  homeland security related activities is in the formative stages.
To this end, it is important to re-emphasize that the leadership in the  homeland security area should be national and institutional in nature.
Homeland security is a long-term commitment and should be grounded in  the institutional framework of the nation’s governmental structure.  It must  span the terms of various administrations and individuals.
GAO has in the past and continues now to recommend that an Office of  Homeland Security be institutionalized in statute to ensure the efficiency  and effectiveness of this effort and ensure its accountability to the  Congress and the American people.  In our September 20, 2001 report on  combating terrorism, as mentioned, we recommended the establishment of  a single focal point with responsibility and authority for all critical  leadership and coordination functions to combat terrorism.  We  recommended that the focal point be established within the Executive  Office of the President.  The executive order establishing the OHS follows  our recommendation in that regard and also reflects many of our other  suggestions.  We also recommended that Congress establish the office  through legislation to ensure its legitimacy, authority, and sustainability.   Equally as important, we recommended that the head of the office be  appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate in  order to provide appropriate access and accountability to Congress and the  American people.
In testimony to Congress in November of last year, I applauded the  appointment of Governor Ridge as a positive first step in marshalling the  resources necessary to address homeland security requirements. I also  noted that statutory underpinnings and effective oversight would be critical  to sustaining any related broad-scale initiatives over the long term.
We recognize that OHS has achieved some early results in suggesting a  budgetary framework and emphasizing homeland security priorities in the  President’s proposed budget.  Despite OHS’ efforts to date, however, the  informal structure and relationship of that office to the White House and  other parts of the Executive Branch may not represent the most effective  approach for instituting a permanent entity with sufficient authority to  achieve all of the important objectives for securing our borders.  Without a  statutory framework that clarifies OHS’ roles and responsibilities, its  budget and resources, and its authority to leverage other federal  departments and agencies, the office will likely face persistent obstacles in  obtaining fast, effective, and sustainable results across the government and  throughout the nation.  Moreover, such efforts need to transcend  administrations, individuals and personal relationships, in order to ensure  their effectiveness and sustainability in protecting our nation.
Past GAO reports have noted increased effectiveness and accountability  in  connection with various agencies and activities when the entity involved  had a legislative foundation based in congressional consensus and subject  to appropriate accountability.    Providing a statutory basis for an  important function, such as the functions provided by OHS, can help to  assure there is reasonable agreement between the executive and legislative  branches regarding the purpose and mission of the entity.  It serves to  provide a basis for a specific allocation of human and financial resources to  the entity in support of its mission.  It also provides an institutional basis  for the entity and its leadership that can span changes in administrations  and key personnel.  Importantly, it also helps to enhance accountability to  the Congress and the American people.
History has shown that areas of major importance have been addressed by  statute.  This is especially true when the activities involved will be long- term in nature and are likely to require continuing appropriations for an  indefinite period of time.  In this regard, according to President Bush, our  homeland security effort will be long term in nature, and will require the  expenditure of significant sums of appropriated funds.  Congress’  allocation of approximately $60 billion in fiscal 2002, including a $40 billion  supplemental request, and the President’s request of approximately $38  billion for fiscal 2003, serve to underscore the importance of this effort and  the magnitude of the amounts involved.
However, there has been one significant recent effort at the federal level  that did not involve a statutory basis or a Presidential appointee subject to  Senate confirmation, but which was still successful.  That case involved the  federal government’s Y2K effort that was headed by John Koskinen, a  former Deputy Director of OMB.  There are, however, some important  differences between the homeland security and Y2K efforts. The Y2K effort  involved the entire federal government but over a limited and defined  period of time.  Further, it had a very specific and defined objective.  It  involved the creation of a special focus by both the Senate and House of  Representatives to focus on this issue and significant and ongoing efforts  by the GAO to assess related efforts and report to the Congress on an  ongoing basis. In addition, John Koskinen testified on numerous occasions  as to the status of these efforts.  Many of these factors do not exist in  connection with OHS, and reinforce the need for a statutory basis.

		National Homeland Security Strategy

We have tracked and analyzed various federal programs to combat  terrorism for many years and have repeatedly called for the development of  a national strategy for preparedness. We have not been alone in this  message: the Gilmore Commission, and several national associations, such  as the National Emergency Management Association and the National  Governors Association, have advocated the establishment of a homeland  security strategy. The attorney general’s Five-Year Interagency  Counterterrorism Crime and Technology Plan, issued in December 1998,  represents one attempt to develop a national strategy on combating  terrorism. This plan entailed a substantial interagency effort and could  potentially serve as a basis for a national preparedness strategy. However,  we found it lacking in two critical elements necessary for an effective  strategy: (1) identification of measurable outcomes and (2) identification of  the appropriate state and local government roles in responding to a  terrorist attack.
To more effectively integrate and coordinate the varying roles and  responsibilities of all levels of government, GAO has recommended the  development of a central management focus and a national strategy to  improve homeland security and enhance partnerships between federal,  state and local governments, and the private sector, to guard against and  respond to terrorist attacks. The establishment of the Office of National  Preparedness (ONP) within the Federal Emergency Management Agency  (FEMA) and the establishment of OHS under the leadership of Governor  Ridge are important and potentially significant initial steps.  We recognize  that the President, in his proposed 2003 budget, announced that OHS will  propose a national strategy later this year. As that strategy is finalized, we  believe that OHS should include three key aspects:  A definition of “homeland security” and clarification of the  appropriate roles and responsibilities of federal, state, and local  entities. A clear definition of homeland security is critical to  establishing parameters for structuring homeland security efforts and  providing a basis for defining and establishing appropriate roles and  missions. Our previous work has found fragmentation and overlap  among federal programs. Over 40 federal entities have roles in  combating terrorism and, taken as a whole, past federal efforts often  have resulted in a lack of accountability, as well as gaps and duplication  among programs. In addition to limitations on effectiveness that this  problem could create, state and local officials have noted that it can be  difficult to identify and leverage homeland security resources and  effectively partner with the federal government.  Partnerships not only  with state and local governments, but the private sector, will be critical  to successful achievement of our national goals.  Critical to this process  will be a re-examination of organizations and operations to identify the  most efficient, economic means to achieve our goals.  As a result,  organizational re-alignments and consolidations may be warranted.
The establishment of goals and performance indicators to guide  the nation’s homeland security efforts. The Congress has long  recognized the need to objectively assess the results of federal  programs. For the nation’s homeland security programs, however, we  have not yet seen the development of appropriate performance  measures or results-oriented outcomes.  The Government Performance  and Results Act of 1993 (commonly referred to as GPRA or the Results  Act) requires that government departments and agencies focus on the  performance and results of their programs rather than on program  resources and activities, as they had done in the past.  To establish and  report on such measures, agencies are required to set strategic and  annual goals, measure performance, and report on the degree to which  goals are met.
A careful choice of the most appropriate tools of government to  best implement the national strategy and achieve national goals.  The choice and design of policy tools, such as grants, regulations, tax  preferences, and partnerships, can enhance government’s capacity to  (1) target areas of highest risk to better ensure that scarce federal  resources address the most pressing needs, (2) promote shared  responsibilities by all parties, and (3) track and assess progress toward  achieving national goals.

		Homeland Security Budget

There has been a growing emphasis over the past decade on improving  preparedness for terrorist events through increased funding and resource  planning. After the nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway system on March  20, 1995, and the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, the United  States initiated a new effort to combat terrorism. In June 1995, Presidential  Decision Directive 39 was issued, enumerating responsibilities for federal  agencies in combating terrorism, including domestic terrorism.
Recognizing the vulnerability of the United States to various forms of  terrorism, the Congress passed the Defense Against Weapons of Mass  Destruction Act of 1996 (also known as the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici  program) to train and equip state and local emergency services personnel  who would likely be the first responders to a domestic terrorist event.  Other federal agencies, including those in the Department of Justice,  Department of Energy, FEMA and Environmental Protection Agency, have  also developed programs to assist state and local governments in preparing  for terrorist events.
The attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as the subsequent anthrax  episodes, dramatically exposed the nation’s vulnerabilities to domestic  terrorism and prompted numerous legislative proposals to further  strengthen our preparedness and response. During the first session of the  107th Congress, several bills were introduced with provisions relating to  state and local preparedness. For instance, H.R. 525, the Preparedness  Against Domestic Terrorism Act of 2001 proposed the establishment of a  Council on Domestic Terrorism Preparedness to enhance the capabilities  of state and local emergency preparedness and response.
Funding for homeland security increased substantially after the September  11th attacks. According to documents supporting the president’s fiscal year  2003 budget request, about $19.5 billion in federal funding for homeland  security was enacted in fiscal year 2002. The Congress added to this  amount by passing an emergency supplemental appropriation of $40 billion  dollars. According to the budget request documents, about one-quarter of  that amount, nearly $9.8 billion, was dedicated to strengthening our  defenses at home, resulting in an increase in total federal funding to  homeland security of about 50 percent, to $29.3 billion. The President’s  FY2003 Budget, if fully funded, would increase funds for homeland security  by over 70 percent from FY 2002 enacted levels.  Table 1 compares fiscal  year 2002 funding for homeland security by major categories with the  president’s proposal for fiscal year 2003.   Not included in the table is a  $3.3 billion emergency supplemental request sent to Congress on March  21st.
The events of last fall provide an impetus for agencies to rethink  approaches and priorities to enable them to better target resources to  address the urgent national preparedness needs.  In some cases the crisis  might prompt attention to long standing problems that have become more  pressing.  For instance, we have long pointed to overlapping and  duplicative food safety programs in the federal government.  While such  overlap has been responsible for poor coordination and inefficient  allocation of resources, they take on new meaning given the potential  threat from bioterrorism.

		Efforts to Obtain Information from OHS

Numerous discussions have been held about the need to enhance the  nation’s preparedness but, to date, we have not yet seen evidence of this  administration’s national preparedness goals and measurable performance  indicators. These are critical components for assessing program results  refining strategies and objectives. In addition, our work has shown that the  capability of state and local governments to effectively respond to  catastrophic terrorist attacks is uncertain.
All of these factors make it increasingly clear that the United States still has  a long way to go in meeting homeland security objectives.  It is equally  clear that both branches of the federal government must perform their  respective roles to ensure that the nation’s approach to homeland security  is effective and its results are accountable to the American people.  In the  past, Congress, in exercising its legitimate oversight role, has called upon  GAO to evaluate the policies, programs, performance and expenditures of a  variety of government agencies and authorities.  Congress has continued to  utilize GAO for this purpose with respect to homeland security.  As I  mentioned previously, GAO is currently responding to over 60 requests in  various homeland security areas like critical infrastructure, border  security, public health, non-proliferation, and related overall strategic  planning.  More than two-thirds of these requests are from either the chairs  or ranking members of congressional committees and subcommittees.   GAO’s reputation and dedication to providing professional, objective, fact- based, non-partisan and non-ideological audits, investigations and  evaluations is an integral part of Congress’ efforts to exercise its legitimate  role in the American governmental framework and to achieve national  policy objectives on behalf of the American people.
Indeed, the importance and cost, as well as the long-term success, of  homeland security programs require a coordinated effort of the executive  and legislative branches of government.  The Congress’ role in  appropriation of funds and oversight of programs is well established.   While the Congress has appropriated substantial sums for homeland  security, its efforts to engage in effective oversight have been hampered as  a result of the homeland security structure established under the executive  order.  Effective accountability cannot be achieved without adequate  Congressional oversight, and effective oversight cannot be achieved  without appropriate access to records and other information.
In this regard, our efforts to assist the Congress in obtaining information  from the OHS have to date not borne fruit.  We have tried to engage the  Office both formally and informally.  We have provided assurances that we  recognize the magnitude of the effort OHS is undertaking and that we have  taken steps to consolidate the many information requests we have received  from the Congress.  We are committed to minimizing the burden on OHS by  requesting relevant information from departments and agencies whenever  possible.  Nevertheless, there remains a certain core of information that  only OHS can provide.  Despite a written request, meeting and telephone  conversations, to date we have not received this information.  Importantly,  OHS has recently informed us that they are willing to “engage” with GAO.   It is important that we begin to receive information we need.  As of now, a  meeting is scheduled for next week.  We are hopeful that as long as both  parties are reasoned and reasonable about our respective needs and  obligations that we will be able to obtain access to the information that we  need from OHS.  However, actions speak louder than words and only time  will tell.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, it is clear that a long-term effort will be  required for the nation to become more secure from, and able to respond  to, attacks on our homeland.  America’s national strategy must be both  affordable and sustainable over the years ahead.  It is also important to  note that the risk for protecting the nation can never be reduced to zero –  and our strategies and activities should reflect this important principle as  we work to improve the nation’s security.  In my testimony today, I have  emphasized the importance of establishing a statutory framework for  homeland security, and discussed recommendations for a national  homeland security strategy and its impact on the budget. I also raised  important issues regarding accountability and access to records. As  increasing demands are placed on budgets at all levels of government, it  will be necessary to put our longer term fiscal house in order.  In particular,  agencies will need to revise, reassess and reprioritize their strategic goals  and initiatives to better target available resources to address urgent  homeland security needs.
This completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to  any questions you or other members of the Committee may have.

Related GAO Products

	Homeland Security

Homeland Security: Progress Made; More Direction and Partnership  Sought, GAO-02-490T. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2002.
Homeland Security: Challenges and Strategies in Addressing Short- and  Long-Term National Needs. GAO-02-160T. Washington, D.C.: November 7,  2001.
Homeland Security: A Risk Management Approach Can Guide  Preparedness Efforts. GAO-02-208T. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2001.
Homeland Security: Need to Consider VA’s Role in Strengthening Federal  Preparedness. GAO-02-145T. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Homeland Security: Key Elements of a Risk Management Approach.  GAO-02-150T. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2001.
Homeland Security: A Framework for Addressing the Nation’s Issues.  GAO-01-1158T. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2001.

	Combating Terrorism

Combating Terrorism: Intergovernmental Partnership in a National  Strategy to Enhance State and Local Preparedness. GAO-02-547T.  Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2002.
Combating Terrorism: Key Aspects of a National Strategy to Enhance  State and Local Preparedness. GAO-02-473T. Washington, D.C.: March 1,  2002.
Combating Terrorism: Considerations for Investing Resources in  Chemical and Biological Preparedness. GAO-01-162T. Washington, D.C.:  October 17, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related  Recommendations. GAO-01-822. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Improve DOD’s Antiterrorism  Program Implementation and Management. GAO-01-909. Washington,  D.C.: September 19, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Comments on H.R. 525 to Create a President’s  Council on Domestic Preparedness. GAO-01-555T. Washington, D.C.: May  9, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Observations on Options to Improve the Federal  Response. GAO-01-660T. Washington, D.C.: April 24, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Comments on Counterterrorism Leadership and  National Strategy. GAO-01-556T. Washington, D.C.: March 27, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: FEMA Continues to Make Progress in  Coordinating Preparedness and Response. GAO-01-15. Washington, D.C.:  March 20, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Federal Response Teams Provide Varied  Capabilities; Opportunities Remain to Improve Coordination. GAO-01- 14. Washington, D.C.: November 30, 2000.
Combating Terrorism: Need to Eliminate Duplicate Federal Weapons of  Mass Destruction Training. GAO/NSIAD-00-64. Washington, D.C.: March  21, 2000.
Combating Terrorism: Observations on the Threat of Chemical and  Biological Terrorism. GAO/T-NSIAD-00-50. Washington, D.C.: October 20,  1999.
Combating Terrorism: Need for Comprehensive Threat and Risk  Assessments of Chemical and Biological Attack. GAO/NSIAD-99-163.  Washington, D.C.: September 7, 1999.
Combating Terrorism: Observations on Growth in Federal Programs.  GAO/T-NSIAD-99-181. Washington, D.C.: June 9, 1999.
Combating Terrorism: Analysis of Potential Emergency Response  Equipment and Sustainment Costs. GAO-NSIAD-99-151. Washington,  D.C.: June 9, 1999.
Combating Terrorism: Use of National Guard Response Teams Is  Unclear. GAO/NSIAD-99-110. Washington, D.C.: May 21, 1999.
Combating Terrorism: Observations on Federal Spending to Combat  Terrorism. GAO/T-NSIAD/GGD-99-107. Washington, D.C.: March 11, 1999.
Combating Terrorism: Opportunities to Improve Domestic Preparedness  Program Focus and Efficiency. GAO-NSIAD-99-3. Washington, D.C.:  November 12, 1998.
Combating Terrorism: Observations on the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici  Domestic Preparedness Program. GAO/T-NSIAD-99-16. Washington, D.C.:  October 2, 1998.
Combating Terrorism: Threat and Risk Assessments Can Help Prioritize  and Target Program Investments. GAO/NSIAD-98-74. Washington, D.C.:  April 9, 1998.
Combating Terrorism: Spending on Governmentwide Programs Requires  Better Management and Coordination. GAO/NSIAD-98-39. Washington,  D.C.: December 1, 1997.

	Public Health

Bioterrorism: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Role in  Public Health Protection. GAO-02-235T. Washington, D.C.: November 15,  2001.
Bioterrorism: Review of Public Health and Medical Preparedness. GAO- 02-149T. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2001.
Bioterrorism: Public Health and Medical Preparedness. GAO-02-141T.  Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2001.
Bioterrorism: Coordination and Preparedness. GAO-02-129T. Washington,  D.C.: October 5, 2001.
Bioterrorism: Federal Research and Preparedness Activities. GAO-01-915.  Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001.
Chemical and Biological Defense: Improved Risk Assessments and  Inventory Management Are Needed. GAO-01-667. Washington, D.C.:  September 28, 2001.
West Nile Virus Outbreak: Lessons for Public Health Preparedness.  GAO/HEHS-00-180. Washington, D.C.: September 11, 2000.
Need for Comprehensive Threat and Risk Assessments of Chemical and  Biological Attacks. GAO/NSIAD-99-163. Washington, D.C.: September 7,  1999.
Chemical and Biological Defense: Program Planning and Evaluation  Should Follow Results Act Framework. GAO/NSIAD-99-159. Washington,  D.C.: August 16, 1999.
Combating Terrorism: Observations on Biological Terrorism and Public  Health Initiatives. GAO/T-NSIAD-99-112. Washington, D.C.: March 16,  1999.

	Disaster Assistance

Disaster Assistance: Improvement Needed in Disaster Declaration  Criteria and Eligibility Assurance Procedures. GAO-01-837. Washington,  D.C.: August 31, 2001.
FEMA and Army Must Be Proactive in Preparing States for Emergencies.  GAO-01-850. Washington, D.C.: August 13, 2001 Federal Emergency Management Agency: Status of Achieving Key  Outcomes and Addressing Major Management Challenges. GAO-01-832.  Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2001.

	Budget and Management

Budget Issues: Long-Term Fiscal Challenges. GAO-02-467T. Washington,  D.C.: February 27, 2002 Results-Oriented Budget Practices in Federal Agencies. GAO-01-1084SP.  Washington, D.C.: August 2001.
Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views on Key Management  Issues Vary Widely across Agencies. GAO-01-0592. Washington, D.C.: May  2001.
Determining Performance and Accountability Challenges and High  Risks. GAO-01-159SP. Washington, D.C.: November 2000.
Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission  Fragmentation and Program Overlap. GAO/AIMD-97-156. Washington,  D.C.: August 29, 1997.

Summary:
What GAO Found

In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Administration took several steps to strengthen homeland security, including the creation of an Office of Homeland Security (OHS). The success of a homeland security strategy requires all levels of government and the private sector to communicate and cooperate with one another. The federal government must formulate realistic budget and resource plans to support the implementation of an efficient and effective homeland security program. A fundamental review of existing programs and operations can create the necessary fiscal flexibility by weeding out out-dated, poorly targeted, or inefficient programs. Although Congress called upon GAO to evaluate the effectiveness of OHS programs, GAO has experienced difficulty in gaining access to this information.