DHS serves as the sector-specific agency for 10 of the sectors: information technology; communications; transportation systems; chemical; emergency services; nuclear reactors, material, and waste; postal and shipping; dams; government facilities; and commercial facilities. Other sector-specific agencies are the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, the Interior, the Treasury, and the Environmental Protection Agency. (See table 1 for a list of sector-specific agencies and a brief description of each sector). The nine sector-specific plans we reviewed generally met NIPP requirements and DHS’s sector-specific plan guidance; however, the extent to which the plans met this guidance, and therefore their usefulness in enabling DHS to identify gaps and interdependencies across the sectors, varied depending on the maturity of the sector and on how the sector defines its assets, systems, and functions. As required by the NIPP risk management framework (see fig. 1), sector-specific plans are to promote the protection of physical, cyber, and human assets by focusing activities on efforts to (1) set security goals; (2) identify assets, systems, networks, and functions; (3) assess risk based on consequences, vulnerabilities, and threats; (4) establish priorities based on risk assessments; (5) implement protective programs; and (6) measure effectiveness. In addition to these NIPP risk management plan elements outlined above and according to DHS’s sector-specific plan guidance, the plans are also to address the sectors’ efforts to (1) implement a research and development program for critical infrastructure protection and (2) establish a structure for managing and coordinating the responsibilities of the federal departments and agencies—otherwise known as sector-specific agencies—identified in HSPD-7 as responsible for critical-infrastructure protection activities specified for the 17 sectors. Most of the plans included the required elements of the NIPP risk management framework, such as security goals and the methods the sectors expect to use to prioritize infrastructure, as well as to develop and implement protective programs. However, the plans varied in the extent to which they included key information required for each plan element. For example, all of the plans described the threat analyses that the sector conducts, but only one of the plans described any incentives used to encourage voluntary risk assessments, as required by the NIPP. Such incentives are important because a number of the industries in the sectors are privately owned and not regulated, and the government must rely on voluntary compliance with the NIPP. Additionally, although the NIPP called for each sector to identify key protective programs, three of the nine plans did not address this requirement. DHS officials told us that this variance in the plans can, in large part, be attributed to the levels of maturity and cultures of the sectors, with the more mature sectors generally having more comprehensive and complete plans than sectors without similar prior working relationships. For example, the banking and finance and energy sector plans included most of the key information required for each plan element. According to DHS officials, this is a result of these sectors having a history and culture of working with the government to plan and accomplish many of the same activities that are being required for the sector-specific plans. Therefore, these sectors were able to create plans that were more comprehensive and developed than those of less mature sectors, such as the public health and health care and agriculture and food sectors. The plans also varied in how comprehensively they addressed their physical, human, and cyber assets, systems, and functions because sectors reported having differing views on the extent to which they were dependent on each of these assets, systems, and functions. According to DHS’s sector-specific plan guidance, a comprehensive identification of such assets is important because it provides the foundation on which to conduct risk analysis and identify the appropriate mix of protective programs and actions that will most effectively reduce the risk to the nation’s infrastructure. Yet, only one of the plans—drinking water and water treatment—specifically included all three categories of assets. For example, because the communications sector limited its definition of assets to networks, systems, and functions, it did not, as required by DHS’s plan guidance, include human assets in its existing security projects and the gaps it needs to fill related to these assets to support the sector’s goals. In addition, the national monuments and icons plan defined the sector as consisting of physical structures with minimal cyber and telecommunications assets because these assets are not sufficiently critical that damaging or destroying them would interfere with the continued operation of the physical assets. In contrast, the energy sector placed a greater emphasis on cyber attributes because it heavily depends on these cyber assets to monitor and control its energy systems. DHS officials also attributed the difference in the extent to which the plans addressed required elements to the manner in which the sectors define their assets and functions. The plans, according to DHS’s Office of Infrastructure Protection officials, are a first step in developing future protective measures. In addition, these officials said that the plans should not be considered to be reports of actual implementation of such measures. Given the disparity in the plans, it is unclear the extent to which DHS will be able to use them to identify gaps and interdependencies across the sectors in order to plan future protective measures. It is also unclear, from reviewing the plans, how far along each sector actually is in identifying assets, setting priorities, and protecting key assets. DHS officials said that to make this determination, they will need to review the sectors’ annual progress reports, due in this month, that are to provide additional information on plan implementation as well as identify sector priorities. Representatives of 10 of 32 councils said the plans were valuable because they gave their sectors a common language and framework to bring the disparate members of the sector together to better collaborate as they move forward with protection efforts. For example, the government facilities council representative said that the plan was useful because relationships across the sector were established during its development that have resulted in bringing previously disjointed security efforts together in a coordinated way. The banking and finance sector’s coordinating council representative said that the plan was a helpful way of documenting the history, the present state, and the future of the sector in a way that had not been done before and that the plan will be a working document to guide the sector in coordinating efforts. Similarly, an energy sector representative said that the plan provides a common format so that all participants can speak a common language, thus enabling them to better collaborate on the overall security of the sector. The representative also said that the plan brought the issue of interdependencies between the energy sector and other sectors to light and provided a forum for the various sectors to collaborate. DHS’s Office of Infrastructure Protection officials agreed that the main benefit of these plans was that the process of developing them helped the sectors to establish relationships between the private sector and the government and among private sector stakeholders that are key to the success of protection efforts. However, representatives of 8 of the 32 councils said the plans were not useful to their sectors because (1) the plans did not represent a true partnership between the federal and private sectors or were not meaningful to all the industries represented by the sector or (2) the sector had already taken significant protection actions, thus, developing the plan did not add value. The remaining council representatives did not offer views on this issue. Sector representatives for three transportation modes—rail, maritime, and aviation—reported that their sector’s plan was written by the government and that the private sector did not participate fully in the development of the plan or the review process. As a result, the representatives did not believe that the plan was of value to the transportation sector as a whole because it does not represent the interests of the private sector. Similarly, agriculture and food representatives said writing the plan proved to be difficult because of the sector’s diversity and size—more than 2,000,000 farms, one million restaurants, and 150,000 meat processing plants. They said that one of the sector’s biggest challenges was developing a meaningful document that could be used by all of the industries represented. As a result of these challenges, the sector submitted two plans in December 2006 that represented a best effort at the time, but the sector council said it intends to use the remainder of the 2007 calendar year to create a single plan that better represents the sector. In contrast, the coordinating council representative for nuclear reactors, materials, and waste sector said that because the sector’s security has been robust for a long time, the plan only casts the security of the sector in a different light, and the drinking water and water treatment systems sector said that the plan is a “snapshot in time” document for a sector that already has a 30-year history of protection, and thus the plan did not provide added value for the sector. Officials at DHS’s Office of Infrastructure Protection acknowledged that these sectors have a long history of working together and in some cases have been doing similar planning efforts. However, the officials said that the effort was of value to the government because it now has plans for all 17 sectors and it can begin to use the plans to address the NIPP risk management framework. Representatives of 11 of 32 councils said the review process associated with the plans was lengthy. They commented that they had submitted their plans in advance of the December 31, 2006, deadline, but had to wait 5 months for the plan to be approved. Eight of them also commented that while they were required to respond within several days to comments from DHS on the draft plans, they had to wait relatively much longer during the continuing review process for the next iteration of the draft. For example, a representative of the drinking water and water treatment sector said that the time the sector had to incorporate DHS’s comments into a draft of the plan was too short—a few days—and this led the sector to question whether its members were valued partners to DHS. DHS’s Infrastructure Protection officials agreed that the review process had been lengthy and that the comment periods given to sector officials were too short. DHS officials said this occurred because of the volume of work DHS had to undertake and because some of the sector-specific agencies were still learning to operate effectively with the private sector under a partnership model in which the private sector is an equal partner. The officials said that they plan to refine the process as the sector-specific agencies gain more experience working with the private sector. Conversely, representatives from eight of 32 councils said the review process for the plans worked well, and five of these council representatives were complimentary of the support they received from DHS. The remaining council representatives did not offer views on this topic. For example, an information technology (IT) sector coordinating council representative said that the review and feedback process on their plan worked well and that the Office of Infrastructure Protection has helped tremendously in bringing the plans to fruition. However, sector coordinating council representatives for six sectors also voiced concern that the trusted relationships established between the sectors and DHS might not continue if there were additional turnover in DHS, as has occurred in the past. For example, the representative of one council said they had established productive working relationships with officials in the Offices of Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security and Communications, but were concerned that these relationships were dependent on the individuals in these positions and that the relationships may not continue without the same individuals in charge at DHS. As we have reported in the past, developing trusted partnerships between the federal government and the private sector is critical to ensure the protection of critical infrastructure. Nine of 32 sector representatives said that their preexisting relationships with stakeholders helped in establishing and maintaining their sector councils, and two noted that establishing the councils had improved relationships. Such participation is critical to well-functioning councils. For example, representatives from the dams, energy, and banking and finance sectors, among others, said that existing relationships continue to help in maintaining their councils. In addition, the defense industrial base representatives said the organizational infrastructure provided by the sector councils is valuable because it allows for collaboration. Representatives from the national monuments and icons sector said that establishing the government sector council has facilitated communication within the sector. We also reported previously that long-standing relationships were a facilitating factor in council formation and that 10 sectors had formed either a government council or sector council that addressed critical infrastructure protection issues prior to DHS’s development of the NIPP. As a result, these 10 sectors were more easily able to establish government coordinating councils and sector coordinating councils under the NIPP model. Several councils also noted that the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC), created by DHS in March 2006 to facilitate communication and information sharing between the government and the private sector, has helped facilitate collaboration because it allows the government and industry to interact without being open to public scrutiny under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This is important because previously, meetings between the private sector and the government had to be open to the public, hampering the private sector’s willingness to share information. Conversely, seven sector council representatives reported difficulty in achieving and maintaining sector council membership, thus limiting the ability of the councils to effectively represent the sector. For example, the public health and health care sector representative said that getting the numerous sector members to participate is a challenge, and the government representative noted that because of this, the first step in implementing the sector-specific plan is to increase awareness about the effort among sector members to encourage participation. Similarly, due to the size of the commercial facilities sector, participation, while critical, varies among its industries, according to the government council representative. Meanwhile, the banking and finance sector representatives said that the time commitment for private sector members and council leaders makes participation difficult for smaller stakeholders, but getting them involved is critical to an effective partnership. Likewise, the IT sector representatives said engaging some government members in joint council meetings is a continuing challenge because of the members’ competing responsibilities. Without such involvement, the officials said, it is difficult to convince the private sector representatives of the value of spending their time participating on the council. Additionally, obtaining state and local government participation in government sector councils remains a challenge for five sectors. Achieving such participation is critical because these officials are often the first responders in case of an incident. Several government council representatives said that a lack of funding for representatives from these entities to travel to key meetings has limited state and local government participation. Others stated that determining which officials to include was a challenge because of the sheer volume of state and local stakeholders. DHS Infrastructure Protection officials said that the agency is trying to address this issue by providing funding for state and local participation in quarterly sector council meetings and has created a State, Local and Tribal and Territorial Government Coordinating Council (SLTTGCC)—composed of state, local, tribal, and territorial homeland security advisers—that serves as a forum for coordination across these jurisdictions on protection guidance, strategies, and programs. Eleven of the 32 council representatives reported continuing challenges with sharing information between the federal government and the private sector. For example, six council representatives expressed concerns about the viability of two of DHS’s main information-sharing tools—the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN) or the Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) program. We reported in April 2007 that the HSIN system was built without appropriate coordination with other information-sharing initiatives. In addition, in a strategic review of HSIN, DHS reported in April 2007 that it has not clearly defined the purpose and scope of HSIN and that HSIN has been developed without sufficient planning and program management. According to DHS Infrastructure Protection officials, although they encouraged the sectors to use HSIN, the system does not provide the capabilities that were promised, including providing the level of security expected by some sectors. As a result, they said the Office of Infrastructure Protection is exploring an alternative that would better meet the needs of the sectors. In addition, three council representatives expressed concerns about whether information shared under the PCII program would be protected. Although this program was specifically designed to establish procedures for the receipt, care, and storage of critical infrastructure information submitted voluntarily to the government, the representatives said potential submitters continue to fear that the information could be inadequately protected, used for future legal or regulatory action, or inadvertently released. In April 2006, we reported that DHS faced challenges implementing the program, including being able to assure the private sector that submitted information will be protected and specifying who will be authorized to have access to the information, as well as to demonstrate to the critical infrastructure owners the benefits of sharing the information to encourage program participation. We recommended, among other things, that DHS better (1) define its critical-infrastructure information needs and (2) explain how this information will be used to attract more users. DHS concurred with our recommendations. In September 2006 DHS issued a final rule that established procedures governing the receipt, validation, handling, storage, marking, and use of critical infrastructure information voluntarily submitted to DHS. DHS is in the process of implementing our additional recommendations that it define its critical-infrastructure information needs under the PCII program and better explain how this information will be used to build the private sector’s trust and attract more users. To date, DHS has issued a national plan aimed at providing a consistent approach to critical infrastructure protection, ensured that all 17 sectors have organized to collaborate on protection efforts, and worked with government and private sector partners to complete all 17 sector-specific plans. Nevertheless, our work has shown that sectors vary in terms of how complete and comprehensive their plans are. Furthermore, DHS recognizes that the sectors, their councils, and their plans must continue to evolve. As they do and as the plans are updated and annual implementation reports are provided that begin to show the level of protection achieved, it will be important that the plans and reports add value, both to the sectors themselves and to the government as a whole. This is critical because DHS is dependent on these plans and reports to meet its mandate to evaluate whether gaps exist in the protection of the nation’s most critical infrastructure and key resources and, if gaps exist, to work with the sectors to address the gaps. Likewise, DHS must depend on the private sector to voluntarily put protective measures in place for many assets. It will also be important that sector councils have representative members and that the sector-specific agencies have buy-in from these members on protection plans and implementation steps. One step DHS could take to implement our past recommendations to strengthen the sharing of information is for the PCII program to better define its critical infrastructure information needs and better explain how this information will be used to build the private sector’s trust and attract more users. As we have previously reported, such sharing of information and the building of trusted relationships are crucial to the protection of the nation’s critical infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have at any time. For further information on this testimony, please contact Eileen Larence at (202) 512-8777 or by e-mail at larencee@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include Susan Quinlan, Assistant Director; R. E. Canjar; Landis Lindsey; E. Jerry Seigler; and Edith Sohna. We assessed the sector specific plans (SSPs) using 8 criteria, consisting of 40 key information requirements. We extracted this information from the requirements included in the NIPP as well as on the detailed sector- specific plan guidance issued by DHS. Each criterion reflects a component DHS required for the completion of the SSP. The 8 criteria we used are listed below along with the corresponding 40 key information requirements. Section 1: Sector Profile and Goals 1. Did the sector include physical and human assets as part of its sector profile? 2. Does the SSP identify any regulations or key authorities relevant to the sector that affect physical and human assets and protection? 3. Does the SSP show the relationships between the sector specific agency and the private sector, other federal departments and agencies, and state and local agencies that are either owner/operators of assets or provide a supporting role to securing key resources? 4. Does the SSP contain sector-specific goals? 5. Does the SSP communicate the value of the plan to the private sector, other owners, and operators? Section 2: Identify Assets, Systems, Networks, and Functions 6. Does the SSP include a process for identifying the sector’s assets and functions, both now and in the future? 7. Does the SSP include a process to identify physical and human asset dependencies and interdependencies? 8. Does the SSP describe the criteria being used to determine which assets, systems, and networks are and are not of potential concern? 9. Does the SSP describe how the infrastructure information being collected will be verified for accuracy and completeness? 10. Does the SSP discuss the risk assessment process, including whether the sector is mandated by regulation or are primarily voluntary in nature. 11. Does the SSP address whether a screening process (process to determine whether a full assessment is required) for assets would be beneficial for the sector, and if so, does it discuss the methodologies or tools that would be used to do so? 12. Does the SSP identify how potential consequences of incidents, including worst case scenarios, would be assessed? 13. Does the SSP describe the relevant processes and methodologies used to perform vulnerability assessments? 14. Does the SSP describe any threat analyses that the sector conducts? 15. Does the SSP describe any incentives used to encourage voluntary performance of risk assessments? Section 4: Prioritize Infrastructure 16. Does the SSP identify the party responsible for conducting a risk-based prioritizing of the assets? 17. Does the SSP describe the process, current criteria, and frequency for prioritizing sector assets? 18. Does the SSP provide a common methodology for comparing both physical and human assets when prioritizing a sector’s infrastructure? Section 5: Develop and Implement Protective Programs 19. Does the SSP describe the process that the SSA will use to work with asset owners to develop effective long-term protective plans for the sector’s assets? 20. Does the SSP identify key protective programs (and their role) in the sector’s overall risk management approach? 21. Does the SSP describe the process used to identify and validate specific program needs? 22. Does the SSP include the minimum requirements necessary for the sector to prevent, protect, respond to, and recover from an attack? 23. Does the SSP address implementation and maintenance of protective programs for assets once they are prioritized? 24. Does the SSP address how the performance of protective programs is monitored by the sector-specific agencies and security partners to determine their effectiveness? Section 6: Measure Progress 25. Does the SSP explain how the SSA will collect, verify and report the information necessary to measure progress in critical infrastructure/key resources protection? 26. Does the SSP describe how the SSA will report the results of its performance assessments to the Secretary of Homeland Security? 27. Does the SSP call for the development and use of metrics that will allow the SSA to measure the results of activities related to assets? 28. Does the SPP describe how performance metrics will be used to guide future decisions on projects? 29. Does the SSP list relevant sector-level implementation actions that the SSA and its security partners deem appropriate? Section 7: Research and Development for Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources Protection 30. Does the SSP describe how technology development is related to the sector’s goals? 31. Does the SSP identify those sector capability requirements that can be supported by technology development? 32. Does the SSP describe the process used to identify physical and human sector-related research requirements? 33. Does the SSP identify existing security projects and the gaps it needs to fill to support the sector’s goals? 34. Does the SSP identify which sector governance structures will be responsible for R&D? 35. Does the SSP describe the criteria that are used to select new and existing initiatives? Section 8: Manage and Coordinate SSA Responsibilities 36. Does the SSP describe how the SSA intends to staff and manage its NIPP responsibilities? (e.g., creation of a program management office.) 37. Does the SSP describe the processes and responsibilities of updating, reporting, budgeting, and training? 38. Does the SSP describe the sector’s coordinating mechanisms and structures? 39. Does the SSP describe the process for developing the sector-specific investment priorities and requirements for critical infrastructure/key resource protection? 40. Does the SSP describe the process for information sharing and protection? This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Summary: As Hurricane Katrina so forcefully demonstrated, the nation's critical infrastructures--both physical and cyber--have been vulnerable to a wide variety of threats. Because about 85 percent of the nation's critical infrastructure is privately owned, it is vital that public and private stakeholders work together to protect these assets. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for coordinating a national protection strategy and has promoted the formation of government and private councils for the 17 infrastructure sectors as a collaborating tool. The councils, among other things, are to identify their most critical assets, assess the risks they face, and identify protective measures in sector-specific plans that comply with DHS's National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). This testimony is based primarily on GAO's July 2007 report on the sector-specific plans and the sector councils. Specifically, it addresses (1) the extent to which the sector-specific plans meet requirements, (2) the council members' views on the value of the plans and DHS's review process, and (3) the key success factors and challenges that the representatives encountered in establishing and maintaining their councils. In conducting the previous work, GAO reviewed 9 of the 17 draft plans and conducted interviews with government and private sector representatives of the 32 councils, 17 government and 15 private sector. Although the nine sector-specific plans GAO reviewed generally met NIPP requirements and DHS's sector-specific plan guidance, eight did not describe any incentives the sector would use to encourage owners to conduct voluntary risk assessments, as required by the NIPP. Most of the plans included the required elements of the NIPP risk management framework. However, the plans varied in how comprehensively they addressed not only their physical assets, systems, and functions, but also their human and cyber assets, systems and functions, a requirement in the NIPP, because the sectors had differing views on the extent to which they were dependent on each of these assets. A comprehensive identification of all three categories of assets is important, according to DHS plan guidance, because it provides the foundation on which to conduct risk analyses and identify appropriate protective actions. Given the disparity in the plans, it is unclear the extent to which DHS will be able to use them to identify security gaps and critical interdependencies across the sectors. DHS officials said that to determine this, they will need to review the sectors' annual reports. Representatives of the government and sector coordinating councils had differing views regarding the value of sector-specific plans and DHS's review of those plans. While 10 of the 32 council representatives GAO interviewed reported that they saw the plans as being useful for their sectors, representatives of eight councils disagreed because they believed the plans either did not represent a partnership among the necessary key stakeholders, especially the private sector or were not valuable because the sector had already progressed beyond the plan. In addition, representatives of 11 of the 32 councils felt the review process was too lengthy, but 8 thought the review process worked well. The remaining council representatives did not offer views on these issues. As GAO reported previously, representatives continued to report that their sector councils had preexisting relationships that helped them establish and maintain their sector councils. However, seven of the 32 representatives reported continuing difficulty achieving and maintaining sector council membership, thus limiting the ability of the councils to effectively represent the sector. Eleven council representatives reported continuing difficulties sharing information between the public and private sectors as a challenge, and six council representatives expressed concerns about the viability of the information system DHS intends to rely on to share information about critical infrastructure issues with the sectors or the effectiveness of the Protected Critical Infrastructure Information program--a program that established procedures for the receipt, care, and storage of information submitted to DHS. GAO has outstanding recommendations addressing this issue, with which DHS generally agreed and is in the process of implementing.