Although some interagency agreements for border security do exist, notably the Memorandum of Agreement on Maritime Domain Awareness among the Department of Defense, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Department of State, all affected agencies are not involved in a fully coordinated and integrated process. Therefore, we recommend that the Maritime Domain Awareness model be expanded to create an interactive and fully-integrated database system for "Border Security Awareness." It should include participation from all relevant U.S. government agencies, and State and local partners. Congress should mandate participation of all related Federal agencies in this activity, and provide sufficient resources to fund its implementation. The development and implementation of such a system, including appropriate resources for systems integration to be provided by the Congress, can be accomplished by the National Office for Combating Terrorism.

Second, a necessary corollary to inter-agency intelligence sharing is the need to expand intelligence sharing with state and local agencies responsible for critical aspects of law enforcement and customs checks. This concept may break with "inside-the-beltway" culture, but state and local agencies must be trusted with important intelligence and information if our border security effort is to be successful. The point is plain and simple: The full, timely dissemination and sharing of information among effected Federal, State, and local agencies will be critical in preventing the movement of foreign terrorists and their weapons across our borders.

• Third, we must foster intensive coordination between and among the relevant agencies. Information and intelligence sharing is just a start. The next level of interagency cooperation will mean coordinated operations between federal and state agencies with border responsibilities. Again, this coordination could be led by the National Office for Combating Terrorism, which would bring to bear the power and authority of the White House to establish a special inter-agency advisory panel on border security, ensure cooperation and eliminate turf struggles. That entity could be an expansion of the Border Interdiction Committee, formed in the late 1980s to address the problem of drug trafficking across U.S. borders. This advisory board can assist the director of the NOCT in developing program and resource priorities as part of the national strategy for combating terrorism and the related budget processes.

Fourth, we should enhance sensor and other detection and warning systems of the various agencies - but in a coordinated fashion to ensure each agency's system compliments the others' systems. Individual agencies have one or more activities underway that are intended to enhance enforcement and interdiction capabilities, through the use of static or mobile sensors and other detection devices. Valuable research and development is also underway in multiple agencies to extend such capabilities, especially in the area of non-intrusive inspection systems. There is, nevertheless, no comprehensive and fully-vetted plan among related agencies for critical aspects of such activities. Therefore, the National Office for Combating Terrorism should coordinate a plan for research and development among the

Conclusion

agencies, and for fielding and integration of sensor and other detection and warning systems, as well as elevation of priority for the application of resources for the execution of such a plan.

Finally, no border security plan will be successful unless we improve our cooperation
with Mexico and Canada. It will be imperative for the U.S. to implement more
comprehensive agreements on combating terrorism with the governments of Mexico
and Canada. Some agreements and protocols with both countries already exist, but
more needs to be done. We know from open-source material and from other sources
that Canada has been a country of choice for certain elements who have engaged or
who may seek to engage in terrorist activities against the United States.
Unfortunately, the laws of Canada do not explicitly make terrorist activities a crime
per se. As a result, Canada has been unable to take action against certain individuals
who may, for example, be conspiring to perpetrate a terrorist attack against the United
States. Country-to-country negotiations should be designed to strengthen laws that
will enhance our collective ability to deter, prevent, and respond to terrorist activities,
to exchange information on terrorist activities, and to assist in the apprehension of
known terrorists before they can strike.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Thompson, we must start preparing our Nation to defend freedom within our borders today. The President and the Congress face solemn decisions about how we proceed and there is little time for deliberation.

The members of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction are convinced, upon nearly three years of study, that there is an immediate need for appointment of a senior person at the federal level - in the White House - who both has the responsibility and the authority to coordinating our vast national resources and efforts - federal, state and local.

As our great democratic institutions move forward toward a solution, allow me to offer a couple of observations. This is not a partisan political issue. It transcends partisanship. It is about the preservation of freedom and the American way of life.

After a generation of moral relativity an equivocation, let there be no debate or doubt that the hijacking of four commercial airplanes and the tragedies that followed on September 11 clearly demonstrated that evil exists in our world.

However we as a democracy decide to approach this evil force, we must always remember that terrorism is tyranny. Its aim is to strip away our rights and liberties and replace them with fear. As Americans, it is our duty and our destiny to strike down tyranny wherever it may arise. We did in World War I, again in World War II, in Korea, and later in Kuwait. The battlefields and warriors change, but the enemy is always the same.

In the face of this evil, we will not be afraid, but strong. We will not divide, but unite. We will not doubt, but affirm our faith in freedom, each other, and the grace of God. And freedom will prevail.

Summary

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

We at GAO, along with all Americans, were shocked and saddened by the coordinated terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The events of that day remind us that terrorism victimizes real people-men, women, and children our families, friends, neighbors, and colleagues. Our hearts go out to the families of the victims of the attack and to the families of the heroic rescue crews, those responders who were lost trying to save others. They and many other responders have served with distinction and valor.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you today a framework for addressing federal efforts to provide for homeland security. I would like to address the issue by making three points. First, I will discuss the nature of the threats that face the United States today. Second, I will offer some thoughts on what government could do to both counter the threats and provide for a more secure homeland. Third, I will offer a framework for how the government might organize a homeland security program. We have completed work in a variety of areas related to homeland security, and I will reiterate some of our major recommendations from this work.

According to a variety of U.S. intelligence assessments, the United States now confronts a range of increasingly diffuse threats that puts greater destructive power into the hands of small states, groups, and individuals and threatens our values and way of life. These threats range from incidents of terrorism and information attacks on critical infrastructure to the potential use of weapons of mass destruction and the spread of infectious diseases. Each one of these threats could cause massive casualties and disruption.

Our work indicates that in efforts of this kind—which involve many federal agencies as well as state and local governments, the private sector, and private citizens-the federal government must address three fundamental needs. First, the government needs clearly defined and effective leadership with a clear vision to develop and implement a homeland security strategy in coordination with all relevant partners, and the ability to marshal the necessary resources to get the job done. Second, a national homeland security strategy should be developed based on a comprehensive assessment of national threats and risks. Third, the large number of organizations that will be involved in homeland security need to have clearly articulated roles, responsibilities, and accountability mechanisms.

The Nature of the
Threat Facing the
United States

Crafting a strategy for homeland security involves reducing the risk where possible, assessing the nation's vulnerabilities, and identifying the critical infrastructure most in need of protection. To be comprehensive, the strategy should include steps to use intelligence assets or other means to identify attackers and prevent attacks before they occur, harden potential targets to minimize the damage from an attack, and effectively manage the consequences of an incident. In addition, the strategy should focus resources on areas of greatest need and measure performance against strategic goals. Because the plan will need to be executed nationally, the federal govemment can assign roles to federal agencies once the strategy is developed, but also will need to develop cooperative partnerships with state and local governments as well as with the private and not-for-profit sectors. Effective homeland security also will require forming international partnerships to identify attackers, prevent attacks, and retaliate if there are any attacks.

As we noted in GAO's strategic plan, the United States and other nations face increasingly diffuse threats. In the future, potential adversaries are more likely to strike vulnerable civilian or military targets in nontraditional ways to avoid direct confrontation with our military forces on the battlefield. The President's December 2000 national security strategy states that porous borders, rapid technological change, greater information flow, and the destructive power of weapons now within the reach of small states, groups, and individuals make such threats more viable and endanger our values, way of life, and the personal security of our citizens.

Hostile nations, terrorist groups, transnational criminals, and even individuals may target American people, institutions, and infrastructure with weapons of mass destruction and outbreaks of infectious disease. They may attempt to disrupt or destroy our information systems through cyber warfare. International criminal activities such as money laundering, arms smuggling, and drug trafficking can undermine the stability of social and financial institutions and the health of our citizens. As we witnessed in the tragic events of last week, some of the emerging threats can produce mass casualties. Others can lead to mass disruption of critical infrastructure and can hold serious implications for both our domestic and the global economy, as we saw when the New York Stock Exchange reopened for trading this past Monday and the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 600 points. Terrorist attacks also could compromise the integrity or delivery of water or electricity to our citizens, compromise the safety of the traveling public, and undermine the soundness of government and commercial data systems supporting a myriad of activities.