Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I appreciate the opportunity to be here to discuss issues critical to successful federal leadership of, assistance to, and partnership with state and local governments to enhance homeland security. As you are aware, the challenges posed by homeland security exceed the capacity and authority of any one level of government. Protecting the nation against these unique threats calls for a truly integrated approach, bringing together the resources of all levels of government. The President's recently released national strategy for homeland security emphasizes security as a shared national responsibility involving close cooperation among all levels of government.' In addition, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the House has passed (H.R. 5005), and the Senate will take under consideration, after the August recess, legislation (S. 2452) to create a Department of Homeland Security. Although the bills are different, they share the goal of establishing a statutory Department of Homeland Security.

In my testimony today, I will focus on the challenges facing the federal government in (1) establishing a leadership structure for homeland security, (2) defining the roles of different levels of government, (3) developing performance goals and measures, and (4) deploying appropriate tools to best achieve and sustain national goals. My comments are based on a body of GAO's work on terrorism and emergency preparedness and policy options for the design of federal assistance, our review of many other studies,' and the Comptroller General's recent testimonies on the proposed Department of Homeland Security (DHS).* In

'National Strategy for Homeland Security. The White House. Office of Homeland Security, July 16, 2002. In addition, the Office of Homeland Security issued a companion publication titled State and Local Actions for Homeland Security identifying measures state and local governments are taking to improve homeland security.

'See attached list of related GAO products.

These studies include the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for
Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, Third Annual Report (Arlington, Va:
Dec. 15, 2001); and the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, Road
Map for Security: Imperative for Change (February 15, 2001).

Homeland Security: Critical Design and Implementation Issues. GAO-02-957T
(Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2002) and Homeland Security: Proposal for Cabinet Agency
Has Merit, But Implementation Will Be Pivotal to Success. GAO-02-886T (Washington,
D.C.: June 25, 2002).

addition, I will draw on GAO's ongoing work for this Subcommittee, including an examination of the diverse ongoing and proposed federal preparedness programs, as well as a series of case studies we are conducting that examine preparedness issues facing state and local governments. To date, we have conducted interviews of officials in five geographically diverse cities: Baltimore, Maryland; Denver, Colorado; Los Angeles, California; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Seattle, Washington. We have also interviewed state emergency management officials in these states.

In summary:

The proposed Department of Homeland Security will clearly have a central role in the success of efforts to enhance homeland security. Many aspects of a consolidation of homeland security programs have the potential to reduce fragmentation, improve coordination, and clarify roles and responsibilities. Realistically, however, in the short term, the magnitude of the challenges facing the new department will clearly require substantial time and effort and will take additional resources to make it effective. The recently released national strategy is intended to guide implementation of the complex mission of the proposed department and the efforts of other federal and non-federal entities responsible for homeland security initiatives.

Appropriate roles and responsibilities within and between the levels of government and with the private sector are evolving and need to be clarified. New threats are prompting a reassessment and shifting of longstanding roles and responsibilities. Until now these shifts have been occurring on a piecemeal and ad hoc basis without benefit of an overarching framework and criteria to guide the process. The administration's national strategy recognizes the challenge posed by a complex structure of overlapping federal, state, and local governments— our country has more than 87,000 jurisdictions. There are also challenges in defining the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the private sector.

federal and non-federal actors may best be developed in a collaborative way involving all levels of government and the private sector. Standards are one tool the national strategy emphasizes in areas such as training, equipment, and communications.

A careful choice of the most appropriate assistance tools is critical to achieve and sustain national goals. The choice and design of policy tools, such as grants, regulations, and tax incentives, can enhance the capacity of all levels of government to target areas of highest risk and greatest need, promote shared responsibilities by all parties, and track and assess progress toward achieving national preparedness goals. The national strategy notes that until recently, federal support for domestic preparedness efforts has been relatively small and disorganized, with various departments and agencies providing money in a "tangled web" of grant programs. It notes the shared responsibility of providing homeland security between federal, state, and local governments, and the private sector and recognizes the importance of using appropriate tools of government to improve preparedness.

Homeland security is a complex mission that involves a broad range of functions performed throughout government, including law enforcement, transportation, food safety and public health, information technology, and emergency management, to mention only a few. Federal, state, and local governments have a shared responsibility in preparing for catastrophic terrorist attacks as well as other disasters. The initial responsibility for planning, preparing, and response falls upon local governments and their organizations such as police, fire departments, emergency medical personnel, and public health agencies-which will almost invariably be the first responders to such an occurrence. For its part, the federal government has principally provided leadership, training, and funding assistance.

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-may reimburse state and local governments for between 75 and 100 percent of eligible costs, including response and recovery activities.

In addition to post disaster assistance, there has been an increasing emphasis over the past decade on federal support of state and local governments to enhance national preparedness for terrorist attacks. 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 FEMA; the departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and Energy; and the Environmental Protection Agency, have also developed programs to assist state and local governments in preparing for terrorist events.

As emphasis on terrorism prevention and response grew, however, so did concerns over coordination and fragmentation of federal efforts. More than 40 federal entities have a role in combating and responding to terrorism, and more than 20 in bioterrorism alone. Our past work, conducted prior to the establishment of an Office of Homeland Security and the current proposals to create a new Department of Homeland Security, has shown coordination and fragmentation problems stemming largely from a lack of accountability within the federal government for terrorism-related programs and activities. Further, our work found there was an absence of a central focal point that caused a lack of a cohesive effort and the development of similar and potentially duplicative programs. Also, as the Gilmore Commission report notes, state and local officials have voiced frustration about their attempts to obtain federal funds from different programs administered by different agencies and have argued that the application process is burdensome and inconsistent among federal agencies.