Mr. HORN. Now we've got Ms. Dalton, who is the strategy director for the General Accounting Office. The General Accounting Office is headed by the Comptroller General of the United States, Dave Walker. He's done a wonderful job and he's got a great crew and we always ask them to come to these hearings because we want them, since they have over 58 reports, and you can get it, just send them a letter and they have been into the terrorist bit for several years and so we want Ms. Dalton. There's always something we missed and that's why I always put you here. You have a broad picture on what should we have done that we didn't do.

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA DALTON, STRATEGY DIRECTOR, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Ms. DALTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Moran. It is a pleasure to be here in Kansas to discuss these critical issues. 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 truly an integrated approach bringing together the resources of all levels of government and the private sector and we have certainly heard today many aspects of the roles and response of both State and local government. In my testimony today, I would like to focus on challenges facing us of establishing a leadership structure, defining roles, developing performance goals and measures and deploying the appropriate tools to best achieve and sustain national goals.

President Bush has taken a number of important steps to enhance the country's homeland security efforts, including creating the Office of Homeland Security, proposing the Department of Homeland Security and most recently putting forth a national strategy. Both the House and the Senate have worked diligently on these issues and currently are deliberating many current proposals related to homeland security. The proposals to create a statutorily based Department of Homeland Security hold promise to strengthen leadership in this area and specifically call for coordination and collaboration with State and local governments and the private sector. Many aspects of the proposed consolidation of homeland security programs are in line with previous GAO's recommendation and show promise toward reducing fragmentation and improving coordination, both among levels of government and the private sector. For example, the new department would consolidate Federal programs for State and local planning and preparedness from several agencies and place them under a single organizational umbrella. Based on prior work, we believe that the consolidation of some homeland security functions makes sense and will, if properly organized and implemented over time, lead to more efficient, effective and coordinated programs, better intelligence sharing and more robust protection of people, borders and critical infrastructure.

However, implementation of a new department will be an extremely complex task, and in the short term, the magnitude of the challenges that the new department faces will clearly require substantial time and effort, and as the Comptroller General has previously testified, will take additional resources to make it effective in the short term. The proposals also may result in other concerns such as maintaining a proper balance in programs with dual pur

pose missions, whether they be public health, research activities or food safety.

The recently issued National Strategy for Homeland Security provides additional clarification of roles and responsibilities. It lays out four strategic objectives; preventing terrorist attacks within the United States, reducing vulnerability to terrorism and minimizing damage and recovery from attacks, the strategy provides for strong State and local roles. However, challenges will remain in defining appropriate inter-governmental roles. Achieving national preparedness hinges on creating effective and real partnerships, not with Federal. Decision makers have to balance national interest of prevention and preparedness with unique needs and interests of local communities. A one-size-fits-all Federal approach just simply will not work. Our fieldwork at Federal agencies should be conceived as national, not Federal in nature. And at local governments for this commitment signifies a shift is potentially underway in the definition of roles and responsibilities between Federal, State and local governments. These changes may have far reaching consequences for homeland security and accountability to the public.

The challenges posed by the new threats are prompting officials at all levels of government to rethink long-standing divisions of responsibility for such areas as fire safety, services, infrastructure protection and airport security. In many areas proposals under consideration would impose a stronger Federal presence in the form of new national standards or assistance. For instance, Congress is currently considering mandating new vulnerability assessments and protective measures on local communities for drinking water facilities. Another area which we heard about today, first responders, reflects a dramatic upturn in the magnitude and role of the Federal Government in providing assistance and standards for fire service training, equipment and exercises.

Governments at the local level are also moving to rethink roles and responsibilities to address the unique scale and scope of the contemporary threats from terrorism. In our case studies, five metropolitan areas, we have identified several common forms of regional cooperation and coordination. These include special task force or working groups, improved collaboration among other public health entities, increased planning, mutual aid agreements and communications improvements.

Performance goals and measures are also needed in homeland security programs. As the national strategy and related implementation plans evolve, we would expect clearer performance expectations to emerge. Given the need for a highly integrated approach to the homeland security challenge, national performance goals and measures may best be developed in a collaborative way involving all levels of government and the private sector.

Communication is one example of an area in which standards have not yet been developed, and other first responders have continuously highlighted that standards are needed. That's what we have heard today. The national strategy calls for the proposed Department of Homeland Security to develop such a national communication plan to establish protocols, processes and the standards for technology acquisition.

Finally, the choice and the design of the policy tools the Federal Government uses to engage and involve other levels of government in the private sector in enhancing homeland security will have important consequences for performance and accountability. Governments have a variety of policy tools, including direct grants, regulations, tax incentives, and information-sharing mechanisms, available to motivate other levels of government or the private sector to address security concerns. The choice of policy tools will affect sustainability of efforts, accountability and flexibility, and targeting of

resources.

In conclusion, although we have taken a number of important steps, many challenges do remain. Our government partnerships will be critical to meeting those challenges. Thank you, Mr. Chair

man.

Mr. HORN. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton follows:]

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 performanc 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 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