|
Statement
on Homeland Security
The Honorable Lee H. Hamilton
Testimony before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
October 12, 2001
Chairman Lieberman,
Ranking Member Thompson, members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you this morning.
I commend you for your examination of ways to strengthen our
homeland security, a challenge of great importance to this
country and its citizens. Across
this great land, Americans are worried about their personal
security and anxious that you act to improve it.
The United States remains highly vulnerable to terrorist attacks
-- despite our mobilization of recent weeks.
We are preparing well to protect against the type of attack that
occurred on Sept. 11 -- but are we preparing well for the many
other possible types of attack, including those from nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons, or from information warfare?
The core of our national security strategy must be defense of
the homeland.
We must invest far more resources in strengthening the security
of our borders, transportation hubs, and cities, and in
protecting the crucial infrastructure of our economy, financial
systems, energy supplies, and computer networks.
We also must improve our capacity to respond to terrorist
attacks so that the loss of life in any attack is minimized.
There are many political, economic and military actions that
must be taken to improve the security of Americans, and your
focus in this hearing is an important one: how do we organize
the federal government to meet the terrorist threat to the
country?
The threshold question is: how serious of a threat to national
security is terrorism? If
it is the No. 1 threat, as the Hart-Rudman commission found, the
federal government should be organized, and the federal budget
should be allocated, to assure that homeland security is the
highest priority.
Czar or agency?
Two schools of thought on organizing for homeland security are
emerging.
-- 1) One school envisions a White House office of similar
authority to the National Security Council or the National
Economic Council. Its
primary job would be coordinating the activities of the various
federal agencies and state and local authorities involved in
homeland security. This
is the approach President Bush has chosen in establishing a
Homeland Security Office headed by Tom Ridge.
-- 2) The second school envisions a cabinet official with direct
control over a department, budget, and staff.
This department would have responsibility for planning,
coordinating, and integrating all U.S. programs involving
homeland security. This
is the approach recommended by the Hart-Rudman commission, which
I served on, and by the legislation introduced by Sen.
Lieberman.
President Bush's establishment of the Homeland Security Office
is a step in the right direction, but greater steps are
required.
Clout, money, and staff
The key question in organizing for homeland security is: Will
the new government office or agency have sufficient clout,
money, and staff to do what is necessary to protect our
security?
Will Gov. Ridge be able to give orders to the many disparate
agencies involved in homeland security, many of which have long
histories of bureaucratic rivalry?
For instance, will he be able to tell the Department of
Defense to alter its budget or tell the CIA to rearrange its
priorities?
The administration has emphasized that Gov. Ridge will have
access to the President and strong support from him.
But that is not enough.
Dozens of people have access to the President.
Without a legislative framework providing budgetary
authority and staff, his power will be uncertain and subject to
the vagaries of this President's (or future Presidents')
attention to homeland security, which may wax and wane in the
years ahead.
It looks like Gov. Ridge will have borrowed staff and uncertain
power over other department budgets.
If he has little control over the counterterrorism
budgets of the more than 40 agencies he is supposed to oversee,
he will lack the tools necessary to force those agencies to
carry out his plans and work together.
It is also unclear whether Gov. Ridge will have sufficient
access to intelligence, which is necessary if he is to prevent
and respond quickly to attempted terrorism.
Within the White House there are two other new senior officials
for anti-terrorism, who report to Gov. Ridge and Condoleezza
Rice. How will they
relate to the Homeland Security Office?
Gov. Ridge needs a permanent statutory framework to establish a
clear and strong line of authority and to gain budgetary control
over other agencies.
A Homeland Security
Agency
My view is Congress should establish a homeland security agency
or department whose director is a cabinet official.
Congressional legislation is needed to make the agency
permanent.
For the agency to be effective it must have the power to force
the various federal agencies involved in homeland security --
from the FBI to the Department of Defense -- to act.
The head of the agency should have budget and line authority
over the agencies under him.
He must be more than a coordinator if he is to do his job
as well as it can be done.
I have always been skeptical of interagency cooperation and
coordination. I
recognize that much government work in ordinary times is done in
that manner. But
these are not ordinary times.
We are at war, and the business of homeland security is
an urgent national priority.
The head of the homeland security agency must have the
power to act, not just to advise and coordinate.
The head of the agency must also have the energetic and
sustained backing of the President.
Bureaucracies do not cooperate with each other unless
they are forced to do so by the President.
The President must force bureaucrats to meet political
goals.
The homeland security agency should be built upon the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, with the three organizations
currently on the front line of border security -- the Coast
Guard (currently in the Department of Transportation), the
Customs Service (currently in the Department of Treasury), and
the Border Patrol (currently in the Department of Justice) --
integrated into it.
The agency should not have police or military authority.
Nor should it be an intelligence collection agency.
However, it should be the central coordinating agency for
anticipating, preventing, and responding to attacks on the
homeland. It should
coordinate and oversee efforts by the military and the
intelligence community to beef up homeland defense.
A primary mission of the National Guard should be to reorganize,
train, and equip itself to defend the homeland against terrorist
attack.
Our homeland security effort should include more research into
effective anti-terrorism strategies and regular exercises to
prepare us to respond to any kind of attack.
We should invest in programs to protect against the wide range
of serious threats that we face.
That will mean spending more on protection against
terrorism and chemical, biological, or nuclear attack.
The director of a new homeland security agency should begin his
work by setting priorities.
-- He must determine what kind of attacks are most likely, and
what we can do to prevent them.
-- He must determine where we should focus our homeland security
personnel and resources.
-- He must educate the American people about security threats
and give them practical advice.
He may not get it all right.
The United States has so many possible targets that it is
extremely difficult to protect them all.
But we must try to protect as many potential targets as
possible.
Immigration: Our
homeland security effort must include tighter monitoring of
immigration and other cross-border traffic.
Last year 489 million people, 127 million cars, and
211,000 boats passed through our borders.
Once in the U.S. foreign nationals who have overstayed
their visas -- numbering over 3 million at any time -- easily
escape notice of the INS. Monitoring
the movement of all of these people and goods is a monumental
task.
The U.S. has a proud tradition of openness to foreign visitors.
For years efficiency has trumped security.
We should not close our borders or put up excessive
barriers to entry, but we must improve our monitoring of
cross-border traffic and of foreigners already in the U.S.
We must screen visa applicants with greater scrutiny and
pursue foreign nationals who have overstayed their visas more
aggressively.
The role of Congress
Congress has an important role to play in establishing the
legislative framework for a homeland security agency and
overseeing all homeland security efforts.
Congress should reorganize itself to deal with homeland security
more effectively. It
should form a joint select committee for homeland security, or
individual committees in the House and Senate, to provide
congressional support and oversight.
A homeland security committee
would simplify the job of the director of the homeland security
agency -- for instance, by reducing the number of times he must
testify on the Hill -- and would provide a centralized body for
homeland security deliberation and legislating in Congress.
Conclusion
Strengthening our homeland security is the most important
national security challenge we face.
It is critical that the government entities established
to deal with homeland security have sufficient clout, resources,
and staff to take the necessary steps to protect us.
A homeland security agency or department headed by a cabinet
official, and overseen by a select congressional committee on
homeland security, is the best means to protect our homeland.
|
