MITCHELL E. DANIELS, JR.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET BEFORE
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
APRIL 11, 2002
Mr. Chairman. Mr. Thompson, Members of the Committee, I am pleased to
be here this morning to discuss homeland security. The bills under review
this morning are meant to improve the way the Federal government is structured
regarding homeland security needs. Pursuant to the management responsibilities
inherent in my role as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
I am here to comment on the organizational issues involving a coordinated
homeland security effort within the Administration and to ensure they
are openly discussed between the Executive Branch and the Congress.
Our nation learned a terrible lesson on September 11th. The characteristics
of American society that we cherish -- our freedom, our openness, our
great cities, our modern transportation systems -- make us vulnerable
to terrorism of catastrophic proportions. This vulnerability will exist
even after we bring justice to those responsible for the events of September
1lth. Indeed, the threat of mass-destruction terrorism has become a reality
of life in the 21st Century. It is a permanent condition to which not
just America, but the entire world must adjust.
The federal government must have as its top priority securing the homeland
from future terrorist attacks. This will involve major new programs and
significant reforms by the federal government, several of which are described
in the FY 2003 Budget. But it will also involve new or expanded efforts
by state and local governments, private industry, non-governmental organizations,
and indeed all Americans. The higher priority we all now attach to homeland
security has already begun to ripple through the land.
Homeland security is a challenge of monumental scale and complexity.
It will not be cheap, easy, or quick. Achieving our homeland security
objectives will require vast sums of money, strenuous labor, and many
years. Our work has already begun, and it will continue. The American
people should have no doubt that ultimately we will succeed in weaving
a proper and permanent level of security into the fabric of America.
This President's FY 2003 budget reflects not just our absolute commitment
to achieving a much more secure homeland, but also our determination to
do so in a manner that preserves liberty and strengthens our economy.
September 11th and Our Immediate Response
The September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon have presented an unprecedented challenge to our nation. The
response has been, and must continue to be, equal to that challenge. In
the immediate aftermath of the attacks, Congress swiftly appropriated
$40 billion to compensate victims, aid reconstruction, wage war against
terrorism, and strengthen our defenses at home. In the seven months since
September 1lth, funding provided for homeland security purposes has helped
- increase the number of air marshals on our airlines;
- support the largest criminal investigation in U.S. history;
- acquire enough medicine to treat up to 10 million more people for
anthrax or other bacterial infections;
- investigate the sources of terrorist funding, and then freeze the
financial assets of more than 150 individuals and organizations connected
to international terrorism;
- deploy hundreds of Coast Guard cutters, aircraft, and small boats
to patrol the approaches to our ports and protect them from internal
or external threats;
- acquire equipment for certain major mail sorting facilities to find
and destroy anthrax bacteria and other biological agents of terror;
- station 8,000 National Guard troops at baggage-screening checkpoints
at 420 major airports; and,
- strengthen our intelligence capabilities, with the objective of detecting
terrorist threats before they materialize, so that we can prevent terrorist
Homeland Security Strategy
The Administration is now taking the next step. When the President established
a new Office of Homeland Security, under the leadership of Governor Tom
Ridge, he directed the Office "to develop and coordinate the implementation
of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist
threats or attacks." We have been building that strategy on many fronts,
and it is our intention to prepare a document this summer that will summarize
that strategy in one place. This strategy will meet four key tests:
At the same time we craft a national strategy, the Administration will
begin work immediately on four urgent and essential missions for the defense
of our homeland: ensuring state and local first responders (firefighters,
police, and rescue workers) are prepared for terrorism: enhancing our
defenses against biological attacks: securing our borders; and, sharing
information and using information technology to secure the homeland.
These four missions lead our homeland security agenda -- but they are
not the whole of it. We must also finish the job of securing our airways.
In 2003, the new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will strive
to meet the tight deadlines and rigorous aviation security requirements
set by Congress. In addition, we also propose a robust expansion in domestic
law enforcement work. The 2003 Budget requests enhancements to the capabilities
of the FBI and other law enforcement/intelligence agencies. The President's
Budget for 2003 includes total spending for homeland security that would
rise to $38 billion in 2003 -- an $18 billion increase over the total
for 2002, and a virtual doubling of the pre-September 11th levels.
On March 21" the President submitted a $27.1 billion supplemental
budget request to Congress to address the War on Terrorism, Homeland Security
and Economic Recovery. Funding for items included in this package meet
the following criteria: they are true emergencies; they address an immediate
and known requirement, and they cannot be met with existing funds. In
most cases, the funds would be required to be obligated this fiscal year.
Of this amount, $5.2 billion was provided for additional homeland security
- The strategy for homeland security will be comprehensive and will
integrate the full range of homeland security activities into a single,
mutually supporting plan.
- The strategy will be a national strategy, not just a federal government
strategy as the threat posed by terrorism does not fall solely within
the jurisdiction of the federal government. To defeat terrorism, the
federal government must work with states and localities and the private
- The strategy will outline a long-term plan to strengthen homeland
- Finally, the strategy will include measures by which we can evaluate
progress and allocate resources. These objectives will set the goals
for federal departments and agencies. They will also give guidance to
state and local governments and the private sector.
Office of Homeland Security
In developing the FY 2003 Budget, there was an extraordinary level of cooperation
between OMB and OHS. OMB has dedicated staff and managers working with OHS,
and many more are engaged on homeland security on an issue-by-issue basis.
This arrangement has been very productive. OHS is focusing its review and
advice on building the capacities we need to fight terrorism in the most
effective and efficient way. OMB adds its programmatic and budgetary knowledge
to ensure that we are utilizing the right resources and tools to build that
capacity. We expect that this arrangement will continue as we develop the
national strategy summary, and as the Administration works to develop the
FY 2004 Budget, and beyond.
While the Office of Homeland Security coordinates, consults with and
provides advice to OMB and agencies throughout the government, Governor
Ridge does not have operational authority over any federal agency. The
roll-out of the Homeland Security Advisory System is illustrative of how
the Governor coordinated with various agencies, but ultimately handed
over the operational aspects of the final product to a Department - which,
in this case, is the Justice Department.
The Administration recognizes and endorses the legitimate desire of Congress
to have full access to the information it needs to make legislative decisions
with regard to the nation's homeland security. Through an extensive variety
of means, the Administration will act to provide Congress with responsive
answers to its information needs. Governor Ridge has regularly met with
Members of Congress to provide extensive information on homeland security.
In fact, since October 8, Governor Ridge and his staff have held over 100
meetings with Members of Congress and their staff, and they plan to continue
these meetings in the weeks ahead. He has also offered to meet with the
committees of jurisdiction in a non-testimonial format at their convenience,
and he has personally participated in over thirty-five meetings on Capitol
Hill. The Governor will continue to work closely with Congress, including
the relevant Committees, in a manner consistent with this practice. During
the next two weeks, he will be participating in a number of Congressional
meetings. including one with the House Government Reform Committee and another
with the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House Appropriations Committee
and its subcommittees.
As this record demonstrates, the Administration is committed to keeping
Congress appropriately informed about homeland security issues. As to
formal testimony, this Administration will adhere to the same policy that
Presidents of both parties have long followed -- and that Congress has
long respected. As a matter of precedent, the President's immediate White
House advisors, such as Governor Ridge, do not testify before Congress.
The President has said from the outset that the structure for organizing
and overseeing homeland security may evolve over time as we all learn
more and as circumstances change. It is possible that the National Strategy
now underway may recommend continuation of the current arrangement; it
is also possible that the National Strategy may recommend an arrangement
different from the current one. One possibility might include a structure
similar to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). It is already
clear, however, that such a homeland office would be substantially larger
in size and scope. Moreover, many believe the "drug czar" model
is not well suited for operational authority.
If it is determined that the Director of Homeland Security should have
operational authority, the review could lead to a proposal for extensive
restructuring of homeland security functions. Should the review ultimately
recommend to the President a different homeland security structure, there
is a chance it may resemble Senator Lieberman's bill. A potential obstacle
in this case is the uncertainty whether either Executive Branch agencies
or the Congress would set aside jurisdictional territoriality enough to
embrace such a far-reaching proposal. Our experience to date with minor
transfers of responsibility illustrates the difficulty of this approach.
Should the President opt for such a course, surely we would need leadership
from you and your committee to ensure its success.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Administration is committed to securing
the homeland and keeping Congress appropriately informed on homeland security
matters. We are pleased to discuss with Congress alternative ways of organizing
Homeland Security that effectively meet he needs of the American people
and their legislative representatives.
The Nation faces new kinds of threats from new kinds of enemies. Defeating
those threats will be the great challenge and the great achievement of
this generation of Americans.