continue to need to be addressed, and some that could still use additional resources or policy direction.

Our Current Deliberations

Madam Chairman, now that the Department of Homeland Security is a reality, we will continue to make recommendations to assist in the management of that department. We also realize that a major part of our Commission focus will be on intelligence gathering. The intelligence committees of each House are putting together a report, flowing from the recent Joint Inquiry of those committees, which will, perhaps, contain major recommendations with respect to the structure, laws, and procedures of the Intelligence Community for combating Terrorism. In addition, the Congress is attempting to complete action on appropriations bills for the current fiscal year, which if enacted will contain significant additional funding to address some of these issues, especially for supporting the efforts of State and local responders.

In the midst of all that, the Advisory Panel is crafting and putting the finishing touches on significant policy recommendations in several key areas:

Strategy and Structure

Use of the Military

Health and Medical

Critical Infrastructure Protection

Agroterrorism

In addition, that report will contain an update of the comprehensive threat assessment contained in the Panel's First Annual Report, as well as a set of recommendations on the nature and sources of the resources necessary to fund the national efforts to combat terrorism.

Recommendations for the Fourth Annual Report

Strategy and Structure

Madam Chairman and Members, I have a bit of an announcement to make in this forum. Because the Congress in considering the new Department of Homeland Security, the Advisory Panel decided at its meeting last week to release its principal recommendations in this area in advance of the publication of its full report in December. We have done so in the hope that those recommendations may help to inform the current debate. Briefly, the "Strategy and Structure" Chapter recommends:

That the President create an entity that will become the all-source fusion and
analysis center for potential terrorists attacks inside the United States from
foreign terrorists and their supporters. That center would also house, in a
separate component, the intelligence collection against such terrorists
currently in the FBI.

That more comprehensive assessments of threats to the homeland be
developed

That the new DHS have the necessary capability and authority to perform the
critical infrastructure vulnerability and warning functions envisioned in its
enabling legislation

That the President clearly define the responsibilities of DHS and other federal entities before, during, and after an attack has occurred, especially any authority for directing the activities of other federal agencies

That the President direct a restructuring of the Federal interagency

mechanisms to ensure better coordination within the federal government, and with states, localities, and the private sector, to avoid confusion and to reduce unnecessary expenditure of limited resources at all levels

And to repeat an earlier recommendation of the panel:

That each House of the Congress establish a separate authorizing committee and related appropriation subcommittee with jurisdiction over Federal programs and authority for Combating Terrorism/Homeland Security.

I will be happy to address any questions that Members may have concerning those recommendations.

Use of the Military

The panel continues to address issues involving the use of the military inside the United States for various responses to terrorism. In its next report, the panel will make recommendations dealing with:

Command and control issues involving the new U.S. Northern Command
(NORTHCOM)

Developing a more comprehensive, coordinated process to identify the

potential needs of States and localities, as well as other Federal agencies, for
military support against terrorist attacks

Additional authority for use of the National Guard in a Title 32 status
New roles and missions for certain National Guard units

Better training and exercise programs for military units for performing
homeland missions

Better structure and policies for DoD civilian oversight of the military
Clarification, consolidation, and explanations of laws for use of the military
domestically

Health and Medical

The panel continues its efforts to address the important issues in health and medical planning, preparedness, and response to terrorism and will make recommendations on the following subjects:

Sustaining and prioritizing resources to improve the public health and medical infrastructure

Exercising and training health and medical response entities in the larger emergency management context of terrorism response including exercising the use of the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile

Centralizing, coordinating, and simplifying Federal information on resources,
best practices, and research for state and local access

Implementing the full range of research to improve health and medical
detection of and response to terrorist attacks

Developing and operationalizing the laws and regulations for health and
medical response to a terrorist attack including the clarification of the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidelines and the rules
for quarantine

Defining who is in charge in response to a bioterrorist attack

Developing a strategic information plan for educating and communicating with the public and the media before, during and after an attack

Improving intelligence collection related to health and medical issues

Establishing a national vaccine strategy

Responding to the threat of a smallpox attack

Critical Infrastructure Protection

For the Fourth Report, the panel has expanded its consideration beyond cyber security to include issues of physical protection of critical infrastructure. It will make CIP recommendations in the following areas:

Federal reimbursement for certain costs incurred by States, localities, and the private sector for improvements to infrastructure security

Improved training, standards, and protocols for government and private
sector responders, to include facilities, responder equipment, and

communications compatibility and interoperability

More comprehensive and concise policies and enhanced capabilities for intelligence and information sharing involving critical infrastructure among government entities and with the private sector

Improvements in security measures for and in the screening of non

passenger cargo aboard commercial aircraft

Development of significantly enhanced security measures for general aviation aircraft, passengers, and facilities

Expanded research and development into CIP security measures

Comprehensive revamping of Federal laws to address privacy, freedom of information, liability, anti-trust, indemnification, insurance, and related issues Enhanced security for agriculture and the food supply structure

Agroterrorism

The panel once again addresses the issue of Agroterrorism, and will make
recommendations in the following areas:

Developing threat assessments for potential terrorist attacks against U.S.
agriculture

Including Agroterrorism as an Emergency Support Function in the principal
Federal response plan

Improving processes for testing for and identifying agroterrorism attacks
Creating a system of fair compensation for losses due to an attack
Enhancing education, training, and exercises on attacks to agriculture

We must develop processes that help us understand better how we set priorities for homeland security. We must answer some fundamental questions about preparedness, including the overarching one: "Preparedness for what?" Without a firm grasp on how to answer that question, how will we know that we have out priorities set forth correctly, and that the expenditure of scarce resources at every level of government is appropriate. A more educated and enlightened assessment of the threats we face is critical to answering that basic question.

An integral part of that issue is the absolute necessity to have national standards for how entities at all levels of government and in the private sector train, equip, and plan for, and then coordinate responses to attacks. We are still a long way from having any standards for a variety of these issue related to homeland security.

Madam Chairman, in the panel's second report, submitted in December of 2000, we addressed this issue head on. We did so in the context of our recommendation at that time for the creation of an office in the White House, very similar but not exactly like the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) headed by my friend Tom Ridge. We called it the National Office for Combating Terrorism, rather than "Homeland Security." We would have placed some very specific responsibilities in that Office and in other entities for the development of national standards and for processes for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) to further the implementation of those standards. Those recommendations are worth repeating. (To avoid any confusion, the references to the "National Office" and "Assistant Director" are to the specific construct that we recommended in 2000, not to anything that currently exists in OHS). We said in 2000:

"Improve Plans for Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation for Combating Terrorism

"The national strategy developed by the National Office for Combating
Terrorism must contain a clear set of priorities for RDT&E. The program and
budget authority of that office must be exerted to ensure effective application
of Federal funds devoted to this purpose.

"The White House Office of Science & Technology Policy should play a major
role in the effort. We recommend that the Assistant Director for RDT&E
and National Standards of the National Office for Combating
Terrorism either enter into a formal relationship with OSTP or have
appropriate members of the OSTP staff detailed to the National Office
for Combating Terrorism on a rotational basis.

"Wide varieties of equipment that have potential application for combating terrorism are available from commercial vendors. Nevertheless, many local responders have told us that some equipment they purchased does not meet the specifications described by the vendor. At present, no viable program is in place for testing and evaluating the effectiveness of equipment for combating terrorism. We recommend that the Assistant Director for RDT&E and National Standards develop equipment testing protocols and continue to explore the prospect of financial support from vendors for equipment live agent test and evaluation, leading to Federal certification.

"We recommend that the Assistant Director for RDT&E and National Standards develop, as part of the national strategy, a comprehensive plan for long-range research for combating terrorism; this should include better coordination among the National Laboratories. The focus of those efforts by National Laboratories should be dual- or multi-purpose applications.

"The National Office for Combating Terrorism should also integrate other indirect, yet applicable, research and development projects into its information-dissemination process. For example, the Deputy Directorate for Operations (Combating Terrorism) within the Joint Staff provides executive seminars on its Best Practices Study for anti-terrorism and force protection. This program also collects information on "commercial off the shelf" resources and equipment to support its anti-terrorism mission. These studies and resources may not directly relate to policy and standards for combating terrorism at the State and local level but may well contribute to State and local preparedness.

"The top priorities for targeted research should be responder personnel protective equipment (PPE); medical surveillance, identification, and forensics; improved sensor and rapid-readout capability; vaccines and antidotes; and communications interoperability.

"Develop National Standards for Equipment,
Training, and Laboratory Processes

"One of our basic assumptions is that no single jurisdiction is likely to be capable of responding to a major terrorist attack without outside assistance. That leads to the

element of any national plan. Firefighters or EMS technicians in the jurisdiction where an attack takes place must not be concerned that responders from other jurisdictions, providing "mutual assistance," will arrive with equipment of a different standard than local responders, even at risk of becoming casualties themselves.

"We recommend that the Assistant Director for RDT&E and National Standards in the National Office for Combating Terrorism establish a national standards program for combating terrorism, focusing on equipment, training, and laboratory processes. The fundamental objectives for equipment standards will be nationwide compatibility, and dual-/ multi-purpose applications. For training, they will be interdisciplinary curricula, and training exercises based on realistic scenarios. For laboratories, the focus should be clear, strict protocols for identification, forensics, and reporting. The ultimate goal of the national standards program should be certification of the specific equipment, training, or laboratory and a recapitulation of certifications in a "Consumers Digest," for use by response entities nationwide.

"We recommend that the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) be designated as Federal "co-lead agencies” for the technical aspects of standards development. The Executive Branch and the Congress should provide resources for the development of national standards, and Congress should be presented with a detailed budget request for that purpose at the earliest opportunity. In addition, the Interagency "Board for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability should be subordinated to the National Office for Combating Terrorism.

"The Federal co-lead agencies should develop certification standards in coordination with appropriate Federal agencies and with advice from State and local response entities, professional organizations that represent response disciplines, and private and quasi-public certifying entities."

Madam Chairman, those functions that we recommend now almost two years ago still need to be performed, now obviously more urgently that before. Unfortunately, we are still a long way from achieving any coherence in standards and testing, especially for "first responder" equipment and communications capability. It is still the case that the only "standards" available are what vendors say are the capabilities of their wares. We continue to need something like an "underwriters laboratory" for a wide variety of protective equipment and communications. We have before and will again recognize the efforts of the Interagency Board for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (in the Chairman's home state of Pennsylvania) and the Technical Support Working Group. Those efforts will not, however, be nearly enough, at least not at the level of current resources.

For training, the panel is encouraged that the majority of Federal training programs, at least those currently in FEMA and DOJ, will apparently be combined in the new DHS. Nevertheless, other Federal agencies-EPA, DOE, DoD, DHHS as exampleswill continue to conduct training that will need to conform to a set of national training standards. That effort has not yet been undertaken, but it should be required on an urgent basis.

Conclusion

The Advisory Panel will continue to be relentless in pursuing appropriate solutions to these difficult issues, even if our recommendations are controversial and cross some "turf" boundaries. We will always-always-consider as an overarching concern the impact of any legal, policy, or process changes on our civil rights and liberties. Our Constitution, our laws, our judicial system, our culture, our history all combine to make our way of life unique in all the world.

Thark you again for this opportunity.