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

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

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

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

Specific Issues of Interest to the Subcommittee

Mr. Chairman, your invitation to testify today moraded a request for me to focus

my remarks in the following areas:

Types of equipment needed for crisis response;

Policies:

Procedures

Interoperability municipal, state, and federal government entities, and

Common training requirements for these new domestic response challenges to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction

one

To the extent that I have not done so m my previous remarks, let me offer a few additional comments in a couple of these areas. First, we must develop processes that help us understand better how we set priorities for homeland securty. We mus, HLSPET some fundamental questions about, preparedness, mctating the overarching a "Preparedness for wog" Webout a firm grasp on how to answer the question, how wi we know that we have out prionties set forth correctly, and that the expenditure of scarce resources & every level of government is appropriate. A more educated and en gieracc assessment of the treas we face is critical to answering that basic question

At antegral part of that issue is the absolute necessity to have national. STANCETON for how entries at ul leves of government and in the private sector train, equr and plan for, and then coercinute responses te Hacks. We are stil a song was from having any sinnaaras for a variety of these issue related to homeland security

V- Charman, in the pune, is second report, submitted in December of 2000, we

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 longrange research for combating terrorism; this should include better coordination among

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

NOVEMBER 14, 2002