Изображения страниц

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

[ocr errors]

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.

Copies of that advance document have been made available to Members; and I would ask

respectfully that the Chair entertain a request to include that document in the official

record along with my testimony. 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

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

[ocr errors]

Additional authority for use of the National Guard in a Title 32 status


[merged small][graphic]
[ocr errors]

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:

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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


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.


[ocr errors]

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

[merged small][graphic]

• 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 included a request for me to focus

my remarks in the following areas:

Types of equipment needed for crisis response;
Interoperability municipal, state, and federal government entities; and
Common training requirements for these new domestic response challenges to
terrorism and weapons of mass destruction

To the extent that I have not done so in 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 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.

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

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »