Health and Medical Capabilities - Implement the AMA Recommendations on Medical Preparedness for Terrorism - Implement the JCAHO Revised Emergency Standards - Fully resource the CDC Biological and Chemical Terrorism Strategic Plan - Fully resource the CDC Laboratory Response Network for Bioterrorism - Fully resource the CDC Secure and Rapid Communications Networks - Develop standard medical response models for Federal, State, and local levels - Reestablish a pre-hospital Emergency Medical Service Program Office - Revise current EMT and PNST training and refresher curricula - Increase Federal resources for exercises for State and local health and medical entities - Establish a government-owned, contractor-operated national vaccine and therapeutics facility - Review and recommend changes to plans for vaccine stockpiles and critical supplies - Develop a comprehensive plan for research on terrorism-related health and medical issues - Review MMRS and NDMS authorities, structures, and capabilities - Develop an education plan on the legal and procedural issues for health and medical response to terrorism - Develop on-going public education programs on terrorism causes and effects Immigration and Border Control - Create an intergovernmental border advisory group - Fully integrate all affected entities into local or regional "port security committees" Ensure that all border agencies are partners in intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination - Create, provide resources for, and mandate participation in a "Border Security Awareness" database system - Require shippers to submit cargo manifest information simultaneously with shipments transiting U.S. borders - Establish "Trusted Shipper" programs Expand Coast Guard search authority to include U.S. owned—not just “flagged”— vessels - Expand and consolidate research, development, and integration of sensor, detection, and warning systems - Increase resources for the U.S. Coast Guard for homeland security missions - Negotiate more comprehensive treaties and agreements for combating terrorism with Canada and Mexico Cyber Security Include private and State and local representatives on the interagency critical Create a commission to assess and make recommendations on programs for cyber Establish a government funded, not-for-profit entity for cyber detection, alert, and warning functions Convene a "summit" to address Federal statutory changes that would enhance cyber assurance Create a special "Cyber Court" patterned after the court established in FISA - Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for cyber security research, development, test, and evaluation Use of the Military Establish a homeland security under secretary position in the Department of Establish a single unified command and control structure to execute all military Develop detailed plans for the use of the military domestically across the spectrum of potential activities Expand training and exercises in relevant military units and with Federal, State, and Direct new mission areas for the National Guard to provide support to civil Publish a compendium of statutory authorities for using the military domestically to Improve the military full-time liaison elements in the ten Federal Emergency The Road Ahead Madame Chairman, as the Advisory Panel enters another year and embarks on its fourth report, our focus will be on the essential elements of the Congressional mandate— unchanged in the panel's statutory extension. We have not tried to speculate whether spending on combating terrorism was too little, too much, or just about right. Rather, we have attempted to concentrate on assessing whether resources provided for those purposes by our populations' duly elected representatives-you in the Congress-are being applied effectively. The President and the Congress have now seen fit to increase dramatically the level of those resources and the President has proposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Our continuing mission will be assessing the application of those decisions, especially as they related to enhancing the capabilities of States and localities. We have reviewed in a cursory fashion the proposal submitted by the President to the Congress towards the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. Like the Congress we are studying the proposal and will soon be prepared to offer a more detailed analysis. You no doubt invited me in my role as Chairman to convey our thoughts about the President's proposal to create a Department of Homeland Security. This type of major restructuring was not what our Panel had recommended. Our recommendation provided for the creation of an office in the Executive Office of the President to better strategically integrate the activities of the wide range of agencies with responsibilities in this area. This recommendation was informed in part by the recognition that terrorist attacks on our nation could cause profound national security, economic, social and health and safety problems. These attacks could take the form of conventional, Weapons of Mass Destruction or cyber attacks. The plethora of potential scenarios and a needed focus on prevention and deterrence was clearly not within the single mandate of any one federal agency or level of government. Our Panel viewed the issue as one of management and organization versus structure. We believed that the needed coordination could more effectively occur at a level higher than Cabinet agencies to minimize the potential for turf wars that are inevitable when it comes to competition for resources, both human and financial. This is not to say that what the Administration is proposing is not now the right answer. Clearly as a nation we now have the benefit of our September 11th experience. Our Panel, the Hart-Rudman Commission and the National Commission on Terrorism made our recommendations without the painful yet valuable knowledge that we gained from the September 11th attacks and subsequent incidents involving Anthrax. This knowledge will strengthen our collective ability to engage in discussions concerning the proposal before the Congress. To that end we would like to offer several points to assist the Congress in its efforts to partner with the President in working to make American safer and more secure. First the proposal to create the Department of Homeland Security has been described as "the largest reorganization of the federal government since World War II". The proposal you have before you today has implications beyond the federal government. In communities and states all across America public officials and the private sector are engaged in securing our homeland and protecting against the lawlessness of terrorists who would seek to do our citizens harm. A major reorganization at the federal level will have to be very carefully implemented. I cannot stress this point enough. Local and state officials, experienced in working with their federal partners, see a very real threat in the whole idea of reorganization unless it ensures that the momentum and program delivery that is just beginning continues full speed ahead and uninterrupted. Our collective discussions must focus on both the elements to be put together and minimizing potential disruption of collective local, state and federal partnership efforts for preparedness. This is especially important in light of proposed first responder funding initiatives in the '03 budget that could become victims unless the reorganization is carefully implemented to guarantee success. Second, we must have a clear understanding of what problems the re-organization is attempting to solve. Our Panel, like others, noted a wide range of problems with our national preparedness efforts. Note that I say national and not federal. The federal government must play a clear leadership role but solving problems requires an effective integration of local, state, federal and private sector participants and as a nation we must be clear in defining what those problems are. For instance our Panel noted in its Second and Third Annual reports that our ability to collect, analyze and disseminate critical intelligence to all organizations with a need for it was inadequate. We noted problems at the federal level – in terms of horizontal sharing between elements of the intelligence, law enforcement and defense communities and vertically with key local and state officials as well as the private sector. Furthermore, we noted the sharing and analysis of intelligence must be a two-way street when one considers the threat to be against our communities and states. Congress has begun to ask the very relevant question of how will things improve if the two key agencies, the FBI and CIA, are not included in the new Department. Our point is that this and other questions must be asked and adequately answered to ensure we get the best final structure. Along those lines and thirdly what is the role of state and local government in defining the problem and securing corrective action. The Administration proposal provides for state and local coordination with the new entity. It is critical that the state and local partners are engaged in the design and implementation phases as well as the execution phase. The Administration's proposal has direct implications for a wide array of federal agencies and by extension states and communities. We must ensure that the state and local role is equal to that of the federal government in terms of construction of the new Department and its operation. You are not simply making decision of federal structure but rather a decision that will directly influence state and local government. |