My fourth point concerns the continuing need for a clear national strategy that collectively articulates what we as a nation are seeking to accomplish in our preparedness efforts. The proposed Department is not the national strategy but rather will become the engine to implement the strategy once developed. We cannot afford an exclusive focus on discussions about the new Department and not address the larger strategic needs that will define our long-term national and international success in countering the terrorist threat. A national strategy is key to our efforts in determining how the proposed Department of Homeland Security can best be structured to accomplish the mission

ahead.

In closing let me note that our Panel continues to review the Administrations proposal. In the near term we expect to have more information by which we can offer specific insights and concurrent with our statutory duty we will provide those to the Congress and the President. Critical to our efforts will be our opportunity to work with the Administration to gain a more detailed understanding of the problems they have identified with national preparedness efforts and how proposed changes in organization, policy and programs will effect improvement. We should not lose sight of two critically important issues.

The proposed new Department of Homeland Security is not the solution. It is simply a mechanism or tool for implementing broad change across program and policy. The debate seems focused on who and what will go into the new Department rather than how the proposed change improves our collective preparedness efforts. We must focus the debate on what problems must be solved and what is the best way to solve them. We must also ensure that the sheer size of the new Department does not become an

impediment to the timely and effective sharing of information. This applies equally to "operational" information as well as program and policy direction. One could probably cite numerous examples of large federal institutions, or for the fact of the matter, state and local government organizations, that do not convey coordinated and consistent flow of information to their constituents. This type of organizational problem can be overcome but only if a focused effort is provided to do so. It would seem that the opportunity with a new Department to address these organizational cultural issues is considerable.

Second, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enemy has us in a reactive mode. On any given day agencies at the federal, state and local level, in vast segments of the private sectors and among our citizenry are reacting to the latest threat advisory. I believe that keeping the nation informed is critical to thwarting future attacks. At the same time it keeps us in a reactive mode. Our challenge is to make well-informed public policy decisions driven by logic and thoughtful analysis and not by emotional gut reaction. A major reorganization must be structured to first solve the problems identified and second not to contribute to a heightened level of chaos. Our Panel is committed to continuing its advisory role to the Congress and the Administration to ensure the most effective structure for the new Department of Homeland Security is outlined and a corresponding implementation plan is crafted to ensure it begins to operate as effectively as possible.

The President's proposal is but one element, albeit an important one, towards and enhanced level of national preparedness. We will consider along with the proposed

reorganization other important issues that must contribute to our overall strategic

approach to a safer and more secure America. We are considering several functional

areas for future research and analysis, and subsequent conclusions and policy

recommendations. Those areas include but may not be limited to the following.

State, Local, and Private

Standards. We will consider in more detail the progress that has been made in

establishing national standards for equipment performance and compatibility, especially the work of the Interagency Board for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability and the National Personal Protection Technology Institute.

Continuity of government and continuity of operations (state and local). The attacks have shown that these issues require more in-depth consideration, especially for programs that require coordination with or assistance to the private sector.

Establishing partnerships with non-governmental entities. We will consider ways for better integration of the private sector business, industry, and other non-governmental and private volunteer organizations (NGOs and PVOs)--with governmental entities in emergency preparations and response, including better coordination, planning, training and combined exercises.

Government protection of private-sector critical infrastructure. Issues in this area that require further attention include both the appropriate levels of government support to the private sector and methods for delivery of Federal assistance.

Information sharing from government to the private sector. In the third report, we

recommended areas in which the private sector could assist by providing more

information already at their disposal to government entities. We now must explore the

reverse of that equation, especially in the transportation, energy, finance, and

communications sectors.

Direct appropriations to States. To provide appropriate Federal resources to States more

effectively, the panel will consider ways and means of providing direct authorization and

appropriations to the States, without the burdensome process of Federal grants.

Health and Medical

Long-term mental health and psychological issues. We have noted, both in the recommendations in the substantive chapters and in the chapter on "perspectives," our concern about these issues. We are especially concerned about the impact of such attacks, and the threat of future ones, on our children, as well as better methods for dealing with the "worried well.” We will consider various coping strategies and will likely conduct case studies on systems in Israel and the United Kingdom. Vaccines. We will consider in more detail the recommendation to create a governmentowned, contractor-operated vaccine research, development, and production capability. We will also explore other areas involving vaccines for both humans and livestock. We will consider especially the prospect for the creation of a National Vaccine Authority. Agriculture and the food and water supply. We have repeatedly raised concerns about threats to agriculture. More consideration of those issues is required, and for possible threats to our food and water supplies.

Medical examiners. Too little attention has been focused on the important roles of government medical examiners and other pathologists. We will consider the need for improvements in forensics and reporting requirements and capabilities in this arena.

86-893 D-00--4

Public health reserve corps. We will consider the potential benefits and requirements of

establishing a robust reserve of medical and health professionals that can be mobilized to respond to health and medical crises.

Use of the Military

Roles and Missions. We will continue our assessment of progress in defining and

clarifying the activities of our Armed Forces inside our borders, especially the roles and missions of the National Guard.

Coordination and Other Security Issues

Positive identification. The Panel will also seek to clarify, within the context of the current national debate, acceptable levels for potential universal identification systems, such electronic methods as palm or eye scans, or other technological capabilities. Financial tracking. "Following the money" is an important way of discovering and preventing potential terrorist activities. Much is being done in this area following September 11 but the panel will consider other potential measures.

Strategic communications planning. We will explore potential models for providing better information to the public before, during, and after a terrorist incident-threats, hoaxes, and actual attacks.

Airline and airport security measures. The panel may undertake an assessment of the

effectiveness of the measures currently being implemented as well as others that may be implemented in the future.