There is an amendment that I will offer for this as a co-author, but I will not offer that amendment in the transportation section, because I do not want a sequential referral to military. It will deal with the border and the use of the military on the border, if this ever comes to the Floor.

But here's a statement I want to make on what's significant about this. We inspect 3 out of every 100 trucks coming into America. Three. Our ports of call are wide open. We're a magnet for narcotics and domestic terrorism-if that isn't narcotics, I do not know what is.

But the focus of this hearing and the focus of this legislation, which I'm so proud to be involved with you, Madam Chairwoman, I want you to imagine the components of a nuclear warhead smuggled across our border, assembled in Arizona and fired at D.Č. Sounds almost ludicrous, doesn't it?

Do not laugh. And I do not think we are prepared, and I do not think we have the preparedness to deal with it. Because we are a reactionary Government that deals with the Oklahoma City bombing after it occurs, while we only had one contract guard guarding three buildings, Federal buildings, in Oklahoma City.

So I just want to make this point, that I appreciate those witnesses who have come here today and are advising us. This Chairwoman has taken a broad, hard look at this issue. I concur with her 100 percent, support her 100 percent, and will try and get as many votes as I can on our side of the aisle for this legislation.

With that, I thank you for giving me the opportunity and yield back my time.

Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. Traficant.

I want to thank General Clapper for his testimony, and I have a couple of questions, then I'd like to yield to my colleagues also for theirs.

In reviewing your report, it indicates that one of the major shortcomings of Federal efforts involving preparedness of emergency responders against a terrorist attack is a lack of coordinated efforts among the agencies involved. So to what extent do you think, and you mentioned briefly about a national strategy, what do you think a national strategy for these efforts would eliminate some of the existing duplication and fragmentation in Federal programs?

General CLAPPER. Yes, ma'am, that is exactly what we had in mind, was a strategy that would, as I indicated in my brief remarks, delineate those responsibilities. And clearly articulate, so all could understand, the relative roles and relationships between the Federal level and the State and local.

As you know, I spent my career in the Federal Government, in the military. This has been quite an education for me to attempt to capture the first responder perspective, as they kind of look upward at this rather complex Federal apparatus, that they have to confront in their planning efforts. In every opportunity I've had to interact with first responders at the State level, as well as those who are on our panel-as I indicated, that's one of the great strengths of our panel-it isn't the typical beltway perspective is this crying for more coherence, more coordination, more rationality

One of the points we made in our study was that we endorse strongly the need for an NDPO-like organization or entity that could serve as what I would call an authoritative coordinator. While well-intended, it appears at least, to this point, that the NDPO has really not lived up to-for lots of understandable reasons, perhaps not lived up to that expectation.

And although we haven't come down on what form such a coordinator might take, we have agreed, though, on some attributes that we think should characterize that entity, without having made a judgment yet on exactly what structural organizational form that might take. I'd be pleased to outline those attributes.

We believe that first of all, there needs to be a degree of autonomy in such an organization, independent of nay agency where it isn't dependent on being funded of manned, "out of hide." And secondly, to be credible, such an entity must have appropriate full time professional representation from the State and local responder community across all the requisite functions.

Third, the various cabinet departments and agencies who are stakeholders in this endeavor must also have full time dedicated professional staff to promote the liaison which must occur, both laterally across the cabinet departments and agencies, horizontally if you will as well as vertically from the Federal to the State and Íocal level. And this entity could, in our view, provide a very valuable service by forging that cross-hatching of communications, if you will.

Fourth, it must have genuine visibility over the commitment of money, programs and resources to first responder preparedness, and some degree of influence over the synchronization of these resources. The panel to this point, to be candid, hasn't taken a position on just how intrusive this visibility might be. It could range from pulling on coat sleeves to obviously something much more than that.

Fifth and most important in this town, the entity needs to be appropriately resourced in terms of staff, money and facility to accomplish its mission. And finally, I just want to emphasize the point, since I do not want to get too far ahead of the panel's or Governor Gilmore's headlights on this issue, which while we have talked about it, we have not arrived at a position on what organizational structure or placement this 'son of NDPO,' if I could use that expression, might take.

Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you. Sounds like some of what we have got in our bill is tracking along with some of your suggestions. So we are pleased that it does, and look forward to your reviewing this along the way.

What would your panel identify as an appropriate end state for national preparedness against terrorist attacks? For example, how important is it for us to be prepared to handle multiple attacks at one time, or to lessen the time it takes for Federal response teams to respond and get to these local communities?

General CLAPPER. That's a question that we have confronted and at our last panel meeting decided to kind of take that on, what exactly would that end state be. I think that will be a prominent theme in our second deliverable that will be due out the end of the

If I could perhaps go beyond and offer some personal observations, I think there needs to be a set of uniform standards that should apply across the Nation, not necessarily just selected communities, but everywhere where there are certain minimal standards in terms of equipment for first responders and training, and knowledgeability in access to information. Again, at risk of being a 'one trick pony', that's very important to me personally.

I think there are some fundamentals that need to be uniformly applied across the Nation which, if built from the ground up, in other words, if we are able to respond reasonably well to a single local incident, if I can use that term, that in itself, if that capability is uniform across the Nation, that in itself will provide the building blocks to respond to a more profound, a multi-State, multi-city, multi-region sort of attack.

So my view is, let's do the basics first, and make that as universal as we possibly can, and then build from that.

Mrs. FOWLER. Do you want to add to that, Mr. Wermuth? I saw you nodding your head.

Mr. WERMUTH. Madam Chairman, the comments that the Vice Chairman has made on that particular point are certainly germane to the discussion, and the statement that you made. Clearly, this panel believes that the perspective of plans and strategies needs to have a bottom up approach to them, that the men and women who are out there on the front lines every day putting their lives on the line, in any number of emergency situations, whether it's ordinary crime or firefighting or emergency medical situations, or what the situation may be, are almost always in fact, there's practically no scenario that you can describe that would indicate that they won't always be the first ones on any scene, if there is a scene.

But even if it's a biological event, there are still people at the local level who are going to be the ones who will respond first, before anybody from the Federal Government ever has the ability to arrive. So this panel believes very strongly that local responders, the State and local perspective, the 'first responder' perspective, is the one that needs to be the basis of the national strategy, that it not just be a Federal strategy. There's a Federal piece of it, for sure. But the national strategy really needs to be one from the perspective of those at the State and local level.

Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you.

Before I go on with any of my questions, I'd like to go to the Ranking Member and let you and Mr. Terry ask your questions.

Mr. TRAFICANT. Yes, I want to make a statement. I want to thank you, General, and Mr. Wermuth, for your testimony. And I would, I do not even think we have a bill number assigned yet. Mrs. FOWLER. It will be dropped in this afternoon.

Mr. TRAFICANT. It will be dropped in this afternoon. I want to make sure that not only General Clapper, but all the witnesses that are here get an opportunity to have that, and respond to us in writing on the suggestions you make, those areas which you feel are the strongest, those which need improvement. Because we honestly want to do what would be best, and we want your input. We're very impressed with your frankness.

General CLAPPER. We'd be happy to do that. In fact, what we will

think I can commit to getting some feedback back to you in short order.

Mrs. FOWLER. That would be great, because we will be, if I'm able, we may be having some future hearings on that legislation. Mr. TRAFICANT. Yes. One other thing I'd just like to say is, I think, Mr. Wermuth, your comments about a national, and General, your national strategy, not just a Federal strategy. I think that we have tried to accommodate that nationalistic approach with all participating to be inclusive, not exclusive. And that might be an area where there could be some beefing up, perhaps, in this. We will take a good look at it.

So I want to thank you for your testimony, and I have no further questions.

Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Terry.

Mr. TERRY. I'm not going to be very articulate in my questions, here, but first I want to start out, I really do appreciate your professed commitment to the first responders and understanding their role. I really believe if we do not understand that, we're doomed for failure, in any strategy we invoke.

Now, elevating that to some of your comments and discussion with the Chair, coming here, I'm trying to rationalize what the proper national strategy or at least structural look should be. I can't envision anything that works well, unfortunately. I think that's probably just because I've been bogged down in the details of seeing so many agencies involved in here, and none having any clear understanding of what their role is.

So I do agree with your comment that one of the first things we have to do is come up with the generalized mission statement, of sorts, of what our national strategy is going to be, and then clearly define what the roles would be. I just would like to discuss in more detail with you options, perhaps, of the management of that area. Now, you touched, I think the first question the Chair asked you dealt with that, and you talked about the single entity that would in essence have some coordination, I think is the word that you used. But frankly, I do not see coordination being powerful enough to be successful, when we're talking about working with the Justice Department and DOD. I see those two entities-talking about brick walls. How are they going to coordinate with an entity that may not really have much authority?

So taking that, do we need to, in this drive to create efficient, effective strategy, in essence have to create a new agency and bring these facets away from current jurisdictions into one?

General CLAPPER. Mr. Terry, first of all, I think there are valid roles for the multiplicity of agencies and cabinet level departments. There is a valid role; they are stakeholders in this, I think, because of the charge they have as a part of the Government, to do. This is both perhaps a strength and weakness of our system.

At the same time, there needs to be, it's pretty clear, some form of cross coordination, so that what Agency A is doing is known to Agency B and C, and at the same time, to the extent that you can promote sort of 'one-stop shopping', as difficult as that may be, if I can use that expression, for the first responder community; it

The form that that would take, whether that would mean an empowered lead agency which certainly I guess was the intent with NDPO, whether it would be along the lines of General Barry McCaffrey as the drug czar, or some other form, I'm not sure. I think the important thing is that wherever it sits, it have the attributes that I've described. And it should have the authority and the visibility and the resources to operate, and that it be in position and empowered to bring together, forcefully, if need be, the disparate Government agencies.

At the same time, though, I think it would be a mistake to disengage or relieve the departments of their responsibilities that they have for their particular role in the overall conduct of this mission. I do not know if I've responded to your question there, and again, it's an issue that we have discussed and just haven't come down on yet. I think your draft legislation will force us to come to grips with that.

Mr. TERRY. Very good. I appreciate that.

Mrs. FOWLER. Did you want to comment on that, Mr. Wermuth? Mr. WERMUTH. Just briefly, Madam Chairwoman. From an historical perspective, I had the opportunity several years ago, when I was in the Justice Department, in the Office of Legislative Affairs, to help craft the solution, if you will, or at least the compromise that resulted in the creation of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. There was a lot of discussion at that point about a drug czar, creating an entirely new cabinet level agency with a huge bureaucracy and transferring all of the resources and responsibilities to a new agency.

There was also a discussion about creating a new assistant attorney generalship, or an associate attorney general, to be the drug czar. But both of those were opposed, at that time, by the Administration and many members in Congress. First of all, the new cabinet agency was felt to be unnecessary and too costly.

But for the same reasons that General Clapper mentioned in describing attributes, the idea of an assistant secretariat or even a deputy level secretariat in some agency would still create the same kinds of turf issues in the single focus agency. That's why the thought was, put it where it's not viewed as being single-agency focused and raise it to the level where it really does have visibility, and particularly visibility to the chief executive of the United States. Put it in the Executive Officer of the President.

So that was some of the thought process that went into that issue. Then you must try to craft a well-defined mission for that organization, which I know you're doing here, one that will give it sufficient oversight and some authority, whether or not you go as far as giving it some operational authority. In 1988, it was decided that this office in the Executive Office of the President didn't need to have that kind of direct operational authority.

But such an entity must to have some coordinating authority, to provide a have some mechanism that requires agencies to come and spread program proposals and budget proposals on the table, and to serve as the mechanism for negotiating those things at the executive level and within the Office of the President, so that everybody across the lateral spectrum of the Federal Government, everyone