SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark E. Souder (acting chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Hastert, Souder, and Barrett. Staff present: Robert B. Charles, staff director/chief counsel; Michele Lang, special counsel; Andrew Richardson, professional staff member; Amy Davenport, clerk; and Michael Yaeger and David Rapallo, minority counsels. Mr. SOUDER. Good morning. The subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice will come to order. In light of the perceived increase in the probability of a terrorist attack on American soil involving weapons of mass destruction, today the subcommittee will examine several aspects of the Department of Defense Domestic Preparedness Program. Commonly referred to as the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici plan, it is designed to prepare local government authorities, such as police, fire, and emergency services personnel for a terrorist incident involving a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon. Although the program is run primarily through the Defense Department, many other departments, notably Justice and Health and Human Services, have important roles to play in preparing our Nation for the consequences of a terrorist incident. The Domestic Preparedness Program has matured to the point where we can fairly evaluate its performance, and we have many concerns regarding the manor in which this program is being implemented. Issues such as the criteria for choosing cities which are to receive Federal aid, the apparent duplication in training and equipment loans, the sustaining of equipment once delivered, and the lack of a valid threat and risk assessment demand closer scrutiny. Regarding this last point, the subcommittee took corrective action this year. The subcommittee maintains that implementation of (1) this program should be closely linked to a valid threat and risk assessments. We worked with the House National Security Committee on this year's defense authorization bill to include language required in the Department of Justice to perform such assessments. This requirement is now in title XIV of the Defense Conference Report which has passed both the House and the Senate. As we continue our examination of this program, we may decide that further legislative action is necessary to correct other deficiencies. I now yield to Mr. Hastert, the subcommittee chairman for a statement. [The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Hastert follows:] Good morning. I want to thank the Vice Chairman for chairing this hearing. We are here today to examine another aspect of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. Our focus today is on the domestic response to terrorism, which I believe is very timely given the events that have occurred during the last few months. To say that this issue "hits home" would be an understatement. Experts disagree on the severity of the terrorist threat in the U.S., and some believe it is remote. However, it has been the opinion of Congress that a terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction has the potential to be so devastating that we must be fully prepared to respond. As Members of the oversight committee, we have the important responsibility of determining whether or not the Domestic Preparedness Program will adequately prepare local fire, police, and emergency service personnel for such a terrible scenario. This examination of the Domestic Preparedness Program is part of a Subcommittee review of all Federal government terrorism-related programs. As part of this investigation, we requested extensive information from the executive branch regarding these programs. I would like to thank those departments and agencies that have been timely with their submissions, which are currently under review by Subcommittee staff. Thank you Mr. Souder. Mr. HASTERT. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I want to thank the vice chairman for chairing this hearing. We are here today to examine another aspect of the U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. Our focus today is on the domestic response, which I believe is very timely given the events that occurred in the last few months. To say that this is an issue that hits home would be an understatement. Experts disagree on the severity of the terrorist threat in the United States and some believe that it is remote. However, it has been the opinion of Congress that a terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction has the potential to be so devastating that we must be fully prepared to respond. As a member of the oversight committee, we have an important responsibility of determining whether or not the Domestic Preparedness Program will adequately prepare local fire, police, and emergency service personnel for such a terrible scenario. This examination of the Domestic Preparedness Program is part of the subcommittee review of all Federal Government terrorism-related programs. As part of this investigation, we requested extensive information from the executive branch regarding these programs. I would like to thank those departments and agencies that have been timely with their submissions, which are currently under review by the subcommittee staff. Thank you, Mr. Souder, and I yield back. Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now yield to Mr. Barrett, the ranking minority member, for an opening statement. Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Souder, and good morning to our distinguished witnesses on both panels. This is the subcommittee's third hearing on U.S. efforts to combat terrorism at home and abroad. Today we plan to examine the accomplishments and challenges of the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program, which is designed to improve the Federal Government's ability to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. Although it is a Federal program, the primary point is to improve the emergency response capabilities of local agencies that will be the first to respond on the scene. Given the size of our country, the limitations of our Federal budget, and the ill-defined nature of the threat, this is no easy task. We've seen dramatic changes in our Government's approach to terrorism. Just this past May, the President announced an effort to ensure the critical infrastructures in our country: our system of telecommunications, banking and finance, energy, transportation, and essential Government services. The President also unveiled the new management approach to our counterterrorism efforts, creating a new National Coordinator of Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counterterrorism, responsible for interagency coordination. Effects of these changes and others, including the proposed transfer of agency authority for domestic preparedness, will, hopefully, be among our topics of discussion today. I understand that a great many first responders and local officials have given praise to the training and equipment that they have received under the program. The General Accounting Office, however, has raised a number of questions about the planning and execution of our Federal effort to manage the consequences of a terrorist attack. At the most fundamental level, GAO concludes that the effort is not guided by an overarching strategy to reach defined goals. GAO also contends that we are seeing wasteful and inefficient duplication of effort in our Domestic Preparedness Program and the beneficiaries of our local programs, local governments, are not getting the guidance they need to make use of scarce resources. Given the stakes and importance of this program, these criticisms are cause for concern. I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses, and I thank you again for preparing and providing your testimony. Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. A large and diverse number of witnesses will testify before us today. We have asked them to address a wide variety of issues regarding both policy and implementation. Our first panel is composed of Government auditors, outside experts, and an advocacy group who will present their insights into the program to the subcommittee. The second panel is composed of officials from the executive branch who will discuss implementation and status of the program. On our first panel we have Mr. Richard Davis, director of National Security Analysis for the U.S. General Accounting Office, and with him is Davi D'Agostino, Assistant Director of that office. Mr. Larry Johnson is former Deputy Director of the Office of Counterterrorism, Department of State, and Mr. Frank Cilluffo is the senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Mr. Frederick Nesbitt is the director of government affairs at the International Association of Firefighters, who are, obviously, going to be involved in any incident anywhere in the United States. We thank you all for coming today, and in accordance with the many rules we swear-in all of our witnesses. So would you please all stand and raise your right hands? [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Mr. Davis, the GAO's work in this area has been very thorough and we appreciate your efforts and have enjoyed both meeting with you in the hearings and behind the scenes in your report. Will you proceed? |