FEMA and other governmental agencies whenever the DoD is requested to support civilian catastrophes.

In spite of the fact that many areas of the country have Hazardous Materials (response) Teams (HAZMATS), RAID teams are being trained to recognize weaponized chemical, biological, and nuclear materials used by terrorists. They are also being trained to provide civilian authorities with viable recommendations on mitigating the consequences resulting from the exposure of WMD materials on the civilian population. Consequently, RAID teams are the only state asset that the DoD is monitoring as a state or local asset designated for WMD consequence management.

an identification of response needs at the federal level;

Answer: DoD is not specifically responsible to identify response needs at the federal level; however, through the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (OASD (SO/LIC)), DoD is lending support to the FBI and FEMA in pursuing the development of a capacity and sustainment study designed to examine the potential requirements for national teams and resources for WMD consequence management for domestic crises. Some of the issues they will be assessing include ascertaining our policy for and funding of national teams and assets for WMD response, and determining the number and capability of such teams.

Specifically, OASD(SO/LIC) is examining the utility of a computer modeling system designed to evaluate a spectrum of terrorist incidents involving six types of WMD: nuclear, radiological, chemical (both persistent and non-persistent agents) and biological (contagious and non-contagious agents). Computer models would be generated to evaluate the scope of personnel and collateral damage incurred in an urban environment by the use of these weapons. A generic urban environment will be used initially to avoid singling out any particular city in the U.S. An initial operative assumption for the study is that this city would have benefited from participation in the NLD Domestic Preparedness Program for 120 of America's larger metropolitan areas.

The six types of WMD will be examined individually in scenarios designed to illustrate their unique characteristics including: resultant human casualties; damage to urban infrastructure; degree and persistence of contamination including compromises to water, food supplies, agricultural assets, health care facilities, and communication and transportation systems. The analysis will also consider diffusion patterns indicating the pervasiveness of the WMD attack; effects of meteorological conditions on the attack; impact on population mobility, and in the case of biological weapons use, timelines for the onset of certain symptoms based on transmissibility and incubation rate in humans.

Throughout the course of this study, these weapons characteristics will be amplified to examine worst case scenarios and the corresponding national effort to mitigate single incidents as well as simultaneous terrorist incidents. By varying the parameters used to construct the model, mathematical data will be generated which will serve to define the requirements for response resources for WMD consequence management.

OASD(SO/LIC) is also working to ascertain the extent of modeling conducted to date for
consequence management (CM) response. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), USAMRIID, SBCCOM, the National Ground Intelligence Center
and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) are also being queried for details on
previous computer modeling efforts in CM response. Extensive modeling work has already been
undertaken by the National Ground Intelligence Center which has developed a Joint Assessment
of Catastrophic Events (JACE) program for DOMS. The JACE effort is based on leveraging a set
of targeting tools and modeling software in a web-based collaborative environment for use by
military and civilian responders in the event of a WMD attack. One desired outcome would be
that a virtual city construct could be established for the generation of consequence management
requirements for the six aforementioned WMD scenarios.

OASD(SOLIC) will be working with the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to prioritize the WMD scenarios. The results of this study will be provided to FEMA in order to determine and coordinate eventual Federal Response Plan (FRP) support. FEMA will coordinate with DHHS, the FBI and other FRP contributors. Following completion of the initial modeling scenarios, additional scenarios will be examined to broaden the database. This study is an ongoing process designed to minimize the element of surprise for national policy makers and bolster the national response capability.

an identification of response needs at the state and local level; and

■ Answer: As previously stated, the DoD is supporting the FBI and FEMA in pursuing the
development of a generic urban environment computer model study designed to examine
the potential requirements for national teams for hypothetical urban WMD crises.
However, the DoD is not specifically focusing on the needs of a particular state, city
or local level of government. Instead, the DoD is supporting the joint FEMA-FBI
capacity study to help establish rough estimates for state, county and city managers so
that the information could be employed as a means to establish a baseline of requirements
for potential CM catastrophes.

a written threat and risk assessment of our cities or regions of the United States regarding a terrorist attack.

• Answer: The FBI is the federal agency responsible for threat and risk assessment of our cities and regions of the United States regarding a terrorist attack. Additionally, you may be able to gain this information from some state, county, or city emergency management offices or law enforcement agencies. The DoD does not normally conduct standing or recurring assessments of this nature.

Question 5. What annual goals and measures developed by Department of Defense pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) relate to preparedness against terrorist attack?

Answer: The goals presented in the Department's fiscal year 2000 GPRA Performance Plan support the National Security Strategy and the Department's mission and vision statements. They were selected because they demonstrate how senior decisionmakers judge the Department's progress

toward meeting the long-term strategic goals of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). As such, the measures and indicators that define these goals evaluate performance at an executive level. They focus on overarching measures and indicators that demonstrate the ability of the Department to carry out a range of missions, from counterterrorism to fighting a major theater war.

For example, the QDR commits the Department to "shape the international environment and respond to the full spectrum of crises by providing appropriately sized, positioned, and mobile forces." Because the QDR serves as the Department's GPRA Strategic Plan, this commitment is expressed as the GPRA corporate goal: "Shape and Respond." Further, the QDR suggests the level of performance that best satisfies this corporate goal is a military force capable of multiple missions - a force that is proficient in core warfighting competencies as well as able to meet asymmetric challenges, including terrorism. Therefore, the Department's GPRA plan selected annual performance goals that protect the structure and readiness for such a multi-mission force.

Following this logic, the annual performance goal most closely associated with responding to asymmetric threats such as terrorism is Goal 1.2: "Maintain ready forces and ensure they have the training necessary to provide the United States with the ability to shape the international environment and respond to the full range of crises." In addition, the plan's force level metrics (1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.5, and 1.2.7) capture the resources required to maintain military forces ready to respond to the full range of crises, including asymmetric attack. The plan's training metrics (1.2.17, 1.2.18, and 1.2.19) set goals for all training by type of service and type of combat system (aircraft, combat and support vehicles, and ships), including counterterrorism and counter-WMD training for appropriate units. In addition, the plan outlines cross-cutting efforts to defend against terrorism (including potential terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction), and describes how the Department provides technical support to the FBI and FEMA to guard against physical or cyber attack.

I am Chief John M. Eversole of the Chicago Fire Department. I also appear before you as Chair of the Hazardous Materials Committee of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC).

The issue of domestic terrorism is one in which America's fire departments have a vital interest. Violence perpetrated against our citizens for political purposes, national, international or otherwise, will be suffered locally. As the primary provider of emergency life safety services, fire fighters will be first on the scene of any act of terrorism, saving lives and mitigating damage. This was true in the minutes following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. It has been so at countless incidents less notorious. So it will be in the future.

There are two distinct areas of federal counterterrorism efforts that should be addressed. First, programs designed to support, prior to an incident, local emergency services personnel who will be first on the scene and second, the operational role of federal agencies in the wake of an attack. I will address the pre-incident support role first.

The Nunn/Lugar/Domenici amendment to the 1997 Defense Authorization and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 began federal efforts to help better prepare local fire, police and emergency services agencies for the possibility of terrorism involving chemical, biological, radiological and conventional weapons. The IAFC was involved in the development of both these laws and continues to work with the Departments of Defense and Justice in their administration.

The Antiterrorism Act authorized a $5 million appropriation to train metropolitan fire fighters in terrorism response. Designated by the Attorney General to administer this law, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) provided four jurisdictions with demonstration grants and, importantly, worked with the National Fire Academy in the development of awareness-level training curriculum that has been available nationwide for two years. A train-the-trainer approach was used for both cost savings and an efficient way to reach as many fire fighters as possible. Tens of thousands have received training based on these materials. Successfully mitigating a terrorist incident is incumbent upon early identification. Awareness-level training is vital and should continue to be provided.

OJP also created, at the direction of Congress, a National Domestic Preparedness Consortium comprised of Louisiana State University, the New Mexico Institute for Mining and Manufacturing, Texas A&M University and the Nevada Test Site's explosive ordinance facilities. The Justice Department also took control of the U.S. Army's chemical weapons training facilities at Ft. McClellan, Alabama, and designated this facility as the National Domestic Preparedness Center. Managers at these facilities have actively sought out expertise from the fire service and have demonstrated a willingness and ability to respond to constructive criticism of their programs. We support expedited access to the Consortium's facilities for as many local emergency services personnel as possible. It is essential that local emergency response agencies have significant input and oversight of program development. It is important that what is being taught is not duplicative and that training meets our needs.