Mr. FUDGE. We have worked with Federal agencies, such as the Coast Guard. We had a barge turn over I think about two and a half years ago, and worked hand in hand with them. We are working with Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team and I would like to see int eh future us be able to work more with the Federal agencies, Federal assets, to better understand what will happen in an incident of this magnitude. Mrs. FOWLER. A couple of you have already commented on this, but talking about the Federal exercise programs that they do, I know in your testimony, Chief Freeman, you referred to them. Do the rest of you view these exercise programs as valuable, and are you learning lessons from these overall? Do any of you want to comment on those? I know there have been a couple already that have. Mr. BURDICK. Yes, I think that as I stated before, they have generally been very valuable. There is, with the increasing number of exercises that occur, I am not sure we are really gaining a lot more insight as to new and original problems. We're seeing very much the same sorts of things, command issues, communication issues, organizational things. We're back to the whole question of who is really in charge or doing what, when and how. And those are recurring themes that we are seeing over and over again. I would recommend that with the statement that the exercise programs have been generally valuable, it would be much greater value to start codifying a lot of these lessons learned and turning that into training as well, and planning assistance. Because we're seeing the same things over and over again. I do not want to derail any exercises, because it is real important to get new people involved and let them see the things as well. But I think we need, as a Nation, to make better use of the lessons learned that we have gotten from what we have already done. Mrs. FOWLER. Any other comments? Chief Eversole. Chief EVERSOLE. I would comment that as Chief Freeman said earlier, during the Westwind, when these forces are pre-deployed for a situation, or they come in like a national political campaign, the conference, that is very helpful. That is not a realistic state of life, though. They normally are not parked in your back yard, half dressed and ready to go. So it's really good to see their capabilities and to understand that. But that's not the real world. They're sitting, for instance, at Camp Lejeune. That's a long way for me. If they were always in my back yard, or like they were for the Democratic National Convention, the last one, they were very helpful. Those were very reassuring forces. But they're just there every day. Mrs. FOWLER. Distance. I want to ask each of you what your interaction has been with the NDPO. I know several of you have commented about their lack of funding. Has it been very helpful to you? And what would you think of an office within the Executive Office of the President that would be similar to the drug czar, but for terrorism preparedness? And I think as you are aware, that is sort of the track that we are using in this legislation that we're going to be putting forward. I know you have not reviewed it, so you might want to wait until you review it. But just in general terms of the idea. Because Chief Freeman, you kept stressing one point, one source, which is what we saw as we have been working on this this past year, that there was nobody with the authority, with the clout that these people could answer to. They could sit them all down in a room and say, okay, let's get this coordinated, let's eliminate the duplication and the overlap. Let's lay out a national strategy and really a national plan and then an annual strategy of implementing that plan, without that person having to also do their department or agency's work, too. So that's sort of what we have been trying to do, but I would be interested in getting your thoughts, both on the NDPO and on how this type of structure, if you think this might or not, and is this the direction we should be going. Anyone that would like to start off is fine. Chief FREEMAN. I'll be glad to speak to that. I was encouraged by the concept of an NDPO. I did have the opportunity to interact with several individuals that were directly involved with the NDPO, the operation of it. There was an individual from the Governor's Office of Emergency Services from California that was reassigned to assist, as was the representative from the fire service. I do not know exactly what has happened. I would certainly concur with what Chief Eversole has concluded, not much has come out of that. It is very unfortunate, and maybe here there is more knowledge as to what has been the problem. From local government's perspective, it's a failure. And we are not seeing that single point of contact. And that's disappointing. I have not had the opportunity to review the proposed legislation in any great detail. However, I would say that the concept, the concept certainly seems to address what we and my colleagues, within first responder services within the fire service see as a need, that single point of contact, someone who is really focused on that, has the authority to bring the other very important Federal players together. Someone who is also accountable for the continuation and follow-through of that national strategy in the plan. Mrs. FOWLER. Anyone else? Mr. Fudge? Mr. FUDGE. Yes, ma'am. I definitely concur with Chief Freeman, as far as a single point of contact. The NDPO, as far as knowing exactly what they do and what they did, I can tell you from a State point of view, I do not know. And for the locals, either they need a better marketing strategy or something. We need to bring everything together so that we know what the Federal Government can actually offer to us. So on a State level, we can offer it to our locals. Mrs. FOWLER. And I know you might need to slip out, so do not worry if you have to. I appreciate your helping us today, Mr. Fudge. I promised you I'd have you out before 5:00, so thank you. Anyone else want to comment on that? Chief Eversole? Chief EVERSOLE. I would tell you that first of all, what Chief Freeman said, I could not say better. On a personal basis, I was excited, like a kid going to Disney World. And it just didn't materialize. I really am not close enough to tell you why it didn't mate rialize, but the bottom line is, you the Federal Government, failed us. We are really disappointed. We thought we were going to get something that would work, that would help us all get one program, one idea, we'd all start moving in the same direction. I find it hard to understand. I have my personal feelings of why it failed. But I think that somewhere along the line, the Federal Government should look at themselves and truly be ashamed of their failure in this situation. Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Burdick? Mr. BURDICK. I would echo what the other folks have said, as well. I would also point out that there have been some products that were put out by the National Domestic Preparedness Office that have been very valuable. They had some planning guides that came out last year. There's a recurrent newsletter called the Beacon, which has been extremely useful, just getting information out. But clearly it has not had the widespread distribution it probably should. And specific action guides, dealing with specific issues, having to do with anthrax and so forth, which have been extremely useful. It's really the first things that we have seen across the board from the Federal Government to assist localities and States with some of their planning and some of their preparedness efforts. In terms of an oversight or the correct position in Government for such an entity as is proposed in your bill, I am not sure I know the best place for it. It needs to be high enough to exert some clout, to exert some authority, and to have the ear of the true decision makers as to what is going on. I do not think where it is is necessarily the right place for that sort of entity. Mrs. FOWLER. At the current time, you mean? Mr. BURDICK. Yes. Mrs. FOWLER. Well, I do not have any other questions, but I know I'll have some for the record. I want to thank each of you, because you have taken time away from your busy lives and all that you are doing for your States, and on the international level, too, to come today. It's because we all care, because we are concerned. The Federal Government has failed, you're right, Chief Eversole. That is why we are doing what we are trying to do now, to find some way in which we will not continue to fail and we can move forward, so that we can provide assistance we need. As you know, this hearing was the second that we have had no this issue. As we continue to examine it and become even more aware of what needs to be done to make it work. One very important point I think we all must remember is that the function of preparing the Nation's first responders should not be a competition among the Federal agencies, which is what, unfortunately, it has been. And as we have heard from the testimony today, we are going to continue to experience problems until we have established a national strategy to achieve preparedness. So I firmly believe, and as many of you have stated, too, that in the absence of a clearly defined role for each of the Federal agencies, as would be identified in a national strategy, then our efforts will not be completely effective. They are each going to have a role. No one is going to be dropping off this list. It's just let's get them clearly defined and get them coordinated. So as we approach the five year anniversary of the bombing in Oklahoma City, our hearts and minds are turning to that unforgettable image. I was thinking of this the other night, saw it on the front page of the newspaper, when we had a firefighter working out, carrying the little boy in his arms, with the debris all around him. We do not want mothers and fathers across America seeing that again if we can help it. So that's why we all, this is a high priority to you, it's a high priority to me and many of us here in the Congress. We are going to continue to push it. This Subcommittee is going to really follow this issue closely. It is my hope that if we continue, as we are going to, to focus on this issue, then it is eventually going to result in measurable improvement in how prepared we are in the event of a terrorist attack. Mr. Traficant and I are going to work very closely with other key members of the Congress, as well as the Administration and the emergency preparedness community, such as you, to move forward with this bill. So I will look forward to scheduling a hearing soon with the relevant Federal agencies on the bill, and we are going to keep this moving, I want to assure you. So again, I want to thank each of you for being with us today, for all that you do on a daily basis to make sure that your communities and our country is better prepared. We are going to try to get you more help and better help soon. Thank you again very much for being with us. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:54 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Emergency Management March 30, 2000 Testimony of: Brett A. Burdick, PG, CHMM 10501 Trade Court Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to present my testimony on the issue of Preparedness for Terrorism Response. I currently serve within the Virginia Department of Emergency Services as the Terrorism Program Manager and have been serving in this capacity since the Fall of 1995. In this position I have had many opportunities to work with representatives of the federal government, local jurisdictions, and many other states in developing and implementing terrorism consequence management initiatives. My comments here will focus on several areas of this important topic. I would like to share some of my observations on the following: the apparent duplication of federal training and assistance given to states and localities, the lack of a clear national strategy on domestic preparedness, experience with federally-sponsored exercises, the opportunities for National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, and state and local relationships with the various Department of Justice programs and initiatives. Duplication of Federal Training Initiatives: Since the passage in 1996 of what has been called the Nunn-Lugar-Dominici (NLD) Act many federal agencies have undertaken or overseen the development and delivery of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) training courses for the civilian first responder community. A partial list includes the Department of Defense (the Domestic Preparedness Program), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (through the Emergency Response to Terrorism series developed by the National Fire Academy), and the Department of Justice (through the Domestic Preparedness Consortium). Each of these agencies proceeded with a different set of authorities and objectives-- Defense was charged with providing training to the 120 largest cities, Justice to the largest 120 metropolitan areas, FEMA and National Fire Academy to provide |