Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
H.R. 4210, PREPAREDNESS AGAINST TERRORISM ACT OF 2000
Thursday, May 4, 2000
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Emergency Management, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:33 p.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tillie K. Fowler [chairperson of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mrs. FOWLER. The subcommittee will come to order.
We have a few more members who are coming but in the interest of time—I know we have witnesses here—we will go ahead and get started because we should be having a vote in about an hour.
I want to thank all of you for being here this afternoon.
I read an article in the Washington Post last week about a recent preparedness against terrorism exercise that took place in Cincinnati, Ohio. The article was critical of the outcome of this exercise Cincinnati is not ready for such an attack and neither are Federal officials. Frankly, the purpose of such an exercise is to identify our weaknesses while we can still do something about them.
While I am concerned about the shortcomings such exercises expose, I know that in the long run, we can be prepared for such an attack. However, I am extremely concerned about what the President of the National Association of Police Chiefs had to say in this article. He said, ''Several million dollars were appropriated by Congress to prepare first responders. We are still scratching our heads as to where the funds went. They never really got down to the local level.''
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I understand this frustration and I see some heads nodding at this witness table too. I share this frustration. This country is not ready for a terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction. Anyone who sat in one of our hearings for just a few minutes knows that. So we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to correct this and what are we getting for it.
Here is a sample of what we are getting. We are right now in the process of teaching the State and local personnel in 89 cities across this Nation the same material, not once but at least twice and sometimes more. If you don't like the DOD course, then why not try the Department of Justice course. In Los Angeles alone, a city whose fire chief told this panel it may be in the least need of Federal help, the Federal Government has taught no less than 8 duplicative terrorism preparedness courses. It is like spending millions of dollars shipping oranges to Florida and snow to Alaska. Meanwhile, 12 entire States have received no training at all.
I am constantly finding out about new Federal programs. They seem to be cropping up like mushrooms and these programs are not coordinated with the rest of the Federal family. As Chicago's Fire Chief, John Everso commented during our first hearing, ''Apparently none of the telephones connect between Federal agencies.'' Further, as GAO keeps reminding us, these programs are not part of any national strategy and have not been wedded with the people they are intended to help—our fire, police and emergency management professionals.
My continuing concern about these and other nuances of the Justice Grants Program will have to be the topic of another hearing. Today, we will first hear testimony regarding Mr. Traficant's and my proposal to bring some discipline to this process. H.R. 4210, the Domestic Preparedness Against Terrorism Act of 2000.
We are at the point now where duplication and fragmentation will continue to exist until Congress provides a governmentwide structure for terrorism preparedness programs. As witnesses testifying before this committee have told us repeatedly, the structure we create must provide a national strategy with a defined end state of preparedness. In addition, the structure must be able to eliminate duplication and programs that do not work or do not comply with the national strategy.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I believe that H.R. 4210, the Preparedness Against Terrorism Act of 2000, achieves all of these goals. It places a single person in charge of coordinating the Nation's terrorism preparedness efforts with enough authority to eliminate these wasteful programs. Until we have established a framework that requires communication within the Federal family, we will continue to experience the same duplication and fragmentation of Federal programs.
Our goal should be not to pad the budgets of every agency who wants to recreate training programs or response teams. This is too serious and dangerous an enterprise to waste our resources. Our goal is to prepare our first responders for a terrorist attack and to provide effective support when it does come. These are the people on the front lines, the people we count on to protect us when tragedy strikes. We are spending billions of dollars and we need to make it all, every last dime, count.
Today, we will hear views on H.R. 4210 from two panels. First will be individuals who deal with preparedness on a day-to-day basis. Our second panel will consist of representatives of the lead Federal agencies in terrorist attack preparedness. I would like to thank all of the witnesses for their time and their opinions. I look forward to hearing their testimony and working together to improve the capabilities of State and local responders through this legislation.
I would like now to recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Traficant, for his opening statement.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
You know, we have held two hearings and meetings with stakeholders, State and local governments and various Federal agencies on the issue of preparedness against terrorism. This bill was written as a direct response to concerns that were raised over and over again.
There is an absolute absence of an organized Federal effort. First of all, Federal agencies have created a massive structure of uncoordinated, fragmented and often duplicative programs, many of which do not address the needs of State and local responders. Secondly, the entity that was created to coordinate these programs, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Domestic Preparedness Office, has proven insignificant if not worthless specifically in coordination and networking with other entities.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think we can at least admit here as a subcommittee, this National Domestic Preparedness Offices has not met the expectations of the response community. Moreover, the General Accounting Office and the congressionally-commissioned Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction reinforced the need for an overarching coordination absolutely necessary to develop coordination among Federal agencies involved in terrorism preparedness.
Federal agencies will never be coordinated without defining the end state of preparedness for emergency responders. We need a national plan and a national strategy. Now what we have are turf fights over who is the boss. Quite frankly, Madam Chairwoman, we are at our borders only inspecting three out of 100 trucks right now. It is not inconceivable that a nuclear warhead could cross our borders, be assembled internally in America and detonated and fired at one of our major cities.
What I am upset about today is I am under the impression that the Department of Justice attempted to limit open and honest discussion on this bill. After the conclusion of this, I will make a determination of whether or not we should ask for an investigation, if not a grand jury investigation, into the Department of Justice attempting to manipulate testimony before us because they, themselves, do not support the bill. Enough is enough. Enough is enough.
I think the Congress of the United States had better get some oversight on the Department of Justice because I think they are running roughshod over many of America's people starting with Waco to Ruby Ridge, now to attempting, in my opinion, to influence the testimony brought before us. Our concerns are about protecting Americans, not the turf fights of the Justice Department.
For all those of the Justice Department smirking out there, you have not done a good job. The FBI program has failed us and now you are attempting to influence witness testimony. That does not shine here with this guy.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Madam Chairwoman, this is a coordinated effort that deserves serious consideration. It is going to be an uphill fight because the Department of Justice and the Administration is going to fight this bill but let me say this. They would then much rather see America vulnerable to the opportunity of a terrorism strike more so than what everybody might believe.
With that, I will save my comments for questions later.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. Traficant.
I want to welcome the Vice Chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Terry from Nebraska, Mr. Isakson from Georgia and a member of the full committee, Mr. Steve Horn from California. Do any of you have an opening statement you would like to make?
Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I want to commend you and Ranking Member Traficant for introducing the legislation and only make one comment from my extreme interest in this matter.
Terrorism by definition takes advantage of two specific things. One is surprise and the other is the chaos that follows. It is absolutely essential that we as a Nation not contribute to that chaos by not having a clear and defined policy, a clear and defined chain of command, and the type of response that local and State government must have during these most horrible of circumstances.
At this most appropriate time, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter some documents. If now is the time, I will do that.
Mrs. FOWLER. You can go ahead now.
Mr. ISAKSON. I would like to ask unanimous consent that four documents be submitted for the record: a letter from Mr. John Brinkerhoff, former Associate Director of FEMA; a letter from James Clapper, Jr., the Vice Chairman of the Advisory Panel on Access to Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism; a letter from Dr. Thomas Frazier, the President of the National Consortium for Genomic Resources Management and a statement of Dr. D.A. Henderson, University Distinguished Service Professor at the Johns Hopkins University.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mrs. FOWLER. Without objection, they will be made a part of the record.
[The documents follow:]
[insert here]
Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Horn?
Mr. HORN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I commend you for pursuing this matter. We have held hearings on emergency oversight in the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology that I chair under Government Reform and this is a critical issue.
I might ask some questions concerning the terrorism of computers because that is part of our problem that we face and I am sure you will also get into that. I am also concerned with what my colleague from Ohio said. He is absolutely right on the dragging of the feet within the Justice Department. In the democratic Congress you and I came to, the 103rd, we authorized border patrol and they are just now getting on the border. They still are dragging their feet.
Customs needs 1,000 to 2,000 more inspectors. I represent the first and second largest ports in the United States—Long Beach is number one and Los Angeles is number two—and we simply do not have the people there, yet we find last week 50 Chinese immigrants in one of the containers and we find very little because we can only do 1 percent of the containers that come off the ship. That is pretty sad. For the thieves that run some of those operations in China, that is just the cost of doing business. So you find 30 today, so what? The other 99 containers got through and we do not know who was in them or anything else. Was there lying, which there often is, about the warehouse evaluation of what went into those containers.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So I am concerned with our failure to act in both Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. Horn. We share your concerns and that is why we have introduced this bill and are having this hearing today.
I would like now to introduce our first panel. The first panel includes: Gary Marrs, Fire Chief, Oklahoma City who can provide a unique perspective on the efficacy of preparedness programs; Stan McKinney, Director, South Carolina Division of Emergency Preparedness, representing the National Emergency Management Agency; joining us from my home State of Florida, the Fire Chief from the City of Jacksonville, Chief Ray Alfred; and Olden Henson, Council Member, City of Hayward, California as a representative of the National League of Cities.
I want to thank you gentlemen for being with us today. We appreciate your time in taking a look at this proposal and coming here to share your expert opinions.
Before we proceed with your testimony, we will swear you as we do with all witnesses who testify before the subcommittee. If you could please stand and raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
[Witnesses were sworn.]
Mrs. FOWLER. We ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes and without objection, your full written statement will be included in the record. There is a timer sitting there and I think you have been told how it works. The green light means keep talking, the red light means the time is up, so sometimes it gets a little confusing.
With that, Chief Marrs, we will begin with you.
TESTIMONY OF GARY MARRS, FIRE CHIEF, OKLAHOMA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS; STAN MCKINNEY, DIRECTOR, SOUTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; RAY ALFRED, FIRE CHIEF, JACKSONVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT, FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS; AND OLDEN P. HENSON, COUNCILMEMBER, CITY OF HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MARRS. My name is Gary Marrs and I am the Fire Chief of the Oklahoma City Fire Department. I also appear today on behalf of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, commonly referred to as ICHIEFS.
I became involved with the Federal Government on the issue of domestic terrorism exactly five years ago last month. I have been witness to Federal response efforts and to programs designed to enhance the ability of the local first responders to cope with and mitigate incidents of terrorism. These programs were all created by Congress subsequent to the ordeal endured by my city in April of 1995.
To the credit of the Federal Government, it has designed programs to assist the fire service and other local emergency service agencies. These programs have grown and improved over the past several years but so have the number of response teams of one kind or another that have been created by Federal agencies to respond in the event of an incident to assist us.
My observation is that finite funding for incident response is going to Federal agencies, most of whom will not be a part of that first response and many who will not be involved until much later or perhaps not at all.
The subject of this hearing is H.R. 4210, the Terrorism Preparedness Act of 2000. As I understand it, this bill would create an office within the White House to function as a central coordinating point that would bring some order to what has been developed over the years to a very confusing hodgepodge of preparedness programs and response assets.
Madam Chair, I applaud your effort. You are doing in your job what I do in my job and that is trying to bring order to chaos.
Three years ago, I testified before a congressional committee on the need for interagency coordination. At that time, I applauded the efforts of FEMA in creating without expressed authority or funding an interagency group to ensure that various programs created by Congress should be implemented in an effective and cost efficient manner.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We also understand that the FEMA Director has recently brought former ATF Director John McGaw to serve in a coordinating role at FEMA. This is a step in the right direction.
We also recommended three years ago that Congress take action to authorize a coordinating authority to do just that. In the 39 months since that hearing, some attempts have been made to create such an entity. What has been lacking is the clear authority and accountability that is necessary for an interagency coordinator to be effective. Where that entity or coordinator is placed within the administrative branch of the Federal Government is not for us to determine. However, the need for it is just as valid today as it was when I spoke of it in 1997.
We in the Fire Service have repeatedly attempted to define the two distinct roles of Federal Government with respect to domestic terrorism. Those roles include the administration of programs provided by Congress that are designed to enhance the ability of local agencies to cope with an incident of terrorism and the actual Federal response effort that will be undertaken.
It has been noted that we are spending over $10 billion on terrorism at the Federal level of government. I cannot say how that money is being spent though I do know that efforts at prevention should be the first priority. We are aware of only about three percent of that $10 billion figure that is directed at assisting local first responders in capability enhancement. That three percent is spread across at least four agencies of which we are aware.
It is with that preparedness assistance role that the Fire Service is most concerned. We in the Fire Service have testified before Congress repeatedly that local first responders, especially fire fighters will bear the brunt of saving lives and stabilizing an incident of terrorism regardless of where it may occur. It is vitally important that resources provided by Congress to assist our preparedness effort be leveraged to the best extent possible. A coordinator created by Congress should have the authority necessary to do that job.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Much has been said about duplication of effort. We have no doubt that this is a problem. However, I urge you to heed our point with respect to the two distinct roles of Federal Government and examine carefully how the 97 percent share of the national terrorism expenditure is being spent, the 97 percent that is ont targeted at local preparedness assistance.
We remain committed to assist Congress in the administration and improving and streamlining existing programs. Any good faith effort at bringing a focused approach to local, State and Federal preparedness such as H.R. 4210 is worthy of support.
I would like to make a point based on some previous comments you made about coordinating efforts. Some of the programs that the local communities are mandated to do, either to get money or to get training programs, we are mandated to coordinate inside our own communities with the law enforcement people, fire and so forth. We just kind of ask that the Federal Government do the same thing at this level that we are mandated to do at our level.
Thank you for inviting me today and I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, Chief Marrs.
Mr. McKinney?
Mr. MCKINNEY. Thank you.
Madam Chair, members of the committee and subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be with you today representing a small State in the south as well as the National Emergency Management Association in which I serve in the capacity of chairing the Terrorism Committee for that organization.
We commend you for your interest in this most important subject and the efforts you are undertaking to improve Federal agency coordination and ultimate delivery of service to State and local first responders across the country.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We are excited about the interest that you have generated around this bill and feel that H.R. 4210 can indeed serve to improve Federal efforts to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks across the country.
As already indicated, we agree that progress has been made across the Federal agencies to further coordination but it is still very difficult for the States to have a complete understanding and working relationship with the Federal system and Federal family to bring assistance to the States and our constituent groups and yours to local responders across the country that deal with this challenge.
Duplication of effort between agencies and certainly overlaps in programs and authorities are not acceptable and certainly stand to impede progress in improving local responder capability across the country.
We believe that a review of all Federal terrorism programs including research and development activities is absolutely needed. Coordination with the States is another area requiring attention. We encourage the Federal Government at the direction of Congress to do that, to include the Nation's governors in that process who have designated 42 of their emergency management agencies across the country to serve as a single point of contact for justice programs in delivering assistance to the States. These same agencies also administer the FEMA terrorism grant funding in each of their jurisdictions.
In the future, all Federal programs and funding absolutely should be coordinated through the governor's designated single point of contact for State terrorism preparedness programs. A single funding stream into the States would not only reduce administrative burdens but would allow for a more coordinated and comprehensive approach to the development and implementation of State terrorism consequence management strategies.
We believe, as obviously you do, that H.R. 4210 proposes to improve this process through the establishment of the White House Office of Terrorism Preparedness. NEMA supports the prescribed duties of the director of that office, particularly with regard to publishing a domestic terrorism preparedness plan and an annual strategy for carrying it out. It is critically important that we have a national strategy based on measurable objectives.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Currently, we do not have a high level of confidence that all Federal domestic preparedness programs and funding are consistent with the five year interagency counterterrorism and technology plan that has already been developed within the Department of Justice.
NEMA would also propose that there be a formal requirement of the Office of Terrorism Preparedness to communicate and coordinate on a very regular basis with all of our governors and States regarding the development and implementation of Federal policies and programs that affect them.
Certainly a consolidated budget proposal is an excellent approach to ending the duplication of effort and maximizing limited funding. Federal funding requests should indeed be based at least in part on the results of the State needs assessments. These needs assessments will provide current data regarding threat and risk, gaps and shortfalls in programs and overall State capabilities.
Consistency between Federal training programs is also a concern of the States and their emergency managers. We question whether Federal programs are consistent with each other and with response protocols utilized in the States such as the use of the Incident Command System for Crisis and Event Management. Planning programs from various disciplines have to be standardized in order to ensure common approaches between communities and States.
Certainly NEMA supports the concept of the Office of Terrorism Preparedness in the White House. We also agree that the definition of major disaster in the Stafford Act should be amended to include a terrorist attack using a weapon on mass destruction. The role of FEMA in the Stafford Act authorized programs must be protected in this legislation. The director must retain his necessary authority to act quickly during times of disaster to deliver assistance to the impacted States.
The addition of these terrorism preparedness programs to the Stafford Act must not disrupt the Nation's existing emergency management response system. It should build upon what we already have and make that even better.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Federal Response Plan must also be used to recognize the strategy for Federal agencies to provide assistance under the Stafford Act, and a common, established and respected framework for that delivery.
NEMA supports to commit to you to improve Federal coordination as we have along with Chief Marrs and others in the past and pledge to you our continued work to help you further this important initiative.
Thank you on behalf of NEMA for the opportunity to be here today to serve as a witness.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. McKinney.
Chief Alfred?
Mr. ALFRED. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am Ray Alfred, Fire Chief of Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department. I also appear here today on behalf of the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
I would like to start by thanking you for your advocacy on behalf of the Fire Service. We at Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department would also like to thank you for your efforts on our behalf.
The issue of domestic terrorism is one in which America's fire departments have a vital interest. It is our understanding that H.R. 4210 seeks to address the issue of coordination of programs spread across Federal agencies that are designed either to help prepare local emergency response communities or programs that provide actual response capabilities at the Federal level.
There are two distinct areas of Federal counterterrorism efforts that should be addressed—first, programs designed to support 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.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Nunn/Lugar/Domenici amendment of 1996 Defense Authorization and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 began Federal efforts help better prepare local fire, police and emergency services agencies for the possibility of terrorism involving chemical, biological, radiological and conventional weapons. Our Association was involved in the development of both these laws and continues to work with the Department of Defense, Justice, along with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in their administration.
The Antiterrorism Act authorized $5 million appropriation to train fire fighters and other emergency services personnel in terrorism response. Designated by the Attorney General to administer this law, the Office of Justice Program provided four jurisdictions with demonstration grants and importantly worked with the National Fire Academy in the development of awareness level training curricula that has been available nationwide for two years.
A train the trainer approach was used as both a cost savings and efficient way to reach as many fire fighters and other emergency personnel as possible. Hundreds of thousands have received training based on these materials. This awareness level training is excellent and should be provided.
Chemical, biological and radiological weapons pose unique challenges. Fire fighters and emergency personnel improperly prepared will themselves fall victim of their effects. The lives of the initial survivors of an attack depend upon immediate care and attention from rescue workers. These men and women must be equipped to operate safely in a contaminated environment if lives are to be saved. Thus, personnel protective gear must be the top priority, followed by equipment that will facilitate decontamination of victims, devices that can detect and monitor the presence of these agents are also important. They can prevent mistakes that could cost lives.
Discretionary funds for counter terrorism initiatives provided by the conference report accompanying fiscal year 1998 appropriations for the Department of Commerce, Justice and State were targeted by the Attorney General at these equipment issues. OJP distributed $12 million to 41 jurisdictions across the country to begin addressing these urgent equipment needs.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
At the same time, OJP created at the direction of Congress a National Domestic Preparedness Consortium comprised of Louisiana State University, the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Manufacturing, Texas A&M University and Nevada Test Site. The Justice Department also took control of the U.S. Army's Chemical Weapons Training Facility at Fort McClellan, Alabama and designated this facility as the National Domestic Preparedness Center.
Training curricula and facilities offered by these consortiums have been well received by chief fire officers with both hazardous material and training expertise. Managers of these facilities have sought our expertise and welcomed constructive criticism. The International Association of Fire Chiefs strongly supports expedited access to the consortium facilities for as many local emergency responders as possible.
I turn now to the coordination of these and other programs that H.R. 4210 seeks to address. Some of my colleagues in the Fire Service have appeared before the committee in the past and spoken of their concerns as to the lack of coordination of Federal efforts, both in terms of preparedness and support programs. I have discussed seemingly endless Federal response capabilities that appear duplicative and continue to grow.
My friend Mike Freeman of Los Angeles County chairs the International Association of Fire Chiefs' Terrorism Committee of which I serve. He appeared before this committee last month and spoke of the need to better coordinate the Federal level of participation. I would like to simply repeat the message.
It is said that the sum of human effort is greater than the individual parts. If none of us can quantify or even find the parts, it is more likely that the sum total of our national preparedness effort will diminish.
The legislation before the committee seeks to do thus that. We are pleased this legislation has been introduced and that Congress will focus on this issue. Any effort such as this to bring focus to the issues as complex as those with which we are all grappling is worthy of support.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you for this opportunity to testify and I will be glad to respond to any questions as well.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, Chief Alfred.
Mr Henson?
Mr. HENSON. Thank you.
On behalf of the National League of Cities, let me say that we are pleased to have the opportunity to chime in today to share our views on the Preparedness Against Terrorism Act of 2000.
I am Olden Henson, City Councilmember from the City of Hayward, California and I am also the Chairperson of the National League of Cities Public Safety and Crime Prevention Policy Committee.
The National League of Cities is among the Nation's oldest associations representing municipal government. We represent 135,000 members and 16,000 cities. We are delighted to be here. On behalf of the National League of Cities, I want to express my gratitude to you, Madam Chair, for introducing H.R. 4210.
All to often we, as local elected officials, hear the concerns of our police, our fire fighters and EMS personnel about the need for coordination and a coordinated system for domestic preparedness. As you well know, my colleague and vice chair of the NLC's Public Safety and Crime Prevention Committee, Councilmember Ann Simank of Oklahoma City testified before this subcommittee last year regarding the need for better coordination of Federal resources for domestic preparedness.
The National League of Cities applauds the Federal Government's efforts in establishing training programs for local first responders, providing grants to help improve local domestic preparedness capabilities, dedicating more emergency service personnel to help local first responders in the event of a terrorist attack, and focusing more on efforts to address on-line threats of terrorism such as cyberattacks that could ruin a city's grid system, damage its infrastructure and virtually shutdown vital public services.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
These components are essential to the Federal Government's network of assistance to local governments in preventing and responding to weapons of mass destruction.
However, in noting these concerns, I must reiterate one major concern for us and that is coordination. You have heard it from the other speakers. Better organization and coordination at the Federal level will enable States and local governments to improve their own early detection warning and response capabilities against the use of chemical, biological, radiological and technological weapons of mass destruction.
When the National League of Cities' Public Safety Committee began studying this issue, we found that there were at least 43 separate Federal agencies that were involved in the issue of domestic terrorism preparedness. This prompted us to publish our own local official guide. It is called ''Domestic Terrorism, Resources for Local Governments.'' I believe you all have a copy.
Some of the questions that were raised as a part of that process were: What Federal agency takes the lead in helping local first responders in the event of a terrorist attack? Is there a central clearinghouse of information about all of the Federal training programs for first responders? Questions of this sort remind us of the stark reality that the potential for terrorist attack compels all levels of government to coordinate efforts to protect communities. Furthermore, such coordination requires the designation of a lead Federal agency that develops and implements a comprehensive national disaster preparedness and counter terrorism strategy.
Hence, I would like to elaborate on the following points. The appropriate funding for local domestic preparedness, comprehensive training and technical assistance for cities and towns of all sizes, along with the facilitation of regional planning and cooperation. This is a critical issue for many of our small towns and cities, many in rural areas, and also the sharing of intelligence to aid in preventing terrorist attack.
As immediate responders to the crime scene of a terrorist threat or attack, local governments are often the only responders from the time of the occurrence until at least 24 hours after the incident. In that regard, we need all of the assistance and the training.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As you quoted, Madam Chair, from the Cincinnati exercise, Mr. Arenberg's quote which went on to say that some of the funds and resources never really got down to the local level, we feel that is an accurate statement. That needs to change.
We also believe that the Preparedness Against Terrorism Act of 2000 should address these concerns and evaluate the level of training needed for each region and jurisdiction.
The NLC also notes the measure's requirement to set voluntary minimum standards for State and local domestic preparedness programs. We understand that these standards are to be used as guidelines with regard to equipment, exercise and training.
While we understand that these guidelines must be established, we are concerned that many cities may not receive these needed resources because they cannot physically or financially meet the mandates of the guidelines. We urge you to strongly consider flexible, direct funding to local governments so that we can indeed meet these guidelines. There must be some assurance that local governments will have direct and flexible access to these vital funds.
Finally, with the designation of the Office of Terrorism Preparedness, there must be the implementation of a national policy for sharing certain classified information on threats or potential threats of terrorism with local law enforcement agencies on a need to know basis.
We understand from last year's testimony there were some citings of some inadequacies in the Oklahoma City bombing with regard to the comments made by Congressman Traficant and we also believe those to be accurate.
In addition to sharing information, certain information, another area of concern is emergency communication among all first responders. Public safety communication is essential in the wake of any terrorist act or emergency and having the appropriate allocation of broadcast spectrum is crucial to all agencies, including local police, fire, EMS as well as State and Federal agencies. This is a hard lesson learned from the tragic occurrence in Oklahoma City in the bombing where first responders had to resort to runners in order to relay vital information among all emergency response agencies.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The challenges that we face to prepare local governments and our first responders for terrorist incidents are indeed very complex and multifaceted. Where there are chemical, biological, nuclear or technologic agents use, our cities and towns must be prepared for the variety of those threats.
Large scale evacuation, public health emergencies, the detection of explosives and other hazardous materials and the diffusion of cyberthreats which cannot be minimized, on-line threats, are just a few of the challenges we confront in the face of terrorist threat or attack.
As my colleague, Councilmember Simank stressed last year, it is the local response that will be the first on scene, first to assess the situation and the first to take action. Please see that the Federal resources are better coordinated and get to where they need to be.
The National League of Cities greatly appreciates your leadership on this issue and we look forward to working with you as this crucial piece of legislation moves forward toward final passage.
I would be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.
Thank you.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you. I want to thank each one of you for your testimony. I have a few questions and then I will go to others.
It has been interesting listening to each of you and reading your testimonies. There is a common thread throughout of the need for better Federal coordination and the need for some type of interagency coordinator who is independent, who has sufficient authority, funding, political support at the highest levels in order to better coordinate these programs. Every one of your statements had something to that effect.
With that in mind, I know each of you said it is not your place to suggest exactly where this should be placed, but I want to ask a couple of questions on this line. It is purported that this Office of Terrorism Preparedness should be placed in the Department of Justice. I would like the panel's concerns about it being there and also if it were placed in FEMA, what would be your concerns about that, the pluses or minuses versus having it as an independent body in the Executive Office of the President, the pros and cons of placement in agencies, the lack of authority or whatever might be needed.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MARRS. I don't know that it matters so much to me or to the Fire Service which agency has it or does not have it as much as the emphasis we would put on it that they have the authority or the responsibility or the clout to make all the other agencies come to the table and do that coordination. I do not know whether an agency could be in charge of that and agencies at the same level would feel they needed to come in or there would be some appropriateness of who is in charge of who type thing.
As I said, I do not think it is our place to say where it should be but we would reinforce that they have the White House support, the Congress support, the mandate and the authority to bring all those people to the table and make that coordination of effort occur.
Mrs. FOWLER. As you pointed out, you asked for this 39 months ago and we still do not have it today.
Mr. Henson?
Mr. HENSON. I would agree with Chief Marrs. I think at the local level, the National League of Cities, we care about the coordinated resources, however that is done should be left in the hands of those such as yourselves who are capable of making those kinds of decisions.
We recognize that in addition to a disaster site, we will have a crime scene as well, so we want the assurance that whoever the lead agency is they are able to do, as Mr. Marrs indicated, able to have the clout to bring in the other agencies to address all the necessary issues that are a part of that scene of disaster.
Mr. ALFRED. In addition to what has been said, not just the authority are we looking for but whoever that person is, in fact, their full attention can be paid to the day-to-day concerns of the issue of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, we do not think that person should be burdened with having to run the day-to-day operation of any other agency or any other part of that agency but simply to focus on what should be done for first responders in our communities.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MCKINNEY. I would agree with those comments. I think the Attorney General should be commended on her effort to pull together the five year plan. We do not feel comfortable that it is being followed very well and that is probably indicative of the fact that with the challenge of crisis and consequence management at least in the two lead agencies, the FBI and FEMA, may be an intermediate executive step will be necessary to bring them together. Certainly coordination is required.
Mrs. FOWLER. To your knowledge, does the NDPO have any control at this point in time over any other agencies' budgets? Do you think a coordinator needs to have some control over other agencies' preparedness budgets, some say so or some reference to them?
Mr. HENSON. Certainly the clout to bring them in, I am not at all certain about the budget part. That is a larger issue as I stated in my prior answer. We at the local level and the National League of Cities want to see a degree of transparency as it comes down to us. How it is there is up to greater authority. I would say simply the authority would be more important to us in coordinating all the efforts. The budgetary concerns would be left to a greater authority.
Mrs. FOWLER. I have one last question. The merits of a national strategy seem to be obvious to everyone but the Department of Justice. We still do not have a national strategy. Could you tell me how you think future programs would be affected if we had a national strategy which could be implemented?
Mr. MARRS. To follow with the answer to the last question and lead into that one, you asked about the NDPO and having authority over anyone's budget, and no, they do not. I think it is more of coordinating of the terrorism dollars than it is oversight of anyone's budget.
A national plan is imperative. I do not know how you can keep dispensing dollars after terrorism preparedness if you do not know where you are headed to begin with. You have to have some goal, some plan in place of where you are going to go before you can tell whether your dollars are being effective or not.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Traficant, any questions?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I have a number of questions I will submit in writing. I would ask unanimous consent that they be answered in detail. I just want to make a comment on the flavor and tenor of this testimony.
Each and every one of you said there is no coordination. Most of the money is going somewhere, you do not know where. Only $3 out of every $100 is coming to the local area but the first 24 hours, you are securing the scene, your firefighters are out there putting out the flames.
There is no advance intelligence shared of any kind, of any Federal entity. The Department of Justice has taken these funds, has used these funds, has kept these funds, does not share these funds and does not want you to touch their turf. That is our problem and I feel bad because we have some Federal people who know that and they won't even testify to that because they are gutless.
I am going to make this statement. The potential for a Federal crisis, a national crisis from a terrorist act gets stronger and stronger every day by the lack of what I consider to be adequate networking of resources, Federal, State and local. That must be laid in the lap of the Department of Justice. I think their plans are worthless and everybody is couching their language here. I think we had better look into that, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. Traficant.
Mr. Terry?
Mr. TERRY. No.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Isakson?
Mr. ISAKSON. Out of curiosity, I would like to ask Chief Marrs and Chief Alfred a question.
Are you familiar with the raid teams and if so, do you know where the one that services Jacksonville is located?
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MARRS. Yes, I am familiar with the Raid Program. I believe the closest one to Oklahoma is going to come out of Texas.
Mr. ALFRED. Yes, I am and I think Atlanta is the one closest to Jacksonville.
Mr. ISAKSON. Am I correct the one at Dobbins, is it deployed or are they waiting? Do you know if they are deployed yet?
Mr. ALFRED. No, I do not.
Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you. No other questions.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Horn?
Mr. HORN. Thank you.
Let me ask some of these hierarchical questions again with both Federal, State and local governments. Right now, we are talking about terrorism coordinators, terrorism offices, so forth. We also have in every State right now an emergency management operation which relates directly to FEMA, although it is not run by FEMA. It tries to educate county boards of supervisors, cities and other jurisdictions to look for certain matters and to be the conduit and the voice of the governor in terms of the responsibilities throughout the State.
I would be curious, do you want a separate terrorism office at the State or county level or the city level, or do you want the current emergency management operation to simply add the terrorism level to their particular agenda? What is your reaction?
Mr. MCKINNEY. I guess I should respond first in that I am one of those, representing a governor and the National Emergency Management Association. We believe, as evidence in my testimony, through governors' designations of 42 of the State Emergency Management Offices to further the administration and coordination of the terrorism initiative, that is where it belongs, that we should further enhancement of our all hazard emergency management system and represent our governors through that system, and not impede or interfere with the pass through of funds that we can administer for the governors to reach these local responders that are speaking to you here today also.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HORN. Chiefs, how do you feel about it? You are on the firing line?
Mr. ALFRED. Let me say in Jacksonville, for instance, the county emergency director is within the Fire Service. The International Association of Fire Chiefs just took a poll with reference to where the emergency managers were in a number of cities. I do not know what the numbers are but certainly we can make those available to you.
Mr. HORN. Madam Chairwoman, if we could at this point, that letter would be inserted.
Mr. ALFRED. A significant number of them are within the Fire Service or are fire chiefs within the counties and local communities in which they work and live.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Henson, how about the mayor. We have strong mayors and we have weak mayors. They might not be around, so to whom should that office report, the mayor, the city manager or the city administrator with different levels of authority already?
Mr. HENSON. As representative of local government, I think mayors and councils have that authority. The information should be shared there. I agree with you in the sense that the State Emergency Management Program should filter down to county and then local governments. I guess our concern at the National League of Cities and at the local level is that the coordination of such efforts in many instances simply does not reach that last level of government. So to the extent we could facilitate better coordination so there is a smoother flow that is the position we would support.
Mr. HORN. Chief Marrs, what is your feeling?
Mr. MARRS. I think your original question was should a terrorism office at the lower levels be created or should we maintain the emergency management system that we have. I would say you keep the one you have. We do not alter that based on an event. In theory, you handle a flood in the same system that you handle a tornado or hurricane. We handle a fire the same way we handle a building collapse. That program is already there and I think you simply make sure you support or supplement that system to handle all types of these incidents.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HORN. This does not explode, this does not kill people, whatever, but computer terrorism can really lock up your city in terms of computer banks that fail and the electrical supplies for a particular city, the various energy sources, you would have a lot of people by the thousands out of work, assembly lines would stop, this kind of thing. Where should computer terrorism be put in the city, county, State hierarchy? Same place? Emergency management or not?
Mr. MARRS. I think how you handle the before the fact part of that, I do not know that I could speak to intelligently but the effects of that attack are still going to be handled in the same system that we handle all the other things we do. I think that is another part of training, another facet of terrorism that you try to prepare for ahead of time but if it does occur, you are going to handle it in the same system that you handle all the other disasters.
Mr. HORN. Is that the feeling of the other three members?
Mr. ALFRED. If you are talking about the after effects of such an act, then we call it consequence management and in fact, it belongs with emergency management. It is a part of their responsibility to mitigate all of those situations. Obviously the other aspect, what Gary calls preventive maintenance, is one that I think belongs with the law enforcement community.
Mr. HORN. I see you shaking your head, Mr. Henson. Does that mean you agree?
Mr. HENSON. I do agree that to a great degree a lot of this belongs with the law enforcement community. I can share with you that the National League of Cities' Public Safety and Crime Prevention Committee has had extensive conversations on cyberterrorism. What we are looking for is the kinds of resources that the Federal Government has access to.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Our position is that we need those resources directly. We understand as in the last question there is a State agency and there may be in this case as well but we also know there are some cities that have taken upon themselves to develop the kind of programs within their law enforcement agencies that do address cyberterrorism and the kind of on-line crimes that I refer to in my testimony. The City of San Jose, California comes to mind. I would say that law enforcement plays a great role at the local level, yes.
Mr. MCKINNEY. If I could, we even propose that the Federal Response Plan should probably have a law enforcement function area, that better coordination must occur at each level between the crisis and consequence management pieces of this business. Indeed, that is what we are about on the consequence side and certainly with the evolving cybercrimes unit or computer crimes units within State law enforcement agencies, I believe the crisis piece of that will be met. We can further that coordination.
In response to the funding issue, I think it is always easy to focus on funding. I think it is important to remember that a catastrophic or major weapon of mass destruction event will call upon each level of our government to deal with it. Indeed, the States and NEMA propose that we build upon the federal response plan, that we serve our governors as the State's chief executive to assist our local governments in delivering the best possible service during those trying times.
Mr. HORN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Traficant?
Mr. TRAFICANT. A couple of quick questions. I would like yes or no if you could.
Is it your understanding pursuant to the Federal strategy that the FBI is responsible for crisis management in regard to a terrorist strike, yes or no?
[All answer yes.]
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. TRAFICANT. Is it your understanding that FEMA is responsible for consequence management?
[All answer yes.]
Mr. TRAFICANT. Yes or no, have you ever had any specific training relative to the delineation of both of those charges within the Federal strategy and on how you as a local entity fit in specific training, yes or no?
Mr. HENSON. No.
Mr. MCKINNEY. I am State and the answer is yes, as far as State involvement, yes.
Mr. TRAFICANT. No local?
Mr. ALFRED. To a limited extent and because we were in Jacksonville one of the 27 cities originally identified, we perhaps are a little ahead of everybody else. I cannot speak for the rest of them. Jacksonville has had some training.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Marrs, specific training?
Mr. MARRS. The training you get talks about that delineation but I do not know that I would feel comfortable I had received training in how it would actually work.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Thank you.
Mr. FOWLER. I want to welcome Mr. Oberstar, the Ranking Member of our Full Committee and at one time Chairman of this Oversight Subcommittee. I am trying to follow in some pretty big footsteps but I am appreciative of your being here today. Did you have any statement or questions for this panel?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for those kind words and you are doing just fine. You are following in the grand tradition of this subcommittee and conducting oversight in the best public interest.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I have a statement which I would ask to be included in the record.
I would ask Chief Marrs in the Oklahoma City tragedy, did you have a problem of coordination among the several Federal entities as well as your own local law enforcement and fire department authorities? Did you have any problems in getting the right person to do the right thing? Did everyone know what their role was? Was there a central coordinating authority?
Mr. MARRS. None that we did not eventually work out at some point.
Mr. OBERSTAR. But not going in?
Mr. MARRS. No. There was a lot of that. It seems to occur more after the people outside of Oklahoma started coming in. The local FBI, local police, local fire worked very well I think in the beginning and kind of set the stage for that. As the other entities came in from other areas, at higher levels, then there were coordination problems that had to be resolved, yes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. In advance of the tragedy, had there been any consideration of or proposal for training to coordinate activities in the event of a tragedy?
Mr. MARRS. No.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Chief Alfred, from the members of your association have you had reports whether prior to Oklahoma City or subsequent of lack of coordination among Federal entities that are responders to a tragedy?
Mr. ALFRED. Prior to Oklahoma City, my answer would be no. Subsequent to Oklahoma City, there has been some effort to make sure there is, for instance, a good working relationship between law enforcement and the fire chiefs in local communities, a good working relationship and coordination with FBI and local law enforcement and with the Fire Service. We did not have that prior to Oklahoma City.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. OBERSTAR. Should a tank car from a passing through railroad train derail, would you know how to respond? Would you have the information in hand to know what was in that tank car, what its consequences might be for groundwater if it cracks and if the material escapes, if it creates a vapor cloud? Do you or your member chiefs have information on how to deal with that, how to coordinate with other local, State and Federal authorities?
Mr. ALFRED. Yes.
Mr. MARRS. We do, yes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Henson?
Mr. HENSON. I can answer yes, we do.
Mr. OBERSTAR. What form does that take?
Mr. HENSON. The City of Hayward, we work very closely with the State's team and they bring in the resources from the Federal agencies, so that part, dealing with the hazmat, is definitely coordinated very well.
Mr. OBERSTAR. We had a situation in my district in Duluth, Minnesota where a tanker derailed. It was carrying benzene, benzene spilled into a river, created a huge vapor cloud that spread out over the City of Superior, Wisconsin and Duluth, Minnesota and 35,000 people had to be evacuated. Nobody knew what it was at first. Hours passed before they were able to get from the railroad information on what was in that tank and then how to respond, what to do with the people and with the water and with the land.
Subsequent to that, I worked with the railroad and with the Chiefs of Police and the Fire Chiefs Association to get the railroad to provide a manifest and a computerized database program that in the event of such an occurrence, the local authorities could plug into their computer, get the ID of that particular tanker and within two minutes maximum have a printout of what is in that tank, how to respond, what to do with the people, what the toxic effects might be and how to counteract those toxic effects. We had a demonstration, a dry run if you will, in Duluth about two years ago of that program.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I am wondering if you are aware of any similar programs elsewhere?
Mr. ALFRED. I am proud to say that—again, I have to speak for Jacksonville and for the International Association of Fire Chiefs—that effort for training in those areas, Jacksonville was the first in the Nation to have a hazardous material team. A lot of our major cities are now beginning to put in place hazardous material teams.
Let me suggest to you that even with a good hazardous material team, a part of the problem or concern is that a lot of times the rail cars are running up and down the tracks and there is a problem with identifying what kind of substances are being shipped. For the most part, some of the delay is in trying to identify what is being shipped and what is involved.
A lot of the major cities have hazardous material teams that are capable, well capable, as a matter of fact, handle a lot of those similar incidents on a daily basis.
Mr. OBERSTAR. That is an accidental occurrence. When you have a deliberate act of terrorism, you are confronted with a much different kind of situation. They do not tell you what their explosive device is, they do not tell you what kind of gas they are going to be using in the subway say in Japan when there was the attack a few years ago.
We have a $6.5 billion Federal budget and a request of $11 billion from the Administration for fiscal year 2001 for antiterrorism programs. There are 90 Federal training programs available through FEMA, DOD, the Justice Department, EPA and other government agencies. What we hear is that when it filters down to the local level, the responder community is faced with duplicative training programs, sometimes even counter effective and there is no overarching policy to direct those dollars for appropriate training. Could you comment on that?
Mr. HENSON. I would answer that probably in a different fashion from the other speakers. I could give you instances as I did in the prior question on the City of Hayward but I have 36 other members of my committee. Some of them are from smaller communities and rural communities. Our concern is perhaps one step beyond what you are addressing.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Our concern is that the efforts may not be there at all for those smaller communities, that they may not be addressed, that duplication may not be an issue at all but it may be that because of the rural nature of some of the communities, they may not have the opportunity and some may not have the opportunity to have the kind of technology that you mentioned, the computers where you can log on and get an ID on a substance in a couple of minutes. That is what we are dealing with.
Our task here is to make certain that you understand there are communities that do not have a duplication problem, who may not have access to many of the things you are talking about.
Mr. OBERSTAR. May not have access at all?
Mr. HENSON. May not have access at all.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. Oberstar.
I have several questions I will submit for the record. I have one last question.
Are you familiar with this little book? Has it been very useful? Does it help a lot or not? Is it being used in the field a lot?
Mr. MCKINNEY. I think there was a very limited distribution, first of all.
Mrs. FOWLER. This is called ''The On-Scene Commanders Guide'' and was put out by the NDPO November 1, 1999. It is for responding to biological and chemical threats. It is for our first responders who we assume are professionals, we know are, yet when I was reading this first page, I thought it was for high school students. Number one, remove people from harms way, that is pretty basis. Is it very helpful to your on-scene commanders? Are they making use of this or do they have other material helping them more?
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MARRS. I would say at the larger city level, probably it is stuff that has been covered frequently before in other programs.
Mr. ALFRED. We got a distribution of those and used them initially in awareness training, not just for the first responders but for the total community, law enforcement and so it was helpful to some extent.
Mr. HENSON. I am familiar with it. I cannot answer directly.
Mrs. FOWLER. If there are no further questions, I do want to thank each of you for your testimony. I appreciate your taking the time to be here with us and appreciate all each of you does in helping our cities and States in trying to become better prepared as we focus on this critical issue of domestic terrorism. The information you shared with us today is extremely important and I look forward to continuing to work with you on this issue.
Thank you very much.
I will now call the second panel. As they come forward I will identify them.
The second panel consists of representatives from the lead agencies with responsibility for terrorism preparedness. Since I got involved in the issue of preparedness against terrorism, every time that I tried to get the relevant agency heads together to discuss this issue, at least one of them would refuse to do it. So for this reason, I am especially pleased that we were able to bring all of the players together today to discuss this important issue before us.
From the Federal Emergency Management Agency, we have Director James Lee Witt. Director Witt, I know you had another engagement that you took time away from today to be with us and we appreciate your commitment to this serious matter.
Our representative from the Department of Defense is Charles Cragin, currently the Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness. Thank you for appearing today despite any pressures that may have been put on the Department not to appear before the committee today. Just as FEMA and DOJ were invited to testify today, I think it is necessary for DOD to come to the table to express their views on this bill because it will be DOD that is held accountable if we experience a major terrorist attack in this country.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Representing the Department of Justice, we have a gentleman from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Dale Watson, the Assistant Director for the Counterterrorism Activities Division of the FBI. Welcome, Mr. Watson. As you know, the Department has designated you as their representative to appear before the subcommittee. We might substitute scapegoat in there but frankly I am concerned that you may not be able to answer some of the tough questions you are going to be asked this afternoon that need to be answered by someone involved in policymaking and representing all of the relevant offices in the Department of Justice. We do appreciate your willingness to come and be with us today.
Before we proceed with your testimony, we will swear you in as we do all witnesses before this subcommittee. Please stand and raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
[All witnesses respond in the affirmative.]
Mrs. FOWLER. Please be seated.
I am going to ask something unusual here. We are deeply concerned because we have been getting all sorts of varying types of testimony some as late as 15 minutes ago and it appears there has been a coordinated effort in the Executive Office of the President to have a say so in who is being able to say what before us this afternoon. We are aware of different members' testimony that has been changed at the last minute.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairwoman, I ask unanimous consent that we dispense with their lengthy readings of their statements and we proceed directly to questions since we have differing versions of statements that have surrounded this hearing over the last eight hours to the best of my knowledge. I ask unanimous consent that we dispense with the readings of their testimony, that it be placed in the record and we open this for questions immediately.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mrs. FOWLER. Without objection, that is so ordered. We do have your statements and we will have them in the record.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES LEE WITT, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; CHARLES L. CRAGIN, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND DALE L. WATSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mrs. FOWLER. This is unusual but because of our deep concern about what has been very obviously changes in the testimony that was prepared by some of you earlier and that the Department of Justice and OMB appear to have been having some changes made, we are not sure some of it is even that useful this afternoon. So since you are each under oath, as we ask you questions, hopefully we can get to the bottom of some of this through our questions instead.
Mr. Watson, to your knowledge, did the FBI or Department of Justice review or edit FEMA's draft testimony for today?
Mr. WATSON. No, ma'am, I am not aware of that.
Mrs. FOWLER. So as far as you are concerned, the Department of Justice, nor the FBI?
Mr. WATSON. From the FBI Counterterrorism perspective, we did not.
Mrs. FOWLER. And the Department of Justice did not review it as far as you know?
Mr. WATSON. Yes, ma'am, as far as I know.
Mrs. FOWLER. To your knowledge, did you review or edit the Defense Department's testimony before it was submitted?
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. WATSON. I received a copy and we did not edit it.
Mrs. FOWLER. You received a copy of DOD's?
Mr. WATSON. Yes.
Mrs. FOWLER. Did you receive a copy of FEMA's?
Mr. WATSON. Right before coming in here, we got a copy.
Mrs. FOWLER. But you did not see it before today?
Mr. WATSON. No, ma'am.
Mrs. FOWLER. Did someone other than the FBI write any of your testimony?
Mr. WATSON. Our testimony on pending legislation goes to the Department which looks at it. Our statement was drafted, it was sent over to the Department or further review.
Mrs. FOWLER. The Department of Justice?
Mr. WATSON. Yes, and passed back to us.
Mrs. FOWLER. Were there major parts that were added or deleted?
Mr. WATSON. There was some editing of the statement, yes, not major parts I would say, specifically being able to comment on pending legislation.
Mrs. FOWLER. This was done by the Department of Justice?
Mr. WATSON. Yes.
Mrs. FOWLER. It is interesting one of the changes made just this afternoon took out reference to OMB and changed it to DOJ. My understanding is it has to go through OMB and that OMB had some definite changes that were made. Obviously they were not in the testimony we got earlier because someone slipped and put OMB in there. We have gone through and noted what changes have been made over three different versions of testimony and we are going to get to the bottom of who made them. Obviously someone other than just DOJ reviewed and made changes in your testimony.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. WATSON. It is not unusual on testimony to be reviewed by the Department and OMB that changes are made, so we get a final draft. We go back and forth several times before it is finally approved.
Mrs. FOWLER. Does the NDPO have a director right now?
Mr. WATSON. No, it does not. Tom Kuker is still there but he is being transferred or has been transferred to be the SAC of Albuquerque.
Mrs. FOWLER. I gather this was at his request that he leave?
Mr. WATSON. Yes.
Mrs. FOWLER. Do you have someone designated to take his place?
Mr. WATSON. We are going through the process right now and screening candidates. To answer your question, we have narrowed down the field and it is an internal promotion process within the FBI.
Mrs. FOWLER. For both Mr. Watson and Mr. Cragin, we now have over 110 Federal emergency response teams in this country operating under five different Federal agencies. To your knowledge has anyone coordinated the deployment of all these teams to make sure we are getting the most efficient coverage?
Mr. CRAGIN. It is my understanding that with respect to Federal assets, they would be coordinated by the lead Federal agency that was requesting their deployment and assistance. We had some conversations earlier about the teams formerly known as RAID, the WMD Civil Support Teams. They would be deployed as a State resource initially, so they would not be considered as part of the Federal Response Plan.
Mrs. FOWLER. We are not talking about those; we are talking about the other 110 Federal emergency response teams that are operating throughout five different Federal agencies. Is anyone coordinating these? Mr. Watson, is it under you?
Mr. WATSON. We are in the process of trying to get coordination through NDPO as a result of it being stood up in a new organization, we are moving in that direction.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mrs. FOWLER. Presently, they are not being coordinated?
Mr. WATSON. Not that well, I would have to agree.
Mrs. FOWLER. Director Witt, would you typify the Federal preparedness programs as coordinated or uncoordinated?
Mr. WITT. I think the Federal Response Plan under the 26 Federal agencies with which we work in the consequence management side of it is very well coordinated. We work with Justice, FBI and all the Federal agencies and the States and locals consistent with the Federal Response Plan.
Mrs. FOWLER. We just had the panel before us of the people out in the field, the first responders, who deal with these programs and every one of them said they are uncoordinated, that there is a need for coordination, that they are not being coordinated and there is a need for it. You are telling me they are coordinated?
Mr. WITT. I think there are two different things here. One is the training preparedness and exercises. I am talking about the Federal Response Plan, which we work with in a response mode. Under the preparedness, training and exercise programs, we have been working through our U.S. Fire Administration and National Fire Academy, EMI, Emergency Management Institute, as well as with the Department of Justice and DOD to train the trainers for the last two and a half years. The part we are doing with training State and locals has gone fairly well.
Mrs. FOWLER. Could you tell me when was the last time you, the Attorney General and DOD got together in the same room to discuss domestic terrorism and our preparedness for it?
Mr. WITT. Between DOD, Justice and myself, it has been several months.
Mrs. FOWLER. So it is not something right at the top of some of the other agendas?
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. WITT. I have been with our Attorney General several times to meet with the stakeholders out in the field. She has committed an awful lot of time and effort to meet with the stakeholders, to meet with the fire and emergency management and paramedics to hear what they say, to hear their issues. I have been with her.
Mrs. FOWLER. You have a new Director for Terrorism at FEMA, I think his name is John Magaw. He has a good background in this area. In general terms, what advice has Mr. Magaw given you regarding this bill?
Mr. WITT. Mr. McGaw jumped in with both feet very quickly and has met with all of our departments internally pulling together what we are doing, getting a better feel for the agency and our programs dealing with antiterrorism and also had a meeting FBI, Justice and FEMA division directors, associate directors. I think he is going to be a great asset to us in this program. He has been very, very good in advising and pulling together this program within FEMA.
Mrs. FOWLER. What advice has he given you regarding this bill, Mr. Magaw's advice to you?
Mr. WITT. He says we need to stay focused, we need to bring people to the table and make this thing work and I heed his advice.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Traficant?
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Witt, we think you do a good job.
Mr. WITT. Sir?
Mr. TRAFICANT. We think you do a real good job here.
Mr. WITT. Thank you.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I am going to ask you some questions and I just want some yes and no and I want to remind you that you are under oath.
Did you and I have a phone conversation this morning?
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. WITT. Yes.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Did you tell me that you supported the bill?
Mr. WITT. I said that we supported the concept of the bill and what we are trying to focus on in putting—
Mr. TRAFICANT. Yes or no, Mr. Witt. Did you tell me you supported the bill?
Mr. WITT. Part of it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Did you further tell me that you had contacts from the Office of Management and Budget that asked you to change your testimony before this committee?
Mr. WITT. We always—
Mr. TRAFICANT. Yes or no, Mr. Witt?
Mr. WITT. That is a hard question to answer yes or no.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I can recall the exact conversation, it was even tougher than that. Were you asked by OMB or any entity outside of FEMA beyond your jurisdiction to change your testimony before this committee, yes or no?
Mr. WITT. Yes, some of it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Did I not ask you if you were asked in fact to lie to this committee and not give your honest interpretation? Did I ask you that question?
Mr. WITT. Yes, you did.
Mr. TRAFICANT. And did you say yes, you were asked to not give your honest interpretation? Is that a correct statement, sir?
Mr. WITT. I was asked not to give the one that we had submitted.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Fine, then I take that as yes. You are under oath.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I know everybody else lies to Congress but we are talking about lives at stake here. We believe Mr. Magaw has advised you and we believe that you like the bill and we believe there are some others that do not and they tried to influence your testimony, yes or no.
Mr. WITT. That is hard to answer yes or no.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Try it.
Mr. WITT. Yes, I had to change some of the testimony.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Fine.
To the FBI, you said you were not contacted by the Office of Management and Budget to the best of your knowledge. Can you speak for the entire Federal Bureau of Investigation whether or not anybody above your pay grade may have been contacted or is that only your acknowledgment to this committee, sir, only yours?
Mr. WATSON. I do not know if anyone else in the FBI—
Mr. TRAFICANT. So your answer was again only yours, you were not contacted?
Mr. WATSON. That is correct.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Second, we have had three different versions of copies of testimony from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Which one should we take most seriously—one, two or three?
Mr. WATSON. It would be the last version.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I thought it would. We have been getting the runaround on what is called classified and unclassified around here. Whenever we try to get some information from you, we get classified and unclassified. Quite frankly, I look through the documents you send and this is unclassified, this is unclassified, this is unclassified, this is unclassified, this is unclassified, this is unclassified. Can you see this, yes or no?
Mr. WATSON. Yes, sir, I can.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. TRAFICANT. Fine. These were just real simple questions that require just a yes or no, sir. This is unclassified, this is what you give to the committee. Was there anything on this page at all that we got, yes or no?
Mr. WATSON. I do not know the answer to that.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Would one of the staff carry this down for Mr. Watson and have him ask me if there is anything on there that we are able to understand by the nature of our request?
The point I am making, Madam Chairwoman, I think is very explicit and clear. By the nature of the interference between and among these respective Federal entities responsible to carry out this important duty, it is evident they do not coordinate at all. They even attempt to influence and change their testimony.
Could you answer the question after the staff has shown you the page? Is there anything on there we can understand by seeing it?
Mr. WATSON. I do not know exactly what document this is. It appears that President Clinton's signature is on it so I would assume it is probably out of the classified PDD. That would be my assumption, Congressman.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I want this answered from Mr. Cragin and Mr. Watson in writing, whether anybody within the Department of Defense or the Federal Bureau of Investigation was contacted by the Office of Management and Budget or contacted by the Attorney General or anyone who attempted to change and/or influence your testimony?
Mr. WATSON. I would be glad to provide that to you.
Mr. CRAGIN. I will provide that.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate the fact that you have called for these hearings and I think the fact that I believe FEMA's hands are tied, local entities do not know what is happening. Three percent of the money, colleagues, is going to the local entities and the Alfred P. Murrah Building—there were three buildings in Oklahoma City secured by one contract guard of the Federal Protective Service and they are opposing making the FPS a law enforcement entity, even though an accountant at the Bureau of Prisons is listed as a law enforcement agent. This thing is screwed up. I think the responsibility is going to lay right on the Department of Justice if there is one more American hurt by a terrorist act.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
That is my statement. I want those questions in writing in a reasonable period of time and I want them spread across the record.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. Traficant.
Mr. Isakson?
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Traficant covered some questions of note so I do not have but one question following up what I asked the fire chiefs before. Mr. Witt, again, FEMA has been extremely helpful most recently with some problems we had with ice in Georgia. We want to thank you very much for being so responsive.
I asked the two fire chiefs with regard to the RAID teams, Mr. Witt, do you interface with that deployment?
Mr. WITT. Yes, some.
Mr. ISAKSON. I had understood they were going to be deployed as of January 1, 2000 but they are not yet deployed, are they?
Mr. WITT. Not all of them. They are looking at 27 teams total and adding 17 more teams later.
Mr. ISAKSON. Do we know when the first phase of those RAID teams will be deployed?
Mr. WITT. I believe it is 2001.
Mr. CRAGIN. If I might, inasmuch as the Department of Defense is responsible for the deployment and certification of those teams, I can tell you that the first 10 teams, including the team in your jurisdiction, will be certified as deployable within the next couple of months. We have one also standing up in Jacksonville as one of the additional 17 teams. That will not be certifiable until probably the end of 2001 as they are just now beginning to employ those people and begin their training.
Mr. ISAKSON. The reason I asked that question is really twofold. First of all, I guess Mr. Cragin maybe you testified before one of our previous meetings and I was very interested in what the government was doing with the RAID teams. I went out to Dobbins and watched a dry run and if the public could ever see that, they would be very pleased. I think that is an outstanding effort and I think its goal is laudable. I think to be anywhere in the country in four hours with a team is the ultimate goal when all are deployed.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In the explanation they gave me there talking about coordination, as I understand it, the RAID teams are on call by the governor of the State in which an incident occurs, correct?
Mr. CRAGIN. They are on call and deployable by the governor of the State in which they are domiciled.
Mr. ISAKSON. They are technically attached to the National Guard in that State, correct?
Mr. CRAGIN. They are full-time members of the National Guard in the State in which they are domiciled.
Mr. ISAKSON. With regard to their ability to airlift like Atlanta will be a center for a number of States, is the Guard responsible for the airlift or will they interface with DOD and the Air Force?
Mr. CRAGIN. First and foremost, the Guard would be responsible for airlift to the extent they felt airlift was the most effective way to get them to the perimeter of their area of responsibility. Please recall when we had our earlier discussions, one of the reasons that Secretary Cohen felt it was important to assign this mission to the National Guard was that we did not have to become involved in using the Federal system to deploy a Federal resource, that this could be a federally-trained and federally-doctrined resource but that as far as deployment, it would be instantly available for a governor to deploy first and foremost within the State of domicile but then also to cross State boundaries into other States in the area of responsibility.
Mr. ISAKSON. Just as an observation, we are talking about coordination and preparedness. It seemed to me that was the best thought out chain of command, readiness and preparedness and an example of Federal, State cooperation of anything I have heard with regard to anything else involving the potential for terrorism and the Federal-State-local relationship.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think being under the call of the governor, being that agile, being a Federal resource but not having to go through all the red tape seems to make sense, would have in Oklahoma City, would have in the Trade Center, and God forbid if we ever have it somewhere else, it seems like the right line of command to me.
With that said, that is all I have, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. Isakson.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I ask unanimous consent that any questions I have of this panel be submitted in writing and they be responded to, any and all questions that we would have in a reasonable time frame.
Mrs. FOWLER. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Horn?
Mr. HORN. Mr. Witt, it is good to see you here. You have done a great job at the national level and I know you have the support and faith of most of the States, especially when they are in a terrible catastrophe.
I asked the previous panel how they would structure the city, the county, the State in terms of coordination and is there something that ''terrorism'' needs to be added to as either a separate office or a part of what the administrative management of a city or emergency management city, county and State. You probably will say let us keep up that but I am curious, are there any problems you see if terrorism becomes that function? Does that reduce peoples' basic thrust in terms of preparing for floods and tornadoes and all the rest you have to go through? How would you put together that system?
Mr. WITT. What we have tried to do, and I know the governors of each State have also done the same, is put the antiterrorism program under the emergency management all hazards concept, because everything we do to build more capability for either one threat helps build capability for another threat. If we utilize this under the all hazards approach, then I think that capability is going to be enhanced.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. HORN. Let us move to the Federal level. Do you feel that we have a sufficient approach now and does this mean we ought to have a coordinator on terrorism threats in each major cabinet department and independent agencies? The old saw is one cabinet officer cannot coordinate others. How are we going to deal with that problem?
Mr. WITT. At FEMA we have tried to add and have added the terrorism as part of the Federal response plan under the all hazards concept, which brings in 26 Federal agencies working together and makes sure we can meet that need if necessary.
I think we still have a lot to do as far as making sure State and local stakeholders are ready to respond and to prepare us as the resource to help support them. I think we still have a lot to do there.
Mr. HORN. I do not know if this is a decent analogy but having gone through the Y2K experience, we have the chief information officers working together with subcommittees and all the rest to get the problem solved within the Federal Government. There was a coordinator at the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Koskinen who also had the title of Assistant to the President which meant he had access to the President. What do you think of that approach?
Mr. WITT. I think it works in some circumstances; while I agree with the goals and intent of the legislation and the effort. I am reluctant to agree with establishing a terrorist czar office under the President or in the President's office simply for the fact that we deal with all kinds of federally-declared disasters constantly. If you put another layer there, we don't want to slow up the decision process, so I am reluctant about that.
Mr. HORN. I think you are right.
Thank you for coming.
Mrs. FOWLER. I just have a few questions. I know those sitting across the room probably cannot read and I cannot read from here but these charts, the one on the right, is the duplication of the training programs and the 89 that duplicate out of the 120. The next one, the States in yellow are the 12 States that have received absolutely no training at all.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
An interesting thing to note is the chart on the far left is the threats. These are the States that have been ranked in order by vigilante groups and threat and out of the top ten most at risk, five are the States that have received nothing, no training at all. This is some of our concern.
I wish this bill was not necessary but this Administration is in total denial. I guarantee if the bureaucrats that are engaged in the turf battle that has been so obvious today thought they were going to have to be the ones responding when the anthrax is released or the plutonium is dumped or the first whiff of Sarin is detected, this problem would be instantly solved. Survival has a way of focusing attention but they are not going to be there. Some of them are happy with the status quo because they are winning the money grab.
Millions of Americans could literally die by the stroke of a pen carrying smallpox. Our Nation is grossly unprepared to deal with the aftermath or the threat itself. I think it has been very obvious today that there is a need. We heard it from the people on the front line. There is a need for coordination, a need for an entity with the authority to pull this together. The witnesses we heard on that first panel live in a real world with real risk. It is them and their people whose lives are on the line.
At one of our previous subcommittee hearings, we heard from the widow of one of the heroes that died in that warehouse fire in Massachusetts. She described the static that was at the other end of the radio as they kept calling out her husband's name over and over and there was nothing but dead air at the end.
The witnesses on the first panel represent people who face the reality that they may hear the name of their friend or their loved one or their own name on that radio some day. They understand what is at stake here as does every cosponsor of this bill. I appreciate their participation and their thoughtful comments but I am so disappointed in the response that we have received from the agencies who are holding American lives in their hands because they are the ones responsible. You are the ones responsible for the protection of our American public.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
You know I do not act partisan and I have kept this non-partisan but today I am taking the gloves off because what has occurred today and the last few days about this bill and the efforts to prevent the Federal Government from getting coordinated and getting their act together to protect American lives is inexcusable.
Director Witt, you know you and I have been good friends; I admire and respect what you have done to make FEMA the entity it has become, a respected entity throughout this country. I am deeply saddened by the pressure that was put on you. I also had a conversation which I was not going to relate because we had an understanding about your not submitting the testimony that they were going to force you to submit and then before you were to come, I was given a statement which I know does not honestly reflect your views.
I am so disappointed when we have an Office of Management and Budget and a Department of Justice that is not honest, that they are trying to intimidate and force people to come up here and make statements they know are not true. This is American lives, this is not about who is going to buy this piece of equipment or spend a little money here. We are at risk and we know in the next three to five years, there will probably be an incident in this country. I think it is incumbent upon every one of us—I do not want it on my conscience and you should not want it on yours—that we are not as prepared as we can be as a Nation to fully and adequately respond.
It is my intention with Mr. Traficant's counsel, to move ahead with this bill because I think without it this Federal Government and these 40 agencies involved in this are going to remain a dysfunctional family full of all these bickering siblings, each trying to get ahead of the other and no one really with their eye on the ball with no national strategy two years after NDPO was established, still no national strategy, no end game for preparedness, no one knows what we are aiming for, no one is pulling this together, spending time and effort on it.
I urge those people in the audience and representatives that came from the first responders to contact your members of Congress, contact this Administration and make it clear that you support this bill, that you understand the need. It could not have been made clearer today by what we have seen occur.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It is not often I say this to the Department of Justice and Mr. Watson since I know you were the scapegoat sent up here today and I appreciate your being willing to put your neck on the line because I know it is not your fault, it is higher-ups at Justice that have put you in this position. I apologize to you for them because they did not have the guts, the courage to face this themselves.
It is about time we said to the Department of Justice, drop your weapons and come on out because we need to work together. We are all in this, we are all at risk, our lives, our children's lives and our grandchildren's lives. We have to work together. We welcome constructive criticism about this bill. This is not the final end product but it is a beginning to try to bring some common sense and coordination to protecting American lives so that when an incident does occur, and it is not if, it is when, we will all know from the Federal level, we have done our best and our emergency responders out there in every little or middle size town and big one in this country have been given the best training, the best resources that we can provide for them. Not a single one of you can honestly say we are doing that today. You know it and we know it.
I am hopeful we all can work together. I know Mr. Cragin you came not willing to, and I appreciate. DOD and I have worked together for a long time and I appreciate you coming today and the work you have been doing in this area.
I want to express my real dismay and disappointment in the Administration and the Department of Justice because of the turf battle and because NDPO feels threatened, this bill does not do away with NDPO, it does not do away with FEMA, never do away with DOD. All we are trying to do is say each needs to perform the function which they are best at performing, given that function to protect American citizens but someone has to coordinate it, someone has to be in charge, someone has to have the big picture and the clout to bring everybody together and stop this duplication, cut out the overlap and the waste and make sure this $10 billion we are spending is going in the right direction.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
When I hear only three percent is getting down to the local responders, quit spending it on bureaucrats, let us get it where it belongs. I hope we can all work together because we are going to move forward.
If there are no other comments, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[insert here]