• Military
• WMD
• Intelligence

• Security Menu                     

• Systems
• Industry
• Operations
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Space

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Bruce Baughman, Director of the Operations and Planning Division, Response and Recovery Directorate, of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It is a pleasure to appear before the Subcommittee to discuss the impact of Federal training programs on local readiness to respond to consequences of terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction, and the role of Federal agencies in supporting first responders and local emergency managers. I will address these issues and focus, as you have asked, on an assessment of Federal programs to manage the consequences of terrorism, the appropriate role of Federal agencies in both crisis and consequence management, and proposals to improve Federal support of State and local response activities.

Thanks to your leadership, Mr. Chairman, the impact of Federal training and equipment programs on local readiness has been well documented in GAO reports. Essentially, those reports conclude that a wide range of training is being offered by an even wider range of providers. FEMA's training programs support our established target audiences in fire services and emergency management at the Federal, State and local level. Our National Emergency Training Center includes the National Fire Academy (NFA) and the Emergency Management Institute (EMI). Both work with existing State fire and emergency management systems to deliver a wide range of training programs including terrorism. And both emphasize a Train-the-Trainer approach to place materials in the hands of State and local training professionals which helps extend the program to an even wider audience.

NFA trains first responders in the fire services and related disciplines. NFA has developed and fielded several courses in the Emergency Response to Terrorism curriculum. In Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, over 71,000 responders have been trained under this program. That figure includes approximately 1,000 instructors representing every State and major metropolitan area in the nation. Since February 1999, 533 students from your district have participated, Mr. Chairman, and 94 from Representative Tierney's District.

EMI trains State and local emergency managers as well as a broad range of other government officials who have emergency responsibilities. In the last 3 years (1997 through 1999), 1,308 students participated from Connecticut, including 103 from the Chairman's District. 1,402 students participated from Massachusetts, including 43 from Representative Tierney's district.

FEMA has partnered with both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop and deliver Federal training programs. DOJ uses the Emergency Response to Terrorism curriculum developed by NFA in its training program, while DOD uses the Senior Officials Workshop developed by EMI in its training program. The DOJ and DOD programs target local jurisdictions - almost exclusively. In contrast, FEMA programs target both local jurisdictions and the States, enabling States to extend the training to audiences that fall outside the scope of other Federal programs.

Although FEMA does not have an equipment program, the Agency coordinates with the National Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO), which is leading an interagency effort to develop a standardized equipment list (SEL) for the first responder community. The NDPO list will conform to existing laws and regulations of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and others. The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, will use the list to fund equipment purchases for the first responder community. FEMA coordinates with DOJ to ensure that State requirements are included.

In FEMA's view, the role of Federal agencies is to support their target audience or core constituency - which is defined by their established areas of authority, responsibility and expertise. First responders generally include personnel who answer 9-1-1 calls - police, fire, hazardous materials, and emergency medical services. Among Federal agencies, the Department of Justice (including FBI and other agencies within the department) has the greatest day-to-day working relationship with police and other State and local law enforcement agencies. Similarly, FEMA has the strongest ties to the fire and emergency management communities; EPA and Coast Guard to the hazardous materials community; and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to EMS and the medical community. This support must be part of a comprehensive risk-based program that addresses mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery.

Crisis Management involves efforts to prevent, pre-empt, or terminate terrorist threats or acts, and apprehend and prosecute the perpetrators. The Federal Government is responsible for Crisis Management. The FBI is the Lead Agency and I defer to them to define roles in this area.

Consequence Management involves efforts to respond to the consequences of an event as it affects lives and property. The States have the lead for Consequence Management. The laws of each State specify which powers and responsibilities are reserved to the Governor and which are delegated to local jurisdictions. The Federal role in Consequence Management is to support the States. Among Federal Agencies, FEMA is the Lead for Consequence Management. Our primary authority is the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 93-288 as amended. To execute that authority, FEMA administers a range of programs and services for State and local governments, including grants, information on hazards and operations planning, as well as training and exercises.

When consequences threaten or occur that exceed the capability within an affected State, FEMA responds. FEMA uses the Federal Response Plan (FRP) to manage and coordinate a Federal response in support of State and local governments. The Plan organizes 26 Federal departments and agencies and the American Red Cross into interagency response functions and recovery and hazard mitigation program areas to mesh with counterpart agencies in an affected State. The structure reflects the corresponding areas of authority of those departments and agencies. It provides a flexible framework that local, State, and Federal officials use to make the most effective use of all available resources. Since 1992, the FRP has been used to respond to the consequences of all emergencies and major disasters declared by the President, including floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

Since Oklahoma City, FEMA has worked to develop a closer working relationship with the FBI. Together, we worked with our common support agencies to publish a first and second edition of a Terrorism Incident Annex to the Federal Response Plan. The Annex describes our commitments to improve coordination and information flow between our concurrent operations to respond to the causes and the consequences of terrorism. The Directors of our two agencies have recently signed a concept of operations or CONPLAN, which we will transmit to our common support agencies for signature. But our relationship is about more than just words on paper. Special events, such as the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, the 1997 Presidential Inaugural, and the 1999 NATO 50^th Anniversary Summit meeting, have brought us together to organize and conduct interagency operations with hosting State and local jurisdictions. Those operations are conducted as a precaution, if not a deterrent, to a terrorist threat or attack. The working relationships and practical experience we have gained will make the difference should we ever have to respond together to a real incident. We have also had some success in large scale interagency exercises, when they have been properly organized. In fact, FEMA and the FBI are still working on ideas that came out of Exercise Ellipse Alpha in Norfolk, Virginia in June 1998 and, to some extent, Exercise West Wind in Los Angeles in February 1999.

As with any disaster, the local and State governments "own" the incident and the response to the consequences that occur. Consequences are felt locally, while they certainly resonate nationally and internationally. To assess the effectiveness of Federal programs to "combat" terrorism, we would ask two questions. First, are local and State agencies charged to respond properly trained, equipped and ready? Second, are the Federal agencies charged to support them in response also properly trained, equipped, and ready? Whether the cause is a hurricane or an earthquake or a terrorist attack, the consequences are largely the same: mass casualties, property damage and disruption to essential services.

FEMA Director James Lee Witt has guided the Agency to focus more on programs that address requirements common to all hazards, and less on programs that address requirements unique to one hazard--particularly for hazards we may never face and requirements that are too costly or too difficult to meet. The stronger the all-hazards response capability, the weaker the effect of a shortfall in a unique requirement on the overall outcome of the response. In terrorism consequence management, the unique requirement we need to address is the capability to deal with nuclear, biological or chemical contamination. A contaminated environment will complicate the response, just as it already complicates response to incidents involving hazardous materials, nuclear power plants, or chemical stockpiles.

To improve Federal support to State and local response activities, we must look for ways to improve domestic preparedness programs that build State and local response capability and programs that build Federal response capability.

In Fiscal Year 1999, FEMA provided $12.2 million in grants for terrorism-related preparedness activities. This included $8.2 million for State emergency management agencies to support terrorism consequence management planning, training and exercise activities, and $4.0 million for State fire training systems to support delivery of the FEMA National Fire Academy Emergency Response to Terrorism training curriculum. The Fiscal Year 2000 budget and the FY 2001 request includes grants of $16.6 million to State emergency management agencies, and $4.0 million to the State fire training systems.

Our responsibility does not end with grants for planning, training and exercises. We must also provide program coordination and information to help State and local governments define their requirements and use available Federal programs to their best advantage. Late last year, Director Witt appointed Mr. John Magaw, the former director of both the Secret Service and the ATF, as his Senior Advisor for terrorism preparedness. Mr. Magaw is working closely with all of the program offices within FEMA and the interagency community to better focus on FEMA's roles and responsibilities in consequence management of terrorism events. We continue to work closely with the Department of Justice in supporting the NDPO to provide that coordination and information to State and local governments.

The key Federal agencies involved in terrorism consequence management are FEMA, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency. FEMA's initiatives to improve Federal capability for terrorism include the development and coordination of plans and procedures, establishing special liaison teams to support the FBI, conducting special event operations, sponsoring training seminars, and attending exercises and interagency conferences.

Mr. Chairman, you convened this hearing to ask "how ready are we?" FEMA and other Federal agencies have been asked that question many times since the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995. I'm not sure there is a simple, satisfactory answer to that question. I do know that those of us who are in the business of responding to consequences must be ready for all hazards. To do that, we must strike a balance between programs that build the capabilities that are common to all hazards, and programs that build capabilities that are unique to one hazard. It is important to FEMA that we maintain that balance.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.