Good morning Mr. Chairman and Representative Tierney. On behalf of the nearly 6,000 men and woman who comprise the Connecticut National Guard and State Military Department I want to begin by thanking you for inviting me to testify and participate in this very important hearing on "Domestic Preparedness Against Terrorism: How Ready Are We?"
As the Adjutant General of Connecticut, I am entrusted by the Governor with the authority necessary to carry out all provisions of our General Statutes regarding the Militia, the Connecticut National Guard and the Office of Emergency Management. I serve as the principle advisor to the Governor on military matters, emergency operations, and civil support. I act as the Commanding General of the Connecticut National Guard. As Adjutant General I have two main responsibilities. My federal responsibility is to serve as the custodian of the Commander in chief's (CINC's) forces. I must provide combat-ready soldiers and airmen when the President federalizes units. In my state capacity as Adjutant General, I am the senior emergency management official for Connecticut. I exercise this authority through our Connecticut Office of Emergency Management.
Connecticut, along with 26 other states, has the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) organized within the State Military Department. The OEM serves as the principle liaison and coordinator to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In our state, we divide the state into 5 emergency-management regions. Each regional office maintains region-specific emergency plans and serves as the principal liaison and coordinator to the cities and towns within their area. The Military Department currently develops unified emergency operation plans for a number of potential emergencies. We maintain and implement plans for nuclear-preparedness safety, natural and manmade disasters, and civil disturbance
In recognition of the uniqueness of each state, I offer my comments as specific to the state of Connecticut. In Connecticut, emergency response contingencies mirror the Federal Response Plan, and most state agencies have a role during state emergencies. The Governor's role is clearly outlined in both the United States Constitution and General Statutes of Connecticut. The Governor expects and appreciates the efforts of the federal government in preserving the welfare of our citizens and the infrastructure of our communities. He is also aware of the evolving threat of domestic terrorism and weapons of mass destruction that now faces our country. Ultimately, during emergencies, the Governor is responsible for the restoration of normalcy to the citizens of his state.
Before I begin my remarks on the status of domestic preparedness, I must commend Congressman Shays and the National Security Subcommittee for taking the time to come into the field and hear from those who are truly at the forefront of this battle. It is my hope that the exercise the Connecticut Military Department and City of Bridgeport designed and conducted will help focus the need to get critical resources to local and state first responders.
We learned clearly from the Park City Terrorism Exercise that there is insufficient detection, decontamination, communications, and personal protection equipment on the front lines. Additionally, first responders in local and state agencies lack access to full training and exercise resources. Without the state and federal financial assistance of the Connecticut Office of Emergency Management, this exercise would not have been possible. All exercise participants unanimously agreed that more exercises are sorely needed and it is my commitment to design and execute as many as possible with our current limited resources.
In addition to insufficient resources, we are certainly confusing local officials with too many agencies with too many roles. Terrorism incident recovery must remain based on the federal response plan and utilize established emergency management channels to move assistance to municipalities. This is no time to scrap a well-known and responsive system.
Simply put, as a nation we are not focusing our procedures, agencies, technical capabilities, and resources on assisting that very important local incident commander. This is especially true when you realize that $9.2 billion was spent by over 40 federal agencies on terrorism preparedness last year alone.
In August of 1999, the National Guard Bureau submitted a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) report to Congress. The report was intended to facilitate an improved level of preparedness for states and municipalities. That report identified many initiatives. I would like to highlight two of them.
One of the initiatives dealt with Resident and Distant Learning Training. With the help of Congress, the National Guard can continue to expand our national network of Distance Learning Training Centers. Through expanded utilization of these centers, the National Guard could provide a valuable, affordable link to WMD training. To date they have not been tasked.
Another initiative highlighted in the study was the need for Community Readiness Exercises. Community Readiness Exercises are an important part of an effective training program. These exercises should be conducted with local and state procedures down to the county and municipal levels and will establish baseline readiness, needs identification, and requirements validation. The National Guard, in the state and within the communities, should be resourced and responsible to conduct this training.
I offer my concern that unless the distribution of federal assets is coordinated and prioritized, it may become a program of haves and have-nots to those that it is intended to assist.
Specifically, as an example, I call attention to the Department of Defense's (DoD's) Domestic Preparedness Program. This program provided valuable "Train the Trainer" type instruction to civilian first responders. It targeted 120 cities throughout the nation. Although the Massachusetts cities of Springfield, Worchester, and Boston, and Providence, Rhode Island, were selected for participation, not one Connecticut city was selected.
I also point out our Governor's concern for the lack of an assigned WMD Civil Support Team (CST). These teams, formerly known as Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID) teams, are National Guard assets intended to be quickly deployed to technically advise the on-site Incident Commander and provide on-site laboratory analysis. A total of 27 teams have been allocated to date. Connecticut did not receive authorization for a team.
Earlier in my testimony I stated that ultimately it is the Governor that is responsible to restore normalcy to our residents, to direct a rapid response to save lives and property. Resourced properly, our National Guard can respond quickly to a local WMD incident and help protect first responders and the public from difficult to detect chemical and biological agents. A WMD Civil Support Team is an important weapon in any Governor's counterterrorism response arsenal.
It is the position of Governor Rowland, the Adjutant Generals' Association of the United States, the National Guard Association of the United States, and myself, that a WMD Civil Support Team be authorized and funded for each state to help support the first responder community.
Once again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee today, and I will be happy to take your questions at this time.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
