• Military
• WMD
• Intelligence

• Security Menu                     

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

• Space

Our collective duty to protect public safety and national security demands we ask: How ready are we to confront the changing face of modern terrorism?

The answer: We are more prepared today than yesterday, thanks to the skill and dedication of the witnesses we will hear this morning. But terrorism challenges rational people to come to grips with the irrational, to think about the unthinkable. And it compels local, state and national leaders to commit to, and rely upon, unprecedented levels of mutual assistance and cooperation in the event of a terrorism incident. These are challenges we are not yet fully prepared to meet.

Last Friday's exercise brought that lesson home. As local police, fire and emergency medical personnel worked through a fictional, but all too plausible, scenario of a chemically-laced pipe bomb explosion on an Amtrak train, they learned what types of equipment, training and planning are needed to improve existing response capabilities. At the same time, we all learned a sobering truth: without the proper local preparations and outside support, first responders to a chemical or biological incident scene inevitably become the second wave of victims.

Facing that harsh reality, mayors, governors, Congress and the president are asking the same questions: What do local responders need to function, and survive, as our first line of defense against terrorism? What additional capabilities should reside at the state and national levels, to be brought to bear in support of local officials when needed?

Answers require close calibration of local, state and federal interests and authority. It is a difficult, and potentially costly, balance to strike. But given that time and distance between a terrorist attack and an effective response are measured in human lives, that balance must be found, and funded.

Since 1997, the federal government has spent several billion dollars on domestic preparedness programs. Late last year, the congressionally mandated Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction reported frustration and confusion among local and state officials trying to navigate a busy bureaucratic menu of federal counter-terrorism agencies and programs. The Advisory Panel also observed a lack of consensus on the nature and extent of the domestic terrorism threat, compounding the difficulty of needs assessments and budget planning.

Today, the subcommittee came to Connecticut to assess the impact of federal programs to combat terrorism, and to ask what needs to be done to improve their focus, their reach and their effectiveness.

Thanks to the efforts of the Connecticut Office of Emergency Management, the Connecticut Military Department and the City of Bridgeport in planning and conducting last Friday's exercise, witnesses this morning are able to address our questions with recent experiences and fresh insights. The subcommittee is grateful for the time and expertise our witnesses bring to these important discussions, and we look forward to their testimony.