1997 Congressional HearingsSpecial Weapons
Nuclear, Chemical, Biological and Missile
1997 Congressional HearingsWashington -- The federal government's response to the threat of domestic and international terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction was the subject of the hearing February 28 of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee of the House National Security Committee.
Testifying for the Department of Defense on its research and development in counterterrorism training and equipment were H. Allen Holmes, assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflicts, and James Lawrence and Jeffrey David of DOD's Office of Special Technology.
Also testifying were Philip Wilcox, coordinator for counterterrorism at the Department of State, and Gary Marrs, the fire chief who responded to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Assistant Secretary Holmes said, "Within DOD, we have increased funding to enhance our special operations capability to address terrorist use of WMD. The funds will be used for training and acquiring equipment to address this mission.... (At DOD) R&D for combating terrorism is separated into two categories: those efforts conducted to satisfy DOD requirements only, and those conducted to satisfy DOD requirements that are common with other U.S. government agencies, or its allies. Activities in the first category include efforts conducted by and for the U.S. Special Operations Command to satisfy counterterrorism requirements, and by the joint physical security equipment program to develop equipment to meet anti-terrorism and force protection requirements.
"Activities in the second category are important, because they are the outgrowth of our recognition that combating terrorism is a not a DOD unique problem, but a multi-agency and international problem. In that regard, we coordinate our efforts with the R&D initiatives of other U.S. government agencies, and with the programs of three countries: Israel, Canada and the United Kingdom."
Wilcox enumerated the priorities of the State Department's Technical Support Working Group (TSWG):
-- Investing more heavily now in stand-off detection of explosive devices -- that is, technology which from a distance can detect hidden explosive in containers, in vehicles, in luggage.
-- Trying to find technology to counter large vehicle bombs.
-- Giving increased attention to chemical and biological countermeasures.
-- Looking looking at advanced surveillance technologies to improve what we have now.
-- Working on technologies to defeat the use of sensors by terrorists.
-- Examining ways to improve the rigidity, the resistance of different kinds of physical infrastructures and other infrastructures to terrorist attack.
-- Devoting approximately 25 percent of our TSWG funds in FY '97 to the area of responding to materials of mass destruction.
Chief Marrs expressed the hope that he could impart to the committee that "what you're going to hear today and the monies and the technologies and the equipment that you're going to hear and see about, is not going to do any good until it hits the street, until we get it down to where the first responders, the people that are going to handle that thing in the first few minutes, have this available to them, to not only detect but to be able to handle it to provide the best service to the citizens, because that's what we feel is most important, that's the dedication we take into our job and what we have been committed to do throughout our life career to the citizens.
"And when we do show up in those first few minutes, we have to work with what we have and provide that best service. And until we start seeing some of this down to that level, we feel like that we're still running a little bit in the dark."
Following is an unofficial transcript of the testimony at the hearing:
(Begin transcript)
REP. DAVE WELDON (R-FL): (Sounds gavel.) The Research and Development Subcommittee of the National Security Committee will come to order. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Today the Research and Development Subcommittee meets to receive testimony from the Department of Defense and the Department of State on the federal government's response to the threat of domestic terrorism, involving weapons of mass destruction and the counterterrorism research and development program.
This hearing is a follow-on to the subcommittee's March 12th, 1996 hearing, entitled "Chemical, Biological Defense in Response to Urban Terrorism." At that hearing we heard that plans and preparations are being made in the federal government at the inter- agency level, and in coordination with local emergency management and response agencies to respond to such a terrorist incident, or to a natural disaster involving chemical, biological or radiological material. It was clear from that testimony that progress is being made, but that additional progress is required. Today the subcommittee will get an indication of the progress that is being made in defense and inter-agency research and development to meet this threat, and actions that may be required in the future. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997 requires the president to provide an assessment of the federal government's capabilities for response of potential threat of terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction and measures that should be taken to improve those capabilities. I understand that that report to the Congress is on the president's desk for approval, and hope that our witnesses may give us a general indication of the content of that report during their testimony and the question period that will follow.
For me this hearing is especially important, primarily because during the 10 years that I've been in Congress I have focused on the issues involving incidents of mass destruction and disasters in the country. I've personally been at the World Trade Center two days after the bombing; the hurricanes in Florida and the East Coast, including Hurricane Andrew for four days; the wildlands fires in Yellowstone and Southern California; the Loma Prieta Earthquake in San Francisco; the Exxon Valdez incident in Alaska; and the fires in the Gulf War in Kuwait.
Nine years ago we formed the Congressional Fire and EMS Caucus. That caucus has been the largest caucus on the Hill, involving some 400 members, and for the first time brought national attention to the needs of those individuals who are first responders in America, the 1.5 million men and women who every day are the domestic defenders of this country, who are those people who first respond to incidents involving the potential loss of life and massive property damage. In fact that caucus, and its related institute, has worked tirelessly to make sure that we use defense technology to assist in helping our local emergency response leaders be prepared for, and capable of dealing with, incidents such as we have seen across the country.
There are those who say that we could never see a major terrorist attack in America. Today we will hear from the chief of Oklahoma City, who will talk to us about the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, the response to that incident, and his ideas and suggestions as a follow-up to his visit one year ago as to whether or not we are in fact providing the support necessary to our local on- scene commanders.
We will hear from our federal agencies, and I can tell you at the outset that what we are going to hear today is impressive. The Department of Defense and the Department of State have responded overwhelmingly, partly at the suggestion of this Congress. I might add it was this subcommittee two years ago, before it became a national prominently focused issue, that this subcommittee plussed up funding above what the president requested for better research into chemical and biological technologies, and to focus on more money for the kinds of tools and weapons -- or tools and support mechanisms that we'll be focusing on today.
So while I am looking forward to the testimony, and the first part of this hearing will be entirely open and the demonstrations open, we will then have to close and go into a classified session for those technologies that cannot be shared because of their sensitivity. But we will also find out that many of these devices that should be in the hands of our emergency response professionals across the country are not there. We will see technology devices, such as a testing device that can detect nerve and blister agents and point detection, and is commercially available at a cost of $5,000, but today unfortunately fire and EMS units across the country can't afford to purchase. We will see a protective suit that can protect any fire fighter or first responder from the threat of a chemical or biological agent that should be available in every major geographical area of this country, that are commercially available at a cost of $10,000, but unfortunately not yet in the hands of those people who have to respond.
Experts say that one teaspoon of the agent used in the sarin gas attack in Japan -- one teaspoon -- would kill 5,000 people. The problem we have in this country is if or when an incident of that type occurs here, do we see the wiping out of the entire first response unit because they were not properly prepared and properly trained?
Today we focus on technology. But during this Congress we'll focus on not just the technology but the application of that technology, the availability of that technology, and the availability of that training for people like Chief Marrs, and the chiefs of all of those 32,000 organized fire and EMS departments in America who are America's first responders.
We are pleased to have as our witnesses today the Honorable Allen Holmes, assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low intensity conflict; and Ambassador Philip Wilcox, coordinator for counterterrorism, Department of State. Gentlemen, welcome. We look forward to your testimony today, to speak to the problem from the viewpoint of local response agencies, I've also the fire chief who responded to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Chief Gary Marrs of the Oklahoma City Fire Department. And I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to make a statement and appear as a witness before the hearing today. Chief Marrs, would you come to the hearing please. Chief Marrs, we also look forward to any comments that you may wish to make. With that, I welcome you all, and I now turn to our ranking member, who is also very much interested in the subject of this hearing, Congresswoman Jane Harman from the state of California.
REP. JANE HARMAN (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, my high praise for your careful and thorough and active interest in the critical subjects that go beyond just the defense -- our defense strategy, but go into our national defense needs as well at home, for things like terrorist attacks. I hail from California, as you know, which joke holds has four seasons, and they are fire, floods, earthquakes and riots. So we in California have a lot of experience with emergency response needs, and I certainly was one who was involved in the last Northridge Earthquake with the administration in trying to put an emergency response together. And I would again congratulate the administration, and congratulate local and state officials in California for the effective response that we had. But that won't happen again if we don't move ahead with a lot of the material we are discussing today.
Let me just praise this subcommittee, under your leadership and prior leadership, for what it has done to develop a lot of the technology that we will learn about today, and learn about I am sure in our classified session as well. It is the investment in dual-use technology, through programs like the TRP and others, that has generated a lot of this equipment. It is also through legislative initiatives like some that the chairman has undertaken, and one that I undertook last year, with some careful advice from Allen Holmes, whom I thank, that resulted in language in Nunn-Lugar II, which we passed last year, which is helping with emergency response and first responders. So this subcommittee has a very active history in supporting a lot of the technology that enables first responders to do their jobs.
I was last week in Israel, and in that country, which is totally vulnerable to missile attacks that could be launched from rogue states, like Syria, Iran and Iraq, and could land in Israel absent any defense within five to nine minutes, there is very careful and active attention to the subject we are going to address today. Israel is under attack every minute, but the U.S. could be under attack, and has been from time to time from activities like the ones that Israelis worry about. I was impressed by what is going on there, and one of the things I plan to do next week is to share with our chairman some of the things that I learned, which again I think could have application to the subject today.
But, finally, let me just close by saying that the interest of this subcommittee in this subject is bipartisan. We care a great deal about making sure that our first responders, some of whom are sitting in this audience, and many of whom may be watching this over C-SPAN, have the tools they need, and know that the United States Congress stands behind them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. WELDON : Thank you, Ms. Harman, and thank you for your leadership on these issues. I also forgot to mention that we, in a meeting I had yesterday with the commandant of the Marine Corps, the commandant has agreed to provide the Marine Corps, Kimbayo (ph) Task Force that is being created because of the money allocated in the last session of this Congress, $10 million, to a demonstration of that capability here in the Nation's Capital on April the 30th. April the 30th was chosen, because that is the date of the ninth dinner, where we honor the nation's fire and EMS community, and 2,000 leaders around the country come to the Capitol to celebrate the preparedness that these professionals provide for us day in and day out. Last year Vice President Gore and Senator Bob Dole were our keynote speakers, and in the previous two years President Clinton was our keynote speaker. This year Speaker Gingrich will be one of our keynote speakers, and we will have that demonstration be available for members of Congress and the entire fire and EMS community nationwide, so that we can again make sure that the technology and the capability that we are developing is in fact in the hands of every on-scene commander who faces the threat of having a situation like this occur in their community, in their neighborhood, or in the area in which they are asked to serve.
Joining us today, and joining Ambassador Wilcox and Ambassador Holmes, we will have the capable assistance of James Lawrence and Jeffrey David. Jeffery David is from the Office of Special Technology, program manager for technical support working group national programs, Department of Defense; James Lawrence is of the Office of Special Technology program, manager for technical support working group, international programs, Department of Defense. They will be assisting in the classified portion of this briefing, and we appreciate their attendance here as well.
With that, we welcome you, and Ambassador Holmes, the floor is yours.
MR. HOLMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be here today and to brief you on the Department of Defense efforts to combat terrorism.
As assistant secretary for special operations and low-intensity conflict, I serve as the principal staff assistant and civilian adviser to the secretary of defense for combating terrorism activities.
I will update you on the department's progress in combating terrorism on three fronts: force protection, domestic preparedness in responding to weapons of mass destruction, WMD; and research and development to combat terrorism.
With me today is my good friend and colleague, Ambassador Phil Wilcox, Department of State, coordinator for counterterrorism. Together we are pleased to give you our prepared written statements for the record, as well as oral statements on this topic.
REP. WELDON: They are accepted with unanimous consent, your statement.
MR. HOLMES: Thank you. Following the testimony, we will provide you a briefing, along with examples of counterterrorism and antiterrorism equipment developed under the counterterrorism technical support program. I will discuss the increased activity in DOD in combating terrorism. Ambassador Wilcox will then discuss the interagency working group on counterterrorism, which he chairs, and the technical support working group, an important subgroup of the inter- agency working group that focuses inter-agency and international R&D requirements. I will highlight some of the equipment developed in DOD's counterterrorism technical support program in support of the TSWG (Technical Support Working Group).
Following your questions, Jeff David and Jim Lawrence, program managers from the Office of Special Technology at Fort Washington, Maryland, will provide a detailed closed-session briefing on the TSWG process and the counter-terror technical support program. Following the briefing there will be a question-and-answer session and a walk- through demonstration of some of the projects.
In the past year there has been a significant increase in government-wide activity to respond to terrorism, expanding inter- agency coordination and cooperation, preparing for major national events, developing a coordinated and effective domestic preparedness program, and improving protection for our forces.
I will begin by reviewing the initiatives that the DOD has taken since Khobar Towers to deal with the problem of force protection and weapons of mass destruction. Several months ago the Department of Defense established a senior steering group to develop and oversee initiatives in protecting our forces, and refocused the anti-terrorism coordinating committee to address the recommendations made in the Downing report on Khobar Towers, and to oversee new efforts to protect our troops, as advocated by Secretary Perry in his report to the president last September. To date, all 100 tasks derived from the recommendations of the Downing report have been addressed. A few tasks remain to be completed, and we expect to resolve these within the next three months.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has undertaken several initiatives that demonstrate the department's commitment to protect our forces. He has established a new organization in the Joint Staff, the J-34, specifically dedicated to force protection. Initially this organization is focusing on vulnerability assessments, training and equipment requirements. To ensure maximum effectiveness in identifying material solutions, DOD has used existing mechanisms with proven track records, the technical support working group and the physical security equipment action group to conduct rapid prototyping and commercial off-the-shelf testing of equipment and systems. The TSWG has been effective in providing prototype equipment to the inter- agency community for the past 10 years. The physical support action group has long been effective in making the latest technologies on physical security available to all DOD.
As part of the overall effort to combat terrorism and protect our forces, the department has significantly increased the funding for TSWG and the PSSAG projects. These programs will be an integral part of any technology initiative that may result from the vulnerability assessments conducted for DOD forces and facilities.
Also, the department is planning an advanced concepts technology demonstration, or ACTD, that will provide CINC-CENT (sp) a biological agent detection capability at four high-threat sites. The ACTD will also provide CINC-PAC the same capability at three high-threat sites.
Concerning response of WMD in domestic preparedness, the Nunn- Lugar-Domenici legislation directs the president to enhance the capabilities of the federal, state and local governments to respond to terrorist incidents involving chemical, biological or radiological weapons. In response, the department has allocated funds totally 67.9 million in fiscal year '97 for this purpose. This includes 10 million for the Marine Corps's chemical and biological incident response force -- the ones who are going to do the demonstration the end of April -- to procure equipment to respond to the consequences and release of chemical and biological agents.
The secretary of health and human services has been allocated 6.6 million to establish metropolitan medical strike teams for medical services resulting from the use of weapons of mass destruction. Additionally, 6.2 million has been provided for R&D to counter weapons of mass destruction. Some of this money will be used to conduct an ACTD called "911 Bio," which will evaluate new technologies proposed for use by the Army's technical escort unit and the Marine Corps' Seaberth (sp) to respond effectively to terrorist use of biological weapons.
Thirty-six million dollars has been allocated to support domestic emergency response preparedness initiatives that include developing first responder training programs and providing training to 26 metropolitan areas.
Finally, the U.S. Customs Service has been allocated 9.1 million to acquire equipment to detect and interdict the movement of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or materials across U.S. borders.
To demonstrate its commitment in future years, the Department of Defense is seeking 49.5 million in fiscal year '98 to continue our domestic response preparedness program, which will take several years.
In addition to efforts to assist federal, state and local first responders, the department has established, in cooperation with the Department of Energy and the Director of Central Intelligence, a standing committee to address inter-agency and inter-departmental issues related to technology and assistance for countering proliferation of WMD, including terrorist activity. The committee brings senior level attention to the various programs in other departments to help ensure effective application of resources among DOD, DOE and the intelligence community. This process also promotes close cooperation among the participating agencies on technology projects.
Within DOD, we have increased funding to enhance our special operations capability to address terrorist use of WMD. The funds will be used for training and acquiring equipment to address this mission.
With respect to R&D, the department's approach to improve equipment for combating terrorism is multi-faceted, and includes identifying off-the-shelf solutions, conducting advanced development rapid prototyping programs, pursuing technology initiatives similar to the advanced concept technology demonstrations, and identifying high return exploratory development programs for long-range more capable solutions. R&D for combating terrorism is separated into two categories: those efforts conducted to satisfy DOD requirements only, and those conducted to satisfy DOD requirements that are common with other U.S. government agencies, or its allies.
Activities in the first category include efforts conducted by and for the U.S. Special Operations Command to satisfy counterterrorism requirements, and by the joint physical security equipment program to develop equipment to meet anti-terrorism and force protection requirements.
Activities in the second category are important, because they are the outgrowth of our recognition that combating terrorism is a not a DOD unique problem, but a multi-agency and international problem. In that regard, we coordinate our efforts with the R&D initiatives of other U.S. government agencies, and with the programs of three countries: Israel, Canada and the United Kingdom. And I might add, Congresswoman Harman, that I also visited Israel recently along with the J-34 to examine together how we might cooperate more in countering terrorism, and also following up on the Downing Commission recommendations.
Both the inter-agency and international programs provide us with opportunities to combine our efforts, avoid duplication, and accelerate the operational use of equipment. This explains in part the successes that were achieved with modest amounts of funding in the counterterrorism technical support program, a fast-track program that addressed the multi-agency and international dimensions of terrorism, and fields equipment in a relatively short period, usually one to three years.
The DOD executes the CTSP, the counterterrorism support program, to address the inter-agency and international requirements identified and prioritized by the TSWG, which is under the oversight of Ambassador Wilcox. At this point I would like to ask him to talk about the TSWG and its important role in combating terrorism.
MR. WILCOX: Thank you, Allen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me for this opportunity to share in this hearing, and for bringing the focus on a very important priority, harnessing research and development as part of our armory for combating terrorism, both domestic and international.
As coordinator for counterterrorism at the Department of State, I chair the inter-agency working group on counterterrorism, and various other working groups, which include what we call the technical support working group. We call it the TSWG.
The TSWG coordinates and manages our national R&D counterterrorism program, whose purpose is to strengthen our counterterrorism capabilities by using new technologies. And we are giving increasing attention today to those technologies which will aid us in combating this new and ominous threat of terrorist use of nuclear, chemical and biological material.
This program focuses on the global threat as well as the domestic threat. And in many respects these two threats to the United States are indivisible. We saw in the attack in the World Trade Center in New York a group of international terrorists who attacked us on our own shores. And so the fruits of this program have application both to our vulnerabilities abroad and here at home.
The TSWG was established in the early 1980s, and it grew as the need for a coordinated interagency approach to counterterrorism research and development became clearer. In FY '86 the Congress provided a $10 million supplemental to the Department of State as seed money, which enabled us to launch intensive research and development in earnest through the TSWG.
The TSWG conducts research and development, rapid prototyping and the development of technologies that many agencies can use. I stress this. The purpose of this is to develop devices which can be used as widely as possible by U.S. government agencies and by state and local agencies as well.
The bilateral agreements which Assistant Secretary Holmes mentioned with Israel, Canada and the United Kingdom also give us additional leverage, because under the memorandum of understanding with these states, they provide both high-level scientific expertise as well as shared funding.
Members of eight Cabinet departments and 50 U.S. government agencies contribute in the TSWG. I provide the overall guidance through my office, while Ambassador Holmes oversees the execution of the program, and the executive agent is the Navy's Office of Special Technology.
Funding for the TSWG has been lean over the years. As part of my testimony, I submitted a chart. Our budget initially supported -- (audio break) -- Congress as well. We expect to use these funds to broaden the program, and we will consider expanding our international partnerships if we can identify foreign partners who have the expertise, the interest and the funds to contribute; that is, if there are partners beyond the three with whom we now cooperate, we would welcome to expand the international dimension.
Because the program has a limited budget, we have set very tight priorities on how we use our resources to avoid duplication and to achieve rapid success. I want to emphasize that the purpose of this program is not to fund abstract academic research in arcane technologies. It is to focus on practical means that can be developed as rapidly as -- (brief audio break) -- equipment to the stage where it can be used by as many agencies as possible.
First of all, we start with an intelligence community assessment of where the threats lie and what the technical capabilities of our adversaries are. We then analyze the requirements of all of the users at every level in the United States, and we look very carefully at many, many proposals which we receive annually and make a judgment about their feasibility. And we look, to be sure, that if we're investing money, we're going to get more than just a marginal improvement in our counterterrorism capabilities.
Now, our current priorities are as follows: We are investing more heavily now in stand-off detection of explosive devices -- that is, technology which from a distance can detect hidden explosive in containers, in vehicles, in luggage. There is a need for improved technology in this area, and it is an area which can yield results to a greater investment.
We need to find technology to counter large vehicle bombs. We need to improve our means to mitigate large explosive blasts. And we found in recent years that terrorists are resorting to much larger bombs and explosives. As we saw in Oklahoma City and New York and Buenos Aires, even simple, low-technology explosives can produce dreadful results.
We are also, as you know, giving increased attention to chemical and biological countermeasures. Although the incidence of such attacks has not been low -- has not been high, the grave damage that can be caused is something that is very much at the top of our agenda, and so we're giving much more attention to this.
We are looking at advanced surveillance technologies to improve what we have now. And we are working on technologies to defeat the use of sensors by terrorists. We're also examining ways to improve the rigidity, the resistance of different kinds of physical infrastructures and other infrastructures to terrorist attack.
In the area of responding to materials of mass destruction, we are devoting approximately 25 percent of our TSWG funds today in FY '97. This is in response to the initiatives from the Congress and from the president as well. Countering terrorism in this area is a very high priority in the Presidential Directive 39 addressing our counterterrorism policy.
My colleagues are going to brief you on a wide variety of equipment that we have developed through the TSWG, and I think that - I hope you'll agree that we've achieved some very substantial results. This is a lean, efficient, practical program. It's been tightly managed, with limited funds. It has -- there's an enormous multiplier effect from bringing together 50 different government agencies.
And I'd like to turn now to Assistant Secretary Holmes to brief you on some of the particular successes that we've achieved.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the interest of your committee in the TSWG program. We welcome your continued support. Thank you.
MR. HOLMES: Just make a few concluding remarks. One thing I'd like to emphasize is that the technical support working group has been in operation since 1986, and since that date we have included end users, including first responders, in the process. Several tools have been developed by this process that are in use by first responders today.
Specifically, they've supported response efforts in the recent -- the recent Atlanta bombings and the letter bombs mailed from overseas. And you'll actually see some gear over here that was used in response to those letter bombs in New York. I'd also like to mention that 14 items developed in the program were deployed to the Olympics in Atlanta. And several items have been deployed to protect the president. In addition, special nuclear material detectors are in operation in key airports in the United States and overseas. Some examples, equipment for response to chemical-biological incidents, one item -- (inaudible) -- chemical-biological explosive ordnance disposal suit, which is -- you will see over here -- I guess but -- it's available. That suit was developed in cooperation with the Canadians, and it's designed to afford operators protection against blasts and chemical-biological agents.
REP. WELDON: Ambassador, let's bring the suit in. Is the fellow in the suit available?
MR. : We'll have to put it on.
REP. WELDON: Oh, they have to put it on? Okay, well, we'll continue while you're putting it on so you can demonstrate to the members.
MR. HOLMES: Another item, a foam mitigation system developed in our national program that mitigates blasts and agent release from an explosively driven chemical or biological device. Both of these items were deployed to the Atlanta Olympics.
Finally, I'd like to call your attention to a mask project still in development. This mask, which is being developed in cooperation with the Israelis, is designed primarily for use by first responders. And you may have seen some of those masks when you visited Israel, including the pouches for babies. It is most impressive, what they're doing.
In February 1996, prior to the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation, our program office hosted a working meeting of first responder community, DOD and other federal agencies with mask requirements and expertise, and technology developers. The purpose of the meeting was to define the specific requirements needed for a first responder mask. Those requirements were taken by the developers, who designed an initial prototype that has been provided to numerous users for operational tests and evaluation. Their feedback has been pulled together, collated by the developers, and will be incorporated in a final prototype scheduled for completion in January 1998.
During the briefing you'll receive additional details on some of these items and other equipment developed by the technical support working group.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our formal testimony. And with your permission, I have the honor to introduce Fire Chief Gary D. Mars (sp) from Oklahoma City.
REP. WELDON: Thank you, Ambassador Holmes and Ambassador Wilcox.
And Chief Mars, it's a real pleasure and honor to welcome you back to Washington. I guess the last time we met was over a video link. You were standing in front of the building, and we had 2,000 people in the Capital Hilton as we honored you and your department for the bravery and the service you provided, and the national fire and EMS community recognized the leadership that you provided in handling what was an impossible situation.
We'd like your candid comments and thoughts and suggestions and ideas and then a chance to perhaps ask you some questions as well as our other two witnesses.
Chief Mars, welcome.
MR. MARRS (sp): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it certainly is a better incident now than it was the last time we talked, as you spoke.
I appreciate the opportunity to come before you and talk a little bit about the first responders approach to this and where we feel that we're at. There are a number of points that I'd like to make. But overall I hope that we -- that I impart upon you the importance of how this -- what you're going to hear today and the monies and the technologies and the equipment that you're going to hear and see about, is not going to do any good until it hits the street, until we get it down to where the first responders, the people that are going to handle that thing in the first few minutes, have this available to them, to not only detect but to be able to handle it to provide the best service to the citizens, because that's what we feel is most important, that's the dedication we take into our job and what we have been committed to do throughout our life career to the citizens. And when we do show up in those first few minutes, we have to work with what we have and provide that best service. And until we start seeing some of this down to that level, we feel like that we're still running a little bit in the dark.
Some of the points that we would like to make, and I'll try to be brief, is we certainly appreciate the funding that has been made available up to now through Department of Defense, Department of Justice, FEMA, some of those things that have transpired in the last few years to get education and training and equipment identified to be used by first responders. And we would certainly ask for the continued support for that funding and certainly any support for increased funding that could be found. I got a short tour of some of this stuff before the hearing started, and I'm much impressed with what I see that's going to be made available. And we'd certainly like to see that program continue.
We would ask that there be a mandate that the federal agencies responding to terrorist incidents in our country be trained in and be mandated to use the incident command system that first responders use. We have certainly -- in the fire community have been using the incident command system. It's been highly refined over the years in large multi-agency incidents, from the fires in California to certainly the Oklahoma City bombing. And it's something that works well, we think it works well and would like to see that when terrorist incidents occur and multi-agency response comes in, that they fit into and coordinate into the incident command system.
We would urge that a mandate or statute be provided that FEMA be a coordinating agency for terrorist activities in the United States. We feel that the FEMA certainly has in place an agency that responded to natural disasters and has shown the impact that they can have. And with terrorist activities, they certainly are caused by a different source, but the handling of them and the coordination of activities and agencies at those events is really the same no matter what it is. And we would encourage that FEMA be identified as the coordinating agency and that funding be provided so that FEMA can provide that level of activity.
We would urge for a national site for operational training, for chem-bio specifically. We have a lot of training available in the management of first responder and public safety, but we need a lot more of the hands-on, we need a lot more training for those people that are going to actually handle it.
An example that I might put out is that as many years and as much as we've known about radiological materials, the large percentage if not all of our first responders are still using very outdated civil defense equipment to detect and handle radiological. So we'd like to see, specifically in chem-bio and radiological, an operational training site and equipment to more update their response to that.
And lastly, we would ask that people understand the urgency, that all of this is good, and we certainly applaud the efforts, but we needed it yesterday. I don't feel, as a personal comment, I don't feel that the first responders in this country, when or if the next event happens today, that they're going to be any more prepared to handle it than they were in Oklahoma City. We just -- that hasn't hit the streets yet. And although I see a lot of movement, I see a lot of action and cooperation happening, I just don't feel that the preparedness and the ability for those first responders to not only be better prepared to protect their citizenry but to protect theirselves, because if we wipe out our first responders in these events by being unprepared in their response in those first few minutes, then you've lost that first line for the citizens.
So I'd urge very strongly that we continue to push and monitor that this happen as soon as possible, and that those things start happening.
REP. WELDON: Thank you, chief, very much for your excellent statement and for your insights, which I think will help prod us to take some actions. And I know the spirit that you provide them to us is such that your respect of the efforts that we put forth to support DOD's effort at this technology, but I share 1,000 percent your feelings that unless we get this in the hands of those people who respond in the first few moments to an incident, we're not going to be providing a level of protection that we need.
And I -- talking to the commandant yesterday about the Marines response unit, which I understand is very impressive and which we'll see on April the 30th demonstrated here in the city. You know, they're located at Camp LeJeune. By the time the first responder gets on the scene and gets back to the chain of command to notify them and they get out there, you're talking about -- and then it takes them at least 14 minutes from the moment they arrive on the scene to activate -- you're talking about periods of perhaps as much as an hour or more. And during that time period is when -- and I don't know whether you agree with me or not, but is the most vulnerability in terms of the first responders and the public at large who are in the area where the incident occurred. Is that -- would you agree with that assessment?
MR. MARRS (sp): Oh, I certainly would. I came up in -- as I mentioned earlier, in the summer of '95 and testified in front of Senator Nunn's committee about -- I was asked a question, what would happen in Oklahoma City had there been a chem-bi or a radiological material alongside that bomb? And my answer then is the same as it would be answer to you now, is that it would wipe out basically the first response agencies. And I'm talking police, fire, EMS, and a large citizenry group that responded up there to help also. And it's just so imperative that we have some way, as much as possible, to identify what we're dealing with when we get on a scene.
I've heard a lot of talk over the last couple years about, well, we're going to find a way to network so that when you identify what you need, you'll have a way to find it and call for it, and it's going to come out of different places, depending on what your need is. But the first part of that segment still isn't there, and that is, how do you identify what you need? It's okay to have a network ready for the fire chiefs or the first responders to identify where their resources are, but you have to know what resources you're going to ask for first. And that's so imperative to know, because if you wipe out that group, certainly you've already hurt the community with the incident itself, and then take the rest of the -- or a large part of the first responder group out also, then you leave that community very vulnerable for a large period of time.
REP. WELDON: Absolutely.
Ambassador Holmes, you referenced the suit. Can you describe it or have one of your technical people tell us what it is, so that we see the fruits of our investment and what we've got for it? So could you explain it to us?
MR. HOLMES: Yeah. I'd ask Jim Lawrence to -
REP. WELDON: Jim?
MR. LAWRENCE: Yes, sir. The suit is a combination blast- protective suit in conjunction with chemical and biological agent respiratory protection. Its intended use is for a (EOD?) tech to be able to address improvised explosive that contains chemical and biological agent. It is a joint design with the government of Canada, and the suit was initially produced by a Canadian firm, and we were able to leverage upon that design and quickly field this combination capability. And it was deployed to Atlanta for the Olympics.
REP. WELDON: Ambassador Holmes, I understand the cost of that suit is approximately $10,000. Is that correct?
MR. HOLMES: That's correct.
REP. WELDON: Are there any -- are you aware, are there any public entities in the country that have that separate from our defense establishment?
MR. HOLMES: I'm informed that it's only been available for a few months, so --
REP. WELDON: But to your knowledge --
MR. HOLMES: To our knowledge --
REP. WELDON: Part of your effort is not to supply funds to give them to departments, obviously. Your mission is within DOD, correct?
MR. HOLMES: Well, that's correct. The way we see our mission to help the first responders is in providing training, which we are hard at work on with FEMA and FBI and Public Health Service. You might be interested to know that we will start our first pilot project on training first responders in Denver next month, and other cities will follow within probably 60 days after that.
As far as the equipment is concerned, our intention is to point the local and state authorities towards state-of-the-art stuff on which there's been good solid R&D and then, in accordance with the philosophy that this has got to be a federal-state-local partnership, then our feeling is that at that point it's incumbent on state and local authorities to appropriate the funds to equip their first- responder units, which I think already have a pretty good idea of what they need but will have an even more focused idea as we go through the training syllabus that we will be providing them.
REP. WELDON: I understand your point. The problem becomes one of cost, especially when the bulk of the emergency response people in this country are, in fact, volunteers.
REP. HARMAN: Would you yield on that point, though, Mr. Chairman? Just on the point of cost, I mean, we've seen this in the law and technology centers around the country, that if you create a market for something like that suit, not only might you get some interest in a lower-cost manufacturing of it, but the economies of scale of manufacturing in quantity will reduce the cost and enable some of these first responders everywhere to purchase perhaps this but certainly lower-cost items at amounts that they can afford.
REP. WELDON: I would agree with the gentlelady, but still, if you're talking about a rural fire department that perhaps has an incident occur, it's very difficult when they raise their money through chicken dinners and tag days, as the chief well knows occurs all over this country, to buy this kind of sophistication. Similarly, we have a device here that I believe you all developed. If you could explain this to us perhaps, Mr. Lawrence or Mr. David, if you would explain what this device is.
We can dismiss the fellow in the suit so he doesn't -- so we don't have an incident right here in our room. (Laughter.) Thank you very much. Do we have a name so we can give him appropriate recognition?
MR. : First Sergeant -- (inaudible).
REP. WELDON: Thank you, First Sergeant. We appreciate that. Good job.
MR. DAVID: Yes, sir. That is the microsensor (Saw?) Minicad Mark II. It is a chemical warfare agent detector that's capable of detecting both nerve and blister agents in very low quantities. That is one of the lowest-cost detectors on the market right now, and it costs approximately $5,000.
REP. WELDON: This is $5,000, and this detects nerve and blister agents?
MR. DAVID: That's correct.
REP. WELDON: Now, I'm also to understand you have a biological detection device in the back of the room. Is that correct?
MR. DAVID: It is a kit for non-specific detection of biological agents that is currently under development now.
REP. WELDON: Under development. So there's no price tag on that because it's not commercially available.
MR. DAVID: We're expecting that all of the components of the kit will be approximately $20,000.
REP. WELDON: Twenty thousand dollars. Again, the point is, I assume we have no civilian emergency responses that yet have that capability.
MR. DAVID: There is only one in existence right now. And until it's fully validated and we have confidence in its abilities, we would not release it.
REP. WELDON: Well, just for the record, before I begin yielding to the other members, this will be a major priority of this Congress, as far as I'm concerned, to continue to provide robust funding for the work that the ambassadors have outlined here. And I want to ask you specifically, what areas, if you had additional money, would you put it into, and how much could you use?
But beyond that, I'm working with a group of the emergency response leaders in this country to provide legislation that would free up some dollars. For instance, one of our factors, Chief, that I talked to you about, is the community development block grant program. That goes into every county and every city in America. Yet except in the most distressed areas, you can't use it for fire, EMS and disaster. And, in fact, in most cities in my district it's used to cut curbs.
And while that may be important, I think certainly a percentage of that should be able to be used to provide this kind of equipment. It's not new money. It's already going in. And it's money that could be freed up so that emergency responders could buy the kind of equipment that our military is developing. And our introduction that we'll introduce will do that.
We're also going to propose a low-interest loan program so that it will enable local departments, as they can in Pennsylvania, to buy this kind of equipment at a reduced rate, as low as 2 percent, to encourage states to provide seed money as well. In our state, we've had no defaults on that to let these emergency responders buy this equipment.
Chief, you mentioned training. Ambassador Holmes, you mentioned the first regional training effort will occur in Denver. Chief, I want to ask you this question. Don't you think there's a need for a national training center focusing on chem-bio incidents, and also the whole issue of urban search and rescue?
MR. MARRS: Oh, I think so very definitely. We feel like that a key part of the equipment has to be the training to use it and the ability to have the people ready to respond in those first few minutes. So we would certainly encourage that, because I believe you mentioned earlier, when we were talking, there's a good management- type program in the fire service available now through the National Fire Academy. But the hands-on in chem-bio is certainly something that's needed, and urban search and rescue also.
REP. WELDON: And that also will be part of our legislation. In fact, as you know, there are several institutions around the country that currently are doing their own. Oklahoma has some efforts under way, and so does Texas A&M. And we need to build on those efforts by those institutions and perhaps designate one or more of them as national training centers for these initiatives so that you can showcase the kinds of technologies in an organized way at these institutions that are already providing hands-on training in other areas of disaster preparedness and response. So that's another tie-in that we need to make.
One final question before I move on to our colleagues. What amount of money would be necessary -- if you had the desire or if you had the ability to receive additional funds in this year's budget above and beyond that which was requested, where would you put it? And perhaps how much more could you use? I'm sure you could say, "Well, we could use any amount you'd give us." But specifically, where would your priorities be? We want a program that's manageable. We just don't want to throw money at the problem. But if there were going to be money appropriated by Congress above and beyond what you're currently planning on receiving, where would your priority areas be? Ambassador Holmes.
MR. HOLMES: Actually, Mr. Chairman, the requirements that have been identified by each of the seven technical support working group sub-groups have been prioritized, and all the high-priority projects will be funded by the increase. We're stepping up our budget for '98 and the next (POM?) cycle, the six years, five years beyond that. For example, the budget will go to $31.5 million in '98. That's what we have requested.
And the requirements include projects for standoff detection of explosives using non-intrusive optical technologies and counter- measures for weapons of mass destruction using decontamination agents and improved mitigation techniques. Also, we're using advanced modeling to identify the most effective blast mitigation techniques and -- (inaudible) -- structural designs to reduce blast effects from large vehicle bombs.
In addition, we're planning to execute projects to support infrastructure protection and consequence management. We think we can make a significant impact in these areas with the proper application of R&D. I might add, by the way, with respect to some of the things that the chief was saying, that affordability is one of the drivers in the way these fellows do the TSWG program. And I heard an example of this, which I might just share with you, when I was visiting them about a year ago.
They were developing for the robot, the track robot, to protect sheriffs and other local first responders that would approach a vehicle with a bomb in it so that the individuals didn't have to endanger themselves, and they were developing a cutting arm that would cut into the vehicle. And before they actually decided on the design, they invited a representative group of sheriffs from all over the country to come and talk to them and they asked them, "What could you afford if we were to develop this cutting arm?" And the consensus, as I recall it, was about $3,000. And so they made it for $2,500. This is, I think, a good example of how affordability is a driver and how they incorporate the views of the users, of the first responders. And that's one of the major points that they've tried to accomplish.
REP. WELDON: Ambassador Wilcox.
AMB. WILCOX: Mr. Chairman, another way that we can increase the economies of scale for the ultimate manufacturers of this equipment is to make friendly countries abroad who need the equipment aware that we have it. And we're doing that. The chemical suit, for example; we've mentioned this to our allies in the Group of Seven, for example, who are also mobilizing to counter chemical-biological terrorist threats in their countries. A number of technologies developed by the TSWD over the years are now commercially available and are being exported, and this helps bring the price down for our domestic end users.
REP. WELDON: Ambassador Holmes, in follow-up to your $49.5 million figure, that includes, in your own professional judgment, enough money to provide the research, development and training for whom? Who's the training going to be addressed at for that research that you do?
MR. HOLMES: Well, you're talking about the follow-on to the Nunn-Lugar funding for '98 and '99. That will address DOD's part in the training program. It would not include the seed money that the Congress put into the '97 budget for Customs and HHS, but only for our part. And particularly the lion's share of that money would be directed towards the training --
REP. WELDON: Training of whom?
MR. HOLMES: First responders.
REP. WELDON: How many do you plan to train?
MR. HOLMES: Eventually 120 cities. We're starting with 26 cities targeted for the next two years, the largest cities, where obviously the greatest concentration of population and therefore the greatest targets for terrorists that might go after them. And so that money will -- we have money in the POM for '98 and '99 to continue that process. We think -- the legislation anticipates a period of about five years to provide this training.
REP. WELDON: Is there R&D money over and above the $49.5 million?
MR. HOLMES: Well, the R&D money for the technical support working group is separate, and there is money. And that money is increasing. In fact, over the '98 to '03 POM cycle, that will be increased by about $130 million. And so we feel that that will be --
REP. WELDON: Is that sufficient?
MR. HOLMES: -- sufficient, given the way that we do business, which is very practical, fast prototyping, focused, targeted. In that way, we think that we can get the maximum benefit.
REP. WELDON: So that would provide training over two years for --
MR. HOLMES: No, that's research and development I'm talking about.
REP. WELDON: No, but the budget you have would provide training for 120-some cities over two years?
MR. HOLMES: Well, we haven't budgeted for the entire period yet, but we have -- I can't remember the figures now, but I think it's something like for '98 and '99 it's $49 million and $52 million. I can get you that information later for the record.
REP. WELDON: I would like you to give us the --
MR. HOLMES: That's for the training for first responders --
REP. WELDON: Right.
MR. HOLMES: -- which will be an integrated process, coordinated, you know, led by FEMA and with Public Health Service. We're trying to get the metropolitan strike team training program. We are working, as we speak, on working that out with Public Health Service so that we do it together, same standard, go after the same cities together, Public Health Service and DOD and the FBI for the crisis management portion.
REP. WELDON: So the on-scene commander in most cities (to a?) situation -- that is, people like Chief Marrs -- am I correct, Chief Marrs? Are you not the incident commander for Oklahoma City?
MR. MARRS: That's correct.
REP. WELDON: Part of our problem in the country -- and my assessment is that in many cases we overlook the fire chief and we go to other levels of bureaucracy that are not always going to be the first on the scene. And I would just urge you to keep that in mind, especially where you have cities -- and there are some very large cities protected by all-volunteer forces. We tend to think that it's got to be a paid person that's got to make those decisions, and in many cities that's not the case.
Let me ask you this question, Ambassador Holmes. Will you provide the resources as well as the training when you're going to train someone on how to deal with the situation but they're still not going to have the resources? You're saying that's got to be a local effort.
MR. HOLMES: That's correct.
REP. WELDON: They've got to buy the equipment to go with the training.
MR. HOLMES: Exactly. That is correct. By the way, I've just been given the figures for the '97-'03, '98-'03 POM. It's $194.1 million --
REP. WELDON: Great.
MR. HOLMES: -- for the training.
REP. WELDON: But the point again, to re-emphasize, is that it does not involve any equipment --
MR. HOLMES: No.
REP. WELDON: -- that we've seen or will see today. That is simply the training of what to do and who to call.
MR. HOLMES: That's correct. And in the process of doing that training, clearly the Chemical-Biological Defense Command, which will be the executor of this program, will know about the R&D that's been developed and can point local authorities towards the state-of-the-art equipment that could be -- that they would recommend be purchased by the local communities.
REP. WELDON: Well, that's important to be able to know that. And also, there's equipment that DOD has, how to get access to that equipment, and that's where we last year in our bill, as a part of the Defense Authorization Act, requires FEMA to establish a computerized inventory of available federal resources. We've been trying to do that for five years.
And in last year's defense bill we included that, so it's now mandated on FEMA that they establish a computerized inventory so that people like Chief Marrs in a laptop computer can instantly punch up what they need and know where to get it in the federal system. But that doesn't answer his question about, "Well, how do I know what to ask for?" And that's where the training that you're talking about providing will come in.
MR. HOLMES: Exactly.
REP. WELDON: Okay. Mr. Pappas.
REP. MIKE PAPPAS (R-NJ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And gentlemen, thank you for being here.
Chief, I was wondering if I could just make a comment and encourage you to do something with your peers, not just in your state but around the country. The chairman mentioned community development block grant program, and hopefully we could see even greater flexibility and allow each of the local government units that take advantage of that program to make funds available for purchases of these types of devices that we're learning about today.
I assume you're part of a chiefs' association. And if you haven't discussed that, you may even go back to your local officials back in your community and encourage them to be supportive of that as well, because if the program is structured in other states as it is in my state of New Jersey, getting the local elected officials to be supportive of it, I think, could make a big difference in seeing us make the changes here that would permit that. I would not want to see the local elected officials, having been a former mayor myself, be at odds with local chiefs.
The other is a question that I don't know if any of the panelists may be able to answer or someone else. But again, in my state, we don't have district attorneys; we have county prosecutors. And those officials who either seize assets from people who have broken the law, or if there are forfeited funds from someone being charged with a particular crime, that again forfeits an asset, be it cash or a fiscal asset, that those funds or those assets can then be used by the local law enforcement agencies for some purposes.
And in many instances, the county prosecutors have made those funds available to local police departments or to help them purchase equipment or vehicles. And I'm just wondering if something similar to that is available at the federal level. Can anyone shed any light on that for me? The panelists may not be equipped to answer it. Maybe a staff person might be able to.
MR. : I'm not aware of any, but we'll get the answer for you.
REP. PAPPAS: And again, that might be something that we could look at, to again assist the local law enforcement officials and emergency responders. I can't imagine, Chief, if something like that had occurred in the community that I was mayor of and how your peers in central New Jersey would have responded. You're to be commended for all that you did.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. WELDON: I thank the gentleman. I would just add that one of the problems we had last year was that the bulk of the money that we allocated for anti-terrorism went solely to law enforcement and the military. And my understanding is that -- and, in fact, I think we had to offer an amendment on the floor to require that at least $5 million of that go directly to the fire and EMS community.
And part of the problem is, again, in this country, the largest portion of the people who respond to disasters are volunteers. So they don't have people down here lobbying every day, because they're not paid themselves. Now, the chiefs do have an association. It's very aggressive and very active. The paid firefighters have the (EIF?), which is very active and very aggressive, as do the arson investigators. The volunteers, unfortunately, are back home working in their jobs and they only come out when they put their lives on the line. So that's one of the problems that we have to look out for.
Congressman Bateman has been doing that in legislation that he's introduced the past two sessions on behalf of the volunteers and again in this session. And we've just got to support those kinds of efforts, because they are America's first responders.
And we tend to lose sight of that, because bureaucracy doesn't recognize that these people are already out there, and the way they raise their funds to buy their equipment and technology advances is not through going to the government, but basically raising it through a whole host of other activities that they do on weekends and in the evenings.
So, chief, do you agree?
MR. MARRS (sp): I agree also. And I'd like to comment just real quickly, your comment about how your community would respond. I can assure you that the fire service community and first responders all over the country are going to respond with the same dedication and sense of service to the community from what you saw in Oklahoma City. And although the size of the department or the type of equipment or training may be different, the dedication of those people, the first ones showing up in the first few minutes, is the same all over the country, and they would have done the best job that they could do for you, I'm sure.
REP. : Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I can.
Chief, of course, I certainly agree with you. And my support for them has been long-standing. And we all owe so much to them.
And Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say that the National Association of Counties, which I'm a former member of, is meeting here this weekend for a legislative conference, and I'm going to be speaking to a group of them. I'm going to speak to them about what we're talking about with community development block grants and get their support as well.
REP. WELDON: Great. We appreciate that.
Before we go on to Congressman Allen, I'd like to recognize another one of your colleagues here, Fire Chief Bell from Prince Georges County is with us. Chief, good to have you here. Thanks for joining us. And you're one of our other heroes in this country. And maybe you'll stick around, we'll give you a show of the technology as well. And you have an outstanding county that has helped many other areas of our country in times of disaster. We appreciate your being here.
And I've got a note here that says the volunteer fire service provides a $3.6 billion -- a $36 billion service to this country, at no cost. They raise the money through chicken dinners, bingos and tag days. And I've done that many times myself over the course of my career. And so we talk about buying a $10,000 suit or a $5,000 detector, we've got to help provide some support for them to continue that volunteer effort.
With that, Congressman Allen.
REP. ALLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for calling this hearing today.
I want to, as someone who spent six years in municipal government and was also a former mayor, I want to second what Chief Mars said about making sure that the first responders are well-trained and well- prepared.
What I want to do today is ask how we get there, because I know - I haven't been in Washington very long but I realize it's always easy to sit here and say, well, the locals will pick up the cost of whatever it is we think they should do. And my first question is, for either Ambassador Holmes or Chief Mars, is there some equipment, detection equipment or other equipment, that goes along with the first responder training? That is, when you first give the kind of first responder training that you're providing, is there some equipment that municipalities would almost necessarily have to pick up in order to take advantage of that training? Detection equipment or something else.
MR. HOLMES: I would say, as a general response, yes. What that equipment is at this juncture I can't say.
I ought to point out that in preparing the schedule of training for the cities, we have already had a number of focus groups, discussions with firefighters, police and medical personnel, dispatchers, in order to make the training more meaningful and more responsive to what is needed at that level. In addition, the chemical-biological defense command is developing a computer-based questionnaire that will be a Windows 95 diskette that will go out, and it will be a kind of a self-assessment tool for the communities.
When we get through that, we're going to have a much more precise idea of what those communities think that they need, based on the self-assessment and this training, so that we will be able to tailor the training and the -- obviously, the equipment that the trainers will have to use, for each community.
REP. ALLEN: That leads into my second question, which is what process do you propose for choosing communities? And I suspect there's great uncertainty in this area. I think, Chief Mars, if we were to sit here and try to predict where a terrorist incident might occur, Oklahoma City would not have been high on the list. And I'm wondering how you propose to identify the cities that most need this first responder training.
MR. MARRS (sp): Well, if I'm not mistaken, the 26 or so that was earlier mentioned were identified by population in those communities. And it's not necessarily -- I believe, if I'm not mistaken, the definition was broadened to not just a city, it could be a county or a fire district or some area that's being covered by an organization that -- by population. And when you expand from that number up to the 120 largest areas, then you cover some probably 80 percent of the population. And it's just a growth of where you're doing the most good based on the population.
REP. ALLEN: Thank you very much.
My last comment is just this. I am very concerned about the potential cost of providing local fire and emergency response people around the country with this equipment. And you know, it wasn't so long ago when I was faced with a municipal budget and I know how tight they are and I know how so many of them are based on property taxes that people feel they've paid enough of.
And I just -- as a caution, I would say I suspect we need some form of federal assistance with respect to the equipment as well, if we're going to make a serious national effort in this area.
Thank you very much.
REP. WELDON: I thank my colleague for his excellent suggestions and questions, and would just invite him to join with us as we craft this legislation that would provide flexibility for CBDG funds and perhaps a national model for a low-interest loan program, as well as a national training center for this needed training.
And the fourth initiative that will be included in that is the availability of excess federal property that could be made available for emergency responders. Right now they can get surplus property but not as quickly as they could if they were able to get excess property. And that is something that will also be included.
And the fifth item would be the study necessary to establish a national Internet linkage between every one of the 32,000 fire and EMS organizations in this country, what that would require. Because if you ultimately had an Internet linkage, then you could not only share the technology, you could provide training for the Internet, you could provide access to systems you might not be aware of and have an ongoing interactive communication process.
Each of these items are planned for inclusion in this series of bills, and I'd invite you to work with me in helping to put it together. And we plan on introducing it sometime before the National Fire and EMS Dinner.
With that, we'll turn to Congressman Bartlett, the vice chairman of our committee.
REP. ROSCOE BARTLETT (R-MD): Thank you very much.
Volunteer companies were mentioned as frequently the first responders, and I'd just like to comment on an additional contribution that these volunteer departments make.
I attend a great many of their annual awards banquets and I am impressed with the large number of young people that are getting awards. And this is a dimension of our volunteer departments, I think, that escapes many people who aren't intimately acquainted with them, and that is, the big contribution they make in providing opportunities for service for our young people.
I wonder if, since representatives from a number of these departments go to the National Fire Academy for training, if this would not be an appropriate place for this specific kind of training.
MR. MARRS (sp): Well, as I mentioned earlier, the Fire Academy was my reference to a site that's currently providing an awful lot of training, and certainly it's a management level and some of those others. But it may not be the site that you could do the operational hands-on at. If you're going to get into the true chem-bio training, simply the area or the site itself may not be conducive to that. But if, worst case, if there's nothing else, yes, we would like -- we would encourage that the National Fire Academy be considered also.
REP. BARTLETT: Thank you,
One of the big problems in any new technology like this is getting it to the people who need it, both in terms of letting them know of its availability and then providing the funds for making it available. There is clearly a major education program that we need here. Ordinarily, one does not think of a small town in Iowa as needing to prepare itself for the potential of biological-chemical terrorism protection.
I wonder how we bridge this big gap of getting the information out that this is a problem and then getting training and getting the equipment out to these myriads of departments across the country. Focusing on the large population centers, of course, is the way to spend our scarce resources. But I think that terrorists may not necessarily choose as their target of opportunity a large population center; they could choose any object across the country.
Do you have any suggestions, any of the panel, to how we both get the information on this out, that is something that we need to be concerned about, and then how we train them and how we equip them?
MR. MARRS (sp): Well, the National Fire Academy has used for years a concept called "train the trainer," and it's proven itself, where you identify a group of people that you bring in and train and they in turn are expected and tasked with going out and training other people and just spreading that out across the country. So I think that kind of a network -- and I believe that is what's being discussed at the Fire Academy right now, is a "train the trainer" concept.
We, in the fire service first responders, we have come to you and preached this area of cooperation and interagency communication and cooperation. We should also be tasked -- those communities that do receive training and equipment, should be tasked to spread that wealth and have that training and equipment available to help those communities that may not be able to afford it.
But I believe the "train the trainer" concept is something that works very well.
REP. BARTLETT: Well, thank you. We're both pleased and proud that the National Fire Academy is in our district, so your suggestion that it play a prominent role pleases us.
Yes, sir?
MR. HOLMES (?): Speaking only for transferring information regarding success stories from our program, we aggressively target spreading the information through the publications that the responders normally read. Later in the briefing, you'll be seeing a copy of the police chief journal that has a copy of a success story regarding some fingerprint techniques that we've developed. And that's the Journal of the International Association of Chiefs of Police that clearly lays out the technologies we've developed.
The International Association of Bomb Technicians and investigators has a journal they put out called The Detonator, which is read by state and local bomb squads across the country and around the world. And several of the items that we've developed are advertised in that journal and they are bought by state and local.
REP. BARTLETT: Thank you.
Articles and editorials in the trade journals are an effective way in any segment of our society in getting information out.
Thank you very much.
REP. WELDON : Thank you, Mr. Bartlett.
Before we go on, have you had any articles in either Fire Chief of Fire Engineering magazine, which are the trade publications of the fire and EMS community?
MR. HOLMES (?): Unfortunately, sir, we haven't had success stories that have related to the fire chiefs, although we are aggressively pursuing several developments that will work for them.
REP. WELDON: Thank you.
And there are EMS journals as well, as the chief knows, that you could also -- I'm sure they'd be glad to give you space there as well.
We'll now turn to Congressman Gibbons.
REP. SAM GIBBONS (D-FL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing us this opportunity to enjoy the benefit of your testimony. And also thank you, gentlemen, for appearing here today.
My first address would of course be to Fire Chief Marsh -- Marrs. And we're visually impaired here with this TV between us. But let me say that I think what we've heard today reemphasizes the need for the National Fire Academy in our country and the need to recognize the importance of that because of the threats that we are now facing and their valuable contribution to that.
But let me ask a question that you might be able to answer, and that's the assessment of how long, using the National Fire Academy or any other combination of training sites, would it take to adequately train personnel to be able to respond to the 26, let alone any additional sites that we've identified. What are you talking about in terms of a time there, what's your best estimate on that?
MR. MARRS (sp): Well, I don't know that I could give you exact time lines, but I know that, as I was just reminded, that the National Fire Academy does have a training program called Emergency Response to Terrorism that the International Association of Fire Chiefs helped develop with them. And it is going to be put on line soon, and I believe it will be in the "train the trainer" format.
It's totally dependent on the funding in the present format to bring those people up to the Fire Academy, how many you can bring in and how quickly you can put them through, and then go from there and spread that through a "train the trainer" or an informational spread format. But as far as I know, the class sizes and the ability to get on campus is really more keyed to the funding that's available for that to happen.
REP. GIBBONS: Well, thank you.
And maybe I should direct this part to Secretary Holmes. Across this nation we have a number of guard and reserve facilities who are actively training their personnel in (NBC ?) fire -- or techniques. Would it be feasible to join local community fire departments in that training to assess or give them an opportunity of the benefit of that training, since those are currently available? The DOD has a current and ongoing program in many of those communities with those guard and reserve units, and I think that was an opportunity to expand the training that the chief is talking about here. What's your assessment of that opportunity?
MR. HOLMES: We can certainly look at that. As you point out, where military bases and communities live around the country, they already have very well-developed relationships with their local communities. And in fact, whenever there is a disaster, you know, natural or man-made, I mean, they are first on the scene. They are also first responders and work with the fire chiefs and others to help.
I also might add that there are already cadres of civilians well- trained, for example, in dealing with chemical agents in those communities surrounding the eight depots where we have chemical weapons, which of course will be destroyed over the next 10 years but that are in various places around the country, such as Anniston?? Alabama and other places.
So in a lot of these communities there are 500 or more people that have already been trained in this. So there are more assets out there available to help than most people realize. But your suggestion is something that we could certainly look into.
I'd be -- I would just make one warning note. I think it's important that we have one well-integrated training process that is according to standards that are established together among the federal agencies and with the local communities, the one that we've been talking about that we're developing that will start with the first 26 cities. I think that we have to be careful that we have a well- organized, standardized program that is available to everybody.
But your suggestion is certainly worth looking into.
REP. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Ambassador, let me ask you a question, if I may. Would you help this committee understand the assessment of the threat to overseas U.S. personnel and U.S. assets over there to terrorism?
MR. WILCOX: American private citizens, officials and military forces have been singled out disproportionately by terrorists overseas for many decades, and that threat remains. We have seen most recently in the two bombings in Saudi Arabia how our forces are being targeted, and the Department of Defense is responding strenuously to strengthen our force protection.
Our civilian community overseas has been very vulnerable, particularly as our official diplomatic establishments, embassies and consulates have been hardened against terrorist attack. And there has been a decline, indeed, in terrorist attacks on American diplomats, American officials and American embassies because of the attention we paid, with strong support from the Congress, to protecting these facilities. That has made civilian targets, business targets even more vulnerable.
And as I said earlier, there's a tendency in recent years for terrorists to seek out softer civilian mass targets and to use much larger explosives. The Aum Shinrikyo attack in Tokyo, I fear, is a harbinger of further attacks. The history has shown that once a terrorist group uses a new methodology, others are going to follow suit. So we take that threat very, very seriously.
The number of incidents of attacks against Americans has in fact declined. But the number of casualties has not.
REP. GIBBONS: Do we as Congress owe a duty to those overseas personnel that are exposed to this terrorism threat, the same as some of these citizens are among our local communities? And if that's the case, how do we resolve that problem with access to those folks, those communities, with the resources and technology that we're developing here?
AMB. WILCOX: Our government certainly does owe a responsibility to our private citizens overseas, and it's one that the Department of State takes very seriously. We address it in various ways. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security has a well-developed association with the business community called the Overseas Advisory Council in which we, by the hour, provide electronically warning data, threat information advice to the business community on potential terrorist threats. And we have at our diplomatic establishments abroad a network for warning American citizens of all kinds of heightened threats.
We have a warning network established in which Americans in the private sector work together with our embassies. We have used that extensively in recent months in Saudi Arabia so that if there is any perceptible increase in the threat, our private citizens are warned as well. We have terrorist advisory and security advisory warnings in almost every country of the world where there is a significant security threat for American citizens. These are available through the Internet and they are made available from our embassies and consulates overseas.
REP. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. And you've raised an issue which, if I may, Mr. Chairman, address back to the secretary one question. Knowing that we have this information out there, knowing that we did have information -- and we've brought up the issue of Khobar Towers -- can you assure the community and this committee that we are using that information properly, that we're not ignoring it, we're not delaying our approach to information about terrorist activities today, so that we no longer have a delay in the utilization of the information that was available about Khobar Towers before the act or the terrorist incident occurs from this day forward? Can you assure us that you're properly using that information?
MR. HOLMES: Absolutely. I mean, we review threat information literally on a daily basis in all of our high-threat areas where there are concentrations of the armed services, whether they be combatant units or training units. And even with respect to Khobar Towers -- and I don't want to rehearse all of that in this hearing -- but even there, the tactical intelligence that was available -- for example, when it appeared that we were under surveillance, that we were being tested, ramming of a (jersey?) barrier -- that information was responded to and was used in hardening the defenses against penetrations inside the compound. So we all know, of course, what happened outside the compound, so I won't go into that now. But I can assure you that there is no higher priority in the Defense Department than the protection of our forces overseas.
REP. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. WELDON: Thank you, Congressman Gibbons. And I would just add, on the training front, and perhaps a suggestion to our witnesses today, there is an international association of all the professional trainers in the emergency response community. It's called the International Society of Fire Service Instructors. They have an annual conference in Indianapolis, and they usually have 11,000 to 12,000 people there. And they are the people who provide the training to both the paid and the volunteer fire and EMS groups. So it might be a good outlet for you all to showcase your technology and to do the kind of training -- I'm sure the chief is aware of the (FDIC?) conference and that you all could get involved with that, I'm sure, with no problem.
We'll now move on to Congressman Kennedy.
REP. PATRICK KENNEDY (D-RI): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for continuing these hearings from the 104th Congress to the 105th. I agree with you and those who have testified today that the potential of a domestic terrorist incident using chemical, biological or nuclear agents on U.S. soil is an increasing threat that we must address. The fact that we have not done more in the past is probably a result of the traditional thinking on defense, thinking that no longer applies to today's world. National security used to mean defense abroad. Today we can see that this is no longer applicable.
I want to commend the panelists and the number of federal agencies and you, Mr. Chairman, for working on making sure that we've taken the steps that we've taken so far, in particular with respect to the coordination. No entity of our government can respond alone to this problem, as has been testified today by the panelists here today. We must have a coordinated approach to this problem.
This leads me to my concern about the possibility of one of our federal government agencies taking an action that could severely hinder the ability of the federal, state and local governments from taking their necessary action in response to a chemical-biological- nuclear agent and threat.
Unfortunately, I have a personal experience with such a situation. In the early 1980s, Mine Safety Appliances, MSA, which has a plant in my district in Rhode Island, was making 6000 masks a month. The government realized that our inventory of masks was not only old, but it was inadequate. It was far short of our nation's needs.
The Department of Defense had MSA ramp up its production to 70,000 masks a month. This could only be accomplished by MSA in my district because they are the only mask manufacturer that makes all the critical elements in-house. And, in fact, in the latest preparation for the buildup in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, they were able to respond immediately to the Department of Defense's request for spare parts and supplies.
Therefore, they can control the schedule, as I have just said, and they can produce the necessary requirements in a moment's notice. Despite the long existence of two U.S. companies making such masks, by this past year and a half only one company was making chemical- biological protective masks, and that is my company in Rhode Island.
Today MSA is no longer -- okay, no longer making chemical- biological protective masks. What happened to this? The answer is fairly simple, although I'm still trying to puzzle why it is that it's taken place. The company whose line had gone cold informed the Army they could make a mask for less than the contracted price with MSA. The Army recompeted the bid and they awarded it to the other company.
Now, this is the point that I'm getting to. All indicators would be that they could not produce the mask for less than MSA because of the value-engineering changes that the MSA can do in-house. But that aside, today we do not, I repeat, we do not have a production capability that would allow us to produce a single chemical-biological protective mask, today.
My concern is that if we follow the Army's path, the U.S. will not have a mass production capability for chemical-biological protective masks until July of this year at the earliest, and that's if everything goes on schedule, and these are not simple masks to make. They're very -- I've been to the plant; I've seen them manufacture these masks. That's considering there's no technological glitches.
My concern is that the Army looked at its own limited requirements for mass production and yet the implications of the Army's decision are wide-ranging when considering whether we can make these masks available to those primary responders that have been spoken to thus far. And in addition to this, not only can we not build the masks today, but according to a joint DOD-DOE report and FEMA, it said that according to a joint report to Congress, preparedness in response to a nuclear-radiological or biological- chemical terrorist attack dated June 13th, 1996, NBC supplies, nuclear-biological-chemical supplies in the DOD inventory cannot be readily provided -- I repeat, cannot be readily provided by DOD because of the limited numbers and because if they were to be provided, they would affect our own Department of Defense readiness capability.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about this. I've seen it in the case of my own district. And I'll tell you, if it weren't for my own parochial interest in this, I would not have had the appreciation that I have today for how delinquent our government has been in this area. I can't think of a protective piece of equipment more fundamental in a chemical-biological-nuclear -- chemical-biological attack than masks. And yet this government has forfeited its capability for an indigenous producer.
Now, we've heard that you have a mask under review through R&D with Israel and Canada and other countries to produce a first- responder mask. But that won't be ready for a year and a half. And what we're going to do in the meantime, should we need to have a domestic production capability, to me leaves a deficit. But not only am I concerned about what this means to this individual issue but what it means to our inter-agency coordination, when one agency can make a decision that has such ramifications amongst all the other agencies. And I'd like -- I know that we can work together, Mr. Chairman, in addressing the problem this issue raises --
REP. WELDON: Would the gentleman yield?
REP. KENNEDY: And I would like to yield to you.
REP. WELDON: I thank the gentleman. He raises a very disturbing point here that I was not aware of. I have worked the mask issue for my 10 years in Congress; in fact, pushed the Navy to move away from the old OBA, which, as the chief knows, and he's probably used in his career, the old oxygen-breathing apparatus, where you had to inflate the lungs yourself, in which the Navy had a standard use on all of our Navy ships. They finally moved away from that. And that was manufactured by Mine Safety Appliances. But I was not aware that we, in fact, had shut down or allowed to be shut down the only production capability for a chem-bio mask. And that is troubling to me. Are any of you aware of this? What would be your response to it? I --
MR. HOLMES: I'm not --
REP. WELDON: I'm sorry, Ambassador.
MR. HOLMES: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of the facts in the case. I mean, it's -- I know that, of course, our own units, our own armed forces, are equipped with masks, as are the reserve forces. But as to the potential for a surge of production, I really can't respond to that. I'd be happy to ask the Army to give you a response to that question.
REP. WELDON: Thank you, Ambassador. And I pledge to the gentleman that I will work with him and ask the committee staff to ask the Army to report to us the status of why the line was shut down, whether there is any current capability or not now, and if not, why not, because the gentleman raises an issue that's of national importance.
REP. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to add, the DOD report does raise some really important questions, the reason why we're having this hearing, and that is while we have an inventory, which the chairman spoke to, of being able to inventory what we need for responders, we don't have -- the DOD can't sacrifice its own readiness by providing equipment that our first responders may need.
So while we're talking about this, a number of questions have been asked in this area. We need to figure out a way to leverage what DOD has or the capability that they have or the productions capability they have for domestic production. I mean, we don't expect DOD to provide the masks for all the cities, towns and states. But by the same token, we should expect DOD to leverage what their capabilities are for the benefit of those first responders.
REP. HARMAN: Will the gentleman yield?
REP. KENNEDY: Absolutely.
REP. HARMAN: Again here, as I indicated in a question of the chairman earlier, there's the opportunity for the private sector, which makes a lot of this equipment, to identify a new market, which is this market, and then produce this equipment at a much lower cost than it's currently available, both because of technological advances or manufacturing changes, but also because of the economy of scale of manufacturing more of it.
And it's a win-win situation. We take our aerospace firms, which are downsizing because, sadly, our procurement budget is also being reduced, but we find some new markets for their technologies. And I think if we're adroit in this -- and I commend the chairman again for an excellent, excellent hearing -- we can publicize what's going on here and get first responders tuned in and then generate not just the market, but my goodness, the appropriate, as you point out, material to respond to this potential crisis in unpreparedness for terrorist attacks.
Thank you for yielding.
REP. KENNEDY: Thank you. I think your point of some defense conversion dollars to keep the production capability alive while the first responders' masks are being developed would be a good thing. I look forward to working with my colleagues on doing that. Thank you.
REP. WELDON: Thank you, Congressman Kennedy. Congressman Turner.
REP. JIM TURNER (D-TX): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, appreciate the chair continuing these hearings on domestic terrorism, which, without question, is the most difficult, perhaps most unsettling and frustrating national security threat that we face in this country.
I'd like to direct a question to Secretary Holmes or to Ambassador Wilcox, whichever would choose to respond, or both. It's obvious to us that over the recent years, our nation's largest corporations have felt the impact of increased terrorist threats, threats of attack, kidnappings of their corporate officials, threats to the plant and equipment investments of those corporations, both here in this country and abroad.
And noting that we have done a very credible job of forming a working group to put federal agencies together to address domestic terrorism, I'd like to hear your comments regarding what efforts we have made to work with corporate America to determine and assess the amount of investment that major corporations have made in combating terrorism and to seek ways that we can work from the federal government in cooperation with the private sector to pool funds for research and development or to pool our efforts to combat terrorism generally.
AMB. WILCOX: Mr. Turner, I can speak about the effort that we're making with our business community overseas. Two days ago, I addressed the annual convention of the American Society of Industrial Security, which is a large, very well developed organization of professionals who are devoted to security for our private sector here and abroad.
We have had intimate association with this group through our Bureau of Diplomatic Security to work with them on security operations overseas. And while the FBI isn't represented here, I know the FBI has similar contacts, liaison relationships with the private sector here in the United States. We have a well-developed network for providing information in a systematic way through the Overseas Security Advisory Council, and we have day-to-day consultations between our regional security officers at embassies abroad and American companies, businesses and NGOs abroad.
In the area of the marketization of the technologies which the U.S. government has funded through the TSWG program and the various other programs, this has been successful. And a good deal of the state-of-the-art counterterrorism technologies, for example, in the area of explosive detection that are being used overseas by foreign governments, to some extent by foreign companies, are manufactured by American companies. And as I said, we're making an effort to spread the information about this technology so it can be widely used and our companies can produce in greater volume and bring the price down.
Perhaps Assistant Secretary Holmes could comment on the DOD private sector contacts in this area.
MR. HOLMES: We have similar contacts where various members of our group are invited periodically to meet with, to address these associations. I don't say that we can't do more of that and do it better, but we are very definitely in contact with each other. And I, for example, frequently speak before organizations like the American Defense Preparedness Association and the Association of the U.S. Army, and inevitably at those annual meetings, industry is well-represented there for advertising a range of capability for the Defense Department, some of them directly applicable to countering the threats of terrorism.
So we are in touch very directly with these communities. They know how to reach us. They're not shy about it. But I think your suggestion is a good one. I think the more we can work with our counterparts who have similar interests in the private sector across this country, and indeed with, as Phil was saying, the companies that are represented abroad, the better chance we have of prevailing in this struggle against terrorism, because it is a federal-state-local fight that has to include both the public and the private sector. We all have a part to play in it.
AMB. WILCOX: May I add, Mr. Congressman, that the area where we probably have the most extensive contact on a day-to-day basis is in civil aviation, where, because of our FAA regulatory regime, there's a very tight relationship between the U.S. government and our counter- terrorism efforts and the American aviation industry. The FAA maintains civil aviation liaison officers at a number of our embassies around the world, too, and they have an important security role to play.
The counterterrorism efforts of the FAA are one of our biggest and most important counterterrorism efforts in this government, and they're very much a partner in the TSWG and in our overall inter- agency counterterrorism efforts.
REP. TURNER: Well, I certainly am glad to hear the working relationships that you do have, and I would certainly encourage you to continue to include the private sector in your working group arrangements. And perhaps there would be opportunities to entice the private sector to make joint investments in research projects and funding research where we could be sure we do not have duplication and we can leverage those private funds into our public funds to accomplish the desired objective. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. WELDON: Thank you, Congressman Turner, for those excellent suggestions. Congresswoman Harman.
REP. HARMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to apologize to the witnesses and to you for having to step out briefly. But to follow on to the comments of Mr. Turner, let me just point out to you something I mentioned immediately prior to this hearing. The Technology Reinvestment Project which was a DOD activity and has now transmuted into something different -- the name is gone, but some of the functions are still there -- used to fund some private efforts to leverage defense technology for uses such as these.
An example is that the first TRP grant went to a firm in my district called High Share Technologies, which was in the space hardware business, which figured out a way to use space defense technology to power a miniaturized Jaws of Life device. Those were these monster things that cut people out of squashed cars or crushed buildings. And the advantage of this miniature version was it only weighed 20 pounds and it could go anywhere. And some of the firefighters in my district were very proud to fly to Oklahoma, when the building collapsed, to help in the rescue effort. So there's an example of a private firm developing technology which has this precise public use.
The federal investment in that project was $750,000. That was the matching grant to develop the technology. Once the firm had the new product, it began to manufacture it privately. It expanded its workforce by numbers of people and went into an entirely new line of business, which it called, appropriately, Life Share. High Share became Life Share. And it is still manufacturing this device.
So that's just one little example of how you can leverage federal dollars into new private-sector market-driven activity where everybody wins. Clearly there is a public safety purpose. You know, there is revenues for private firms and there are new tools for law enforcement and for firefighters. So you can obviously see how enthusiastic I am about this.
But my question is this. Mr. Chairman, as you know, there are some doubters on this subcommittee and on our full committee about the appropriateness and the use of these dual-use technology efforts. I think if there has ever been a hearing that demonstrates why this matters, this is it. And my question to these witnesses is, do you have adequate legal tools now, in terms of what we've done in the law -- I know you need money, but do you have the framework to do this and even do it better? Or do you need something, some more support of a legal nature, from those of us on this committee?
MR. HOLMES: Thank you. I would say that we do have what we need to get the job done in terms of legal authority, as well as funding. Our biggest -- in the federal government, our biggest challenge is to further integrate the very large agencies and departments of our government into a well-focused program. And we're hard at work on that and making literally progress day by day in putting that together. So I think -- that doesn't mean we won't come back to you three or four years from now and say, based on the experience that we've had so far, we need this, that and the other thing. But today I think, in terms of the authorities that we have, we have what we need.
REP. HARMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. WELDON: I thank the gentlelady, and I thank all of my colleagues for sitting through this session. And the more exciting -- the more excitement is yet to come, because we're going to have the show-and-tell of some classified systems following this. You're going to be able to, I guess, see and get a first-hand knowledge of some of the real tools that we have available.
Let me just add that this subcommittee also last year, in April, following on to Congresswoman Harman's comments, arranged, with the cooperation of the Congressional Fire & Emergency Services Institute, which interacts with the 60-some national associations involving every group in the country that responds to disasters, a two-hour conference in Washington, when we brought the R&D heads from each of the services in to solicit ideas for technologies that could help people like Chief Marrs, that perhaps the military is already working on, because that's the real problem.
I remember being out walking the freeways in Oakland and San Francisco after Loma Prieda with the fire chiefs of San Francisco and Oakland together and the incident command officer for California. They were looking for people who were trapped in between the freeways, and they were using dogs to try to sniff for people that may be alive.
And I said to the chiefs, "Why don't you use the thermal imagers?" He said, "Thermal imagers? What are they?" And I said, "Well, the Navy's developed them. They have them on their ships to locate sailors who are in confined areas where smoke prevents visual observation of the people that may be, in fact, unconscious." They weren't aware of the technology.
That's an example of what we have to do. We have to make this technology that you're providing in a very capable way, and I applaud you for that, available to everyone like Chief Mars around the country.
Chief, I'm going to give you a softball as the last question to close out the public part of this hearing. By all accounts, Oklahoma City is one of the best prepared and equipped communities in the nation. How prepared is Oklahoma City for a terrorist incident involving nuclear, chemical or biological weapons?
MR. MARRS (sp): Well, we're not very prepared -- certainly not any more than we were prior to April of '95. We can respond to the activities that you saw, but to detect chemical, biological, nuclear, we're not any more prepared than we were then.
REP. WELDON : Would you say that's a fair assessment for most cities in America?
MR. MARRS (sp): I would, very definitely.
REP. WELDON: That's our challenge, folks, and that's what we have to deal with in this Congress.
We want to thank you all for coming in. Gentlemen, we thank you for your testimony. It was outstanding.
This hearing of the R&D subcommittee is now adjourned. I'd like to invite the members and witnesses to join me in the anteroom briefly while they basically clear the room, and we will have an informal meeting for a classified briefing and walk-through from the Technical Support Working Group.
Thank you all.
(End transcript)