[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HOMELAND SECURITY: KEEPING FIRST RESPONDERS FIRST
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
VETERANS AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 30, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-220
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
87-386 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
BOB BARR, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
DAN MILLER, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
DAVE WELDON, Florida JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma (Independent)
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International
Relations
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York TOM LANTOS, California
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
DAVE WELDON, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Lawrence J. Halloran, Staff Director and Counsel
Thomas Costa, Professional Staff Member
Jason Chung, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 30, 2002.................................... 1
Statement of:
Baldwin, Mr., first selectman................................ 38
Berry, James, police chief, Trumbull Police Department....... 64
Buturla, Captain, executive officer, Division of Protective
Services................................................... 141
Clarke, Paul, executive director of operations, EMS
Institute, Stamford Health System.......................... 95
Craig, Daniel, regional Director, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.......................................... 118
Cugno, Adjutant General William, Connecticut Military
Department................................................. 130
De Martino, Thomas, director of Emergency Preparedness....... 38
Docimo, Frank, special operations officer, Turn of River Fire
Department................................................. 93
Farrell, Diane, first selectwoman, Westport, CT.............. 10
Harris, Harry, bureau chief, Connecticut Department of
Transportation............................................. 150
Knopp, Alex, mayor, Norwalk, CT.............................. 23
Maglione, Mr., fire chief, Bridgeport Fire Department........ 68
Newman, Paul, captain, Stamford Fire Headquarters............ 84
Schwab, Dr. William, president, Norwalk Community College.... 32
Yoder, Alan, EMS coordinator, Westport EMS................... 103
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Berry, James, police chief, Trumbull Police Department,
prepared statement of...................................... 66
Buturla, Captain, executive officer, Division of Protective
Services, prepared statement of............................ 143
Clarke, Paul, executive director of operations, EMS
Institute, Stamford Health System, prepared statement of... 98
Craig, Daniel, regional Director, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, prepared statement of................... 122
Cugno, Adjutant General William, Connecticut Military
Department, prepared statement of.......................... 133
De Martino, Thomas, director of Emergency Preparedness,
prepared statement of...................................... 41
Farrell, Diane, first selectwoman, Westport, CT, prepared
statement of............................................... 15
Harris, Harry, bureau chief, Connecticut Department of
Transportation, prepared statement of...................... 153
Knopp, Alex, mayor, Norwalk, CT, prepared statement of....... 27
Maglione, Mr., fire chief, Bridgeport Fire Department,
prepared statement of...................................... 71
Newman, Paul, captain, Stamford Fire Headquarters, prepared
statement of............................................... 87
Schwab, Dr. William, president, Norwalk Community College,
prepared statement of...................................... 35
Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of............ 3
Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, prepared statement of.............. 8
Yoder, Alan, EMS coordinator, Westport EMS, prepared
statement of............................................... 106
HOMELAND SECURITY: KEEPING FIRST RESPONDERS FIRST
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 30, 2002
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs
and International Relations,
Committee on Government Reform,
Norwalk, CT.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:15 p.m., at
the Norwalk Community College, East Campus Auditorium, 188
Richards Avenue, Norwalk, CT, Hon. Christopher Shays (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Shays and Tierney.
Also present: State Representatives Boucher, Duff, San
Angelo, Stone, and State Senator McKinney.
Staff present: Lawrence Halloran, staff director and
counsel; J. Vincent Chase, chief investigator; Dr. Nicholas
Palarino, senior policy advisor; Kristine McElroy and Thomas
Costa, professional staff members; Sherrill Gardner, detailee
and fellow; and Jason M. Chung, clerk.
Mr. Shays. Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome our
witnesses and our guests to this hearing of the National
Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations
Subcommittee and Government Reform Committee.
Mr. Tierney, my colleague from Massachusetts, and I are
conducting this hearing and invited Members from both sides of
the--from the State House and State Senate. We will be going
pretty much by the 5-minute rule. We're going to invite our
witnesses to make statements. We will allow them to go over
their 5-minute rule.
Ms. Farrell, you are right over there.
Ms. Farrell. Oh, thank you, sir.
Mr. Shays. At least you made it. You know, you can sit
right there. The other witnesses will move down and make space.
We will be going by the 5-minute rule and we're going to
invite our colleagues from the State House to jump in as well
if they have some questions.
In the course of thirty hearings on terrorism issues, our
subcommittee has learned this hard lesson: We are fighting a
war for which we are not yet fully prepared. Despite far
greater awareness of the threats since September 11th and
despite some progress toward improved readiness, the tragic
fact remains many first responders to the site of a terrorist
attack today would also be the second wave of victims.
Without access to sensitive intelligence reports, without
rapid detection capabilities and without realistic training,
local police, fire fighters and emergency medical personnel
arrive at the front lines armed only with dedication and
bravery, and a tremendous amount of expertise. Too often, they
face the potential horrors of terrorism without the tools they
need to survive and prevail.
We called this hearing ``Keeping First Responders First''
because the men and women sworn to uphold the law and protect
our lives and property have to be first on the scene. They also
have to be first when it comes to the planning, equipment
purchases, communication upgrades, and training exercises they
need to do their vital work.
A recent after-action report on September 11th rescue
efforts at the Pentagon gleaned more than 200 lessons learned
from the incident. Over 200 lessons. Many of those lessons
involved communications lapses, dead cell phones, clogged
frequencies and incompatible radios that made it difficult to
coordinate response units. A media report yesterday indicated
some New York fire fighters died on September 11th because they
did not hear warnings to evacuate the collapsing tower. The
alert was sent over the police radio. The fire department used
a different channel.
As we move toward creation of a new Federal Department of
Homeland Security, Congress, the administration, States and
localities need to be talking on the same channel about meeting
the needs of America's first responders.
We have three panels of witnesses this afternoon.
Appropriately, we will hear from our local officials first.
State and Federal officials will then give their testimony. We
appreciate the willingness of our State and Federal witnesses
to waive normal protocol and proceed in that order. We are
actually talking about first responders from State and Federal
Governments and I thank them for that.
All our witnesses bring valuable experience and important
perspective to these issues. We appreciate their willingness to
join us today and we truly look forward to their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.002
Mr. Shays. And let me say I was asked by the media will
what we do here today result in any legislation. My first
response was to say it may result in how we allocate resources,
but then my second response was clearly that it will because
the hearing we had in Bridgeport with Mr. Tierney a few years
ago resulted in legislation.
What we will learn today may surprise us. It may have us
move in a direction we hadn't thought or it may reinforce what
we already have spent a lot of time learning. But it will
result in a change in how we operate in Congress, what we
legislate, how we legislate it, and how we appropriate those
funds.
I'd like to give a personal warm welcome to my colleague
Mr. Tierney. He has been here before. He was in Bridgeport for
that major meeting we had with over 200 first responders and we
went through that trial and practice of imagining what we would
do for first responders to a chemical attack on an Amtrak Train
in Bridgeport. That was a fascinating experience to me, and I
think that the State deserves credit for encouraging that kind
of practice because I'm certain it's made us all better
responders. It certainly helped us.
But Mr. Tierney was there and I appreciate him being here
now and I appreciate his equal partnership in this effort.
Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the Mayor and all the other elected
representatives for being here today and for again inviting me
to this part of Connecticut. I look out and I see your first
responders as well as all the other interested people and I
know why Chris is so proud to represent this area.
Chairman Shays, I would thank you for holding this
particular meeting, as you have so many others in the past.
Among the images that seared the Nation's memory of the
horrific terrorist attacks of September 11th were those
hundreds of first responders rushing into fiery buildings. They
were heroically sacrificing their lives to save others.
Since that time, we have worked together on this
subcommittee, and I was going to say in a bipartisan way, but
you should all be proud of the fact that it is in a nonpartisan
manner. That is a manner that Chris Shays brings to Congress in
a unique way that few, if any, others do with the ability to
pull his committee and the Members that he works with around an
issue focusing them on the fact that this is for the betterment
of the Nation and for our respective districts and setting
aside ideology and other factors that may come in. His
leadership does that in a great way.
The subcommittee has been marshaling ideas of the country's
best resources and skills, how we coordinate efforts to fight
terrorism or to streamline government or to make America safer.
We need to do this for the families who watched loved ones on
September 11th and in the October anthrax attacks. We need to
do it for the American people who expect us to protect them,
and we need to do it for our children so that future
generations can grow up in a free and open society.
I've commended the chairman before for his work on this
issue and I want to reiterate the fact that it was long before
September 11th. For some 25 to 30 hearings prior to that,
several years, this subcommittee on National Security has had a
series of public hearings on the issue of Homeland Security.
Now, whether or not legislation will come from this hearing, I
think everybody should know that a lot of the Homeland Security
legislation that Congress is currently considering has been
formed by the work this committee did under the leadership of
Chairman Shays.
A lot of time has been spent on making sure that the
Federal Government and the State government and the local
government communicate well, coordinate their resources, and
work together to be ready to deal with any sort of a crisis,
and that happens to fall upon the many hearings this
subcommittee held and a lot of the lessons that we've learned,
including that experience that we had a couple of years ago
down here on the tabletop exercise from which we learned an
incredible amount and hopefully have been keeping that in mind
as we fashion legislation moving forward.
These committee hearings have not been fluff. They've not
been full of grandstanding. That wouldn't be the chairman's way
and it certainly wouldn't be appropriate. We've heard about
medical facilities and first responder agencies and the
challenges they face from sustaining hospital operations in a
chemical or biological environment, providing radios,
physicians and nurses to expanding surge capacity for public
health systems to purchasing decontamination equipment. We've
heard from State officials the words that public health has not
been at the table in Federal planning. Since September 11th and
the anthrax attacks of October 2001, Congress has taken steps
to address those issues and I suspect that they may more as a
result of this hearing and others to follow.
Two key areas we've heard mentioned, communication and
resources. As we look to first responders for solutions to
Homeland Security needs, all parties of Homeland Security from
Federal agents to local first responders must communicate with
one another in ways to save lives and protect civil liberties.
Whether that's highways or ports, nuclear facilities, office
buildings or landmarks, our local first responders need to know
how they will receive intelligence and what resources they will
have to help them act on this information in order to protect
the American people.
By resources I include direct Federal assistance directly
to local first responders. All acts of terrorism are local, so
each of our communities must be fully prepared in crisis
response and consequence management. This requires some
national preparedness and a response plan that builds upon but
does not undermine the integrity of existing Federal, State,
local partnerships such as the Fire Act and the COPS programs.
It means listening to local first responders, respecting
community concerns, and finding innovative solutions to these
challenges.
Mr. Chairman, these issues are not limited to this
district. I know my district in Massachusetts has similar
challenges as well as other areas throughout the country. My
first responders tell me we appreciate your rhetoric, but we
need your resources. I look forward to hearing an update from
the officials here as to the progress
and I hope we can continue to ensure the attention in
Washington is directed toward the urgent needs of State and
local first responders.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John F. Tierney follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.003
Mr. Shays. Thank you for that. I always appreciate your
gracious words.
I'd like to welcome Representative Ron San Angelo from
Naugatuk, Senator John McKinney from Florida, as well as
Representative Jack Stone from--I said Florida. Forgive me.
[Laughter.]
Representative Jack Stone from Fairfield, as well as
Representative Boucher from Milton. Sometimes I call John
Stuart, so I guess he can have me call him from Florida.
We have Representative Bob Duff as well, and we welcome you
to participate, Representative Duff. He's a new member and a
very effective new member. Welcome.
Before we swear you in, I just want to get some--and
announce our panel, I just would like to get some housekeeping
out of the way. I'd ask for unanimous consent that all members
of the subcommittee be permitted to place an opening statement
on the record and that the record remain open for 3 days
without purpose. Without objections, so ordered.
I ask for the unanimous consent that all witnesses be
permitted to include their written statements in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the written statements of
Natalie Ketchum, First Selectwoman; Ken Flate, First Selectman
of Fairfield; Christopher Lynch, Chief of Police, New Canaan;
Marge Smith, Eastern Volunteer Emergency Medical Services;
Richard Climates--am I saying his name correctly?
Ms. Farrell. Climates.
Mr. Shays [continuing]. Climates, Southwestern Region,
submission statements be placed in the record, and without
objection, so ordered.
I would also say that we will--I think Mr. Tierney has a
plane back to Massachusetts----
Mr. Tierney. Sometime.
Mr. Shays [continuing]. Sometime today and I'm not going to
ask him to miss his plane. But we have three fairly full
panels. If, in fact, we--at the end I'm going to invite anyone
here to stay who has a comment and make a comment for the
record. So you'll be able to make a comment based on your
observations and/or ask a question if you would like to do
that, and so that will be available. I'm not sure that--I'm not
sure when that will be, but if you're willing to wait, we'll
stay.
We have as our first panel a very fine number of witnesses
representing--basically they're elected officials in our local
communities and also the University of Norwalk. So let me just
announce in this order Mr. Knopp, the Honorable Alex Knopp,
mayor of Norwalk, a former State representative for a number of
years and a new mayor in Norwalk and doing an outstanding job.
He's joined by first selectwoman from Westport, Diane Farrell,
who also has kind of almost become the dean of this group and
is just as well a superb elected official.
We are also joined by Mr. Baldwin, who is a newly elected
member. I enjoyed working with him as well and all of your
communities are in good hands. Mr. DeMartino, the director of
emergency preparedness for New Canaan, is here, and we have Dr.
William Schwab, who is president of Norwalk Community College.
And I consider this one of the most outstanding schools,
universities, colleges. Clearly the best community college
besides Housatonic. [Laughter.]
So what we do, I would have to as a disclaimer say we swear
in all our witnesses and we'll investigate you and swear in all
our witnesses except for one. My colleagues might have some
sympathy. I chickened out when Senator Berg came to testify. I
didn't swear him in, but everyone else has to.
If you would all rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Shays. Note for the record all of our witnesses have
responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Knopp, I'm going to have you go first. And, Doctor, I'm
going to have you go second. Mr. DeMartino, I'll have you go--
I'd like you to--you need to go first?
Ms. Farrell. I have a WSCC meeting.
Mr. Shays. (Indiscernible.).
Ms. Farrell. (Indiscernible.).
Mr. Shays. You know what? A gentleman from Norwalk is a
gentleman (indiscernible). So we'll let you go first.
Ms. Farrell. Are you sure about that?
Mr. Shays. Do you have that same meeting?
Mayor Knopp. No.
Mr. Shays. OK. Then if you don't mind, we're going to have
you give your testimony. You're nice. You come in before your
meeting rather than afterwards.
Ms. Farrell. I appreciate that.
Mr. Shays. Go for it.
Ms. Farrell. OK. All right.
Mr. Shays. Now, let me understand something. Do we have an
amplification of our witnesses? Is that an amplification?
Unidentified Speaker. Yeah.
Mr. Shays. All right. WSCC is important, but that's the one
you got to speak to.
Ms. Farrell. OK.
Mr. Shays. Sorry. We don't give you much room.
STATEMENT OF DIANE FARRELL, FIRST SELECTWOMAN, WESTPORT, CT
Ms. Farrell. That's all right. That's OK.
All right. Good afternoon to the panel and our very
esteemed visitors. And I must say I'm delighted, Mr. Chairman,
that you've included members of the State legislature because
while we are here speaking to you as first responders, the
State's involvement is critical. Its financial help, its point
of perspective is critical to this entire issue. So I am
delighted to be here and I do thank you.
Your letter was very specific and there was a paragraph
that you basically articulated five questions and points that
you asked us to address. So that's what I'm going to do this
afternoon. I would also say that as part of the backup that
I've provided, I do have written responses from our police and
fire departments and our EMS from Westport addressing
directly----
Mr. Shays. We'll make it a part of the record.
Ms. Farrell. But I am delighted they have participated as
well, at least in writing, and I encourage you to take a look
at it.
The first point that you had in that critical paragraph had
to do with changes in domestic preparedness. And in that regard
I did want to begin by saying that Westport has maintained a
very high level of emergency preparedness for decades. We are a
New England coastal community and we're certainly used to
natural disasters. We respond quickly to rescues, evacuations,
and mitigation efforts. Our crews also routinely train for
other types of disasters. Since we have both I-95 and Merritt
Parkway going through Westport, we have had incidents in that
regard, and we also have the Metro North Railroad system.
Since September 11th what's changed for us is there's
clearly a greater need to prepare for weapons of mass
destruction events. And that would mean biochemical. It would
also mean nuclear.
I should also tell you that we have not waited for support
coming from New Hartford or the Federal Government, but that
upon the experience of September 11th we did go forward and
appropriate funds through our own taxpayers to provide bio-
hazard suits for police and EMS. Fire, of course, are covered
as responders for bio-hazard emergencies.
What we learned though--in fact, it was a wonderful phrase
that was given by a police captain in Stamford when we met
regionally, and that was that she was tired of the police being
canaries. And of course what she meant by that is if you're
dealing with a weapons of mass destruction event, you have a
criminal aspect to this that does require police response. You
also of course just need police and EMS personnel there to
respond to health emergencies, as well as any kind of other,
you know, public--keeping the public away from the site kind of
thing.
So we did make the purchase of suits. These suits, however,
have a limited shelf life. They will need to be replaced.
Whether they're ever used, and obviously we hope they're never
used, but at some point they're going to have to be replaced
one way or the other. So we are going to face that expense once
again.
The second point was the effectiveness of Federal programs
to equip and train first responders. I'm sorry to say that in
Westport right now as plans are unfolding, there are no dollars
that are directly going to come to our town to provide for
equipment or training. In fact, if I'm correct, right now I'm
not sure that there are dollars allocated for training at all.
They seem to be mostly in the area of equipment.
This is a real problem. I understand that we're a midsize
town. I understand that we don't happen to have an attractive
target. However, given the fact that we're 50 miles from New
York City and within the distance of two different nuclear
power plants and we're in a very congested area, it would seem
that these midsize towns, especially here in Fairfield County,
ought to be given some consideration.
What's planned right now, as we understand it, is that the
State intends to provide equipment to the two major cities in
our region, Stamford and Bridgeport, and I certainly don't
disagree with that plan. And we do have mutual aid agreements
among ourselves. We've had it for many years and we've recently
reaffirmed.
The concern is this though. When you are talking about a
large-scale event or even just a mass evacuation from
(indiscernible) or New York City, is it realistic to assume
that the personnel they're going to have in either Stamford or
Bridgeport are going to be able to respond to the Westports, to
the New Canaans, to the Norwalks on a timely basis. And I think
that's something you have to really begin to consider, again
thinking about where we live with the two highways.
And I also remind you that while we are considered small to
midsize towns, you know, with the two bookends of the State,
but when you add Bridgeport and Stamford to all of our
municipalities, the Miltons, the Fairfields, etc., we're
actually 19.4 percent of the State of Connecticut. We would
have a total population of 661,163 people. So not
insignificant.
We have as the next point adequacy of emergency response
plans as relates to nuclear, radiological, chemical and
biological threats. Our responders have been well trained to a
point, as I mentioned previously. However, the criminal nature
of weapons of mass destruction events do add to their
complexity. I think this is something we really have to look at
from a law enforcement standpoint.
You know, previously we had experiences with anthrax. Right
after the initial anthrax letters were received, every
municipality was getting phone calls, you know, suspicious
white powder, suspicious mail, etc. Well, where you would sit
down in a biohazardous event and you would deploy the fire
department because that is the response, that is their
training, you can't do that. They have to be accompanied by
police because you don't know the nature of what this
particular incident may or may not be and it takes more
personnel and it takes a different kind of acute awareness of a
situation that you're not just necessarily dealing with a
simple truck spill. There's nothing simple about a hazardous
material truck spill, but it's even more complex than that. So
I think you really have to add that critical component.
I will also say that Westport made a conscious decision on
its own to purchase 50,000 doses of potassium iodide. Now, the
State of Connecticut's current policy and I believe the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's current policy has been within a ten-
mile radius of where the event would take place. There are two
things I would say. No. 1, we're only then talking about an
event at an established nuclear power plant. When you begin to
talk about nuclear bombs and other things, you can't really
predict where a nuclear event is going to take place. So to
simply draw a ten-mile circle around an established nuclear
facility is good, but it's inadequate.
I think the other thing you have to look at is if you study
some of the events of Chernobyl a decade later, you will see
that there are still higher incidences of certain forms of
cancer that tend to relate back to radiation exposure that have
exceeded the ten-mile limit.
So we felt probably the only thing we could do as a
municipality in terms of dealing with a nuclear threat was to
at least try to provide dosage amounts that would handle the
population in the town, which is 50,000, and then also to
anticipate or assume that others could be, you know, in our
municipality at the time of exposure.
You also had the role of the Federal Department of Homeland
Security in supporting first responders. And this I can't say
clearly enough. We must, must have adequate funds for training
and ongoing equipment replacement. And probably the single most
important thing that we have to have and that we ought to be
able to have on a fairly expedited basis is the creation of a
seamless communication system that connects all emergency
services on an inter-municipal basis. And, you know, from
having read the most recent accounts of some of the analysis of
the New York coordinations that a lack of communications,
linkage in backbone led in part perhaps to some of the
fatalities that were faced with the New York Fire Department,
that is really, really crucial.
I'm going to say it again. We've got to have money to
train. We've got to have money for equipment and its
replacement down the road, and we've got to have adequate
communications to talk to each other both between towns, as
well as in town.
You also had quality and timeliness of threat information
currently available to State and local officials. Back to
communications, right now I don't think communications are as
good as they could be. The word that I was trying to tactfully
use is fractured.
We tried--I know our police chief and our fire chief worked
very hard and very diligently cooperating recently, as well as
the State police and the FBI. However, I don't think that's a
perfect communication system. I don't think I'm surprising
anybody up here. And I'm not going to put anybody on the spot
because, frankly, I don't think it's individuals. I think it's
the entire process of communications that really needs to be
reconsidered, but it's crucial.
I will also add that our residents really don't find the
color coded system to be all that helpful or adequate. I don't
think I'm telling you anything new, but let's face it this
color coding thing isn't going anywhere. And, frankly, since
September 11th everyone has been on a bit of an edge and it's
only a matter of whether the edge is a little sharper or a
little duller depending on what we're hearing or what we're
experiencing.
So the last thing I'm going to say is this. Please look at
us not as Westport, Norwalk, Trumbull, Milton as one little
community. Consider what we are strategically. We are within a
50-mile radius of New York City, which is clearly a target. We
have a population that we know we cannot evacuate right now. We
need to plan for what we can do for that population at any
given moment. And we also have to recognize that tens of
thousands of our population commute into New York City every
day.
So please when you are thinking about your district and
lower third to a county and this part of Connecticut, remember
that we are as much a part of the New York Metro area as we are
the State of Connecticut. And so while, you know, we may look
like just a town of 24,000, I think when you go just below the
surface, it's a lot more complex than that.
One final comment from your colleague, Representative--is
it Tauscher?
Mr. Tierney. Tauscher.
Ms. Farrell. Tauscher from the 10th District in California.
She gave a wonderful analogy by saying the first responders are
the tip of the spear. Right now I'm here to tell you that the
tip of the spear is fairly blunt, and I would hope that what
you will do in the coming months and, you know, as soon as
possible is work with us creatively and, you know, responsibly
to get that tip of the spear as sharp as it possibly can be.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Farrell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.011
Mr. Shays. Thank you. My understanding is that you need to
get on your way.
Ms. Farrell. I do. I apologize.
Mr. Shays. But I did just want to give you a compliment
that is so deserved and that is that you have not waited for
others to try to deal with this problem. And I know that we're
going to have to work on a regional basis, but hats off to you
for stepping in to it.
Ms. Farrell. Well, I thank my colleagues because they've
really shown a lot of regional cooperation on a variety of
issues and this is no different than West Nile or
transportation, and I'm just really honored to be working with
the folks in the area, as well as yourself.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Thank you for making it to be here.
Now, Mr. Knopp, you can welcome us and then we can welcome
you, and thank you for your graciousness. You'll be staying for
questions, right?
Mr. Knopp. Absolutely. (Indiscernible). [Laughter.]
Ms. Farrell. He grew up in Westport.
Mr. Shays. Do you still live there or have parents that
live there?
Mr. Knopp. Sure.
STATEMENT OF ALEX KNOPP, MAYOR, NORWALK, CT
Mr. Knopp. Before I begin my remarks, let me first,
Congressman Shays, welcome you and Representative Tierney to
Norwalk, and thank you very much for holding this support and
oversight hearing. I appreciate your inviting me to testify
along with the other distinguished public officials from our
region. And I want to thank President Schwab for his
hospitality here at Norwalk Community College, and I want to
also welcome my former colleagues of the General Assembly
(indiscernible) and in the witness chair for the first time.
I would also like to thank you, Congressman Shays, for your
very humane efforts to secure appropriate support for many of
the families in our communities who suffered personal losses on
September 11th. It's very important to them and you did that in
a very humane and appropriate fashion.
Before I begin my remarks, I'd also indicate I'm
accompanied today by Chief Verda of the Norwalk Fire Department
and Chief Rilling of the Norwalk Police Department, who are
sitting behind me, and I'm very, very proud to serve with them.
Mr. Shays. They make you look good, sir.
Mr. Knopp. Thank you.
The message I wish to communicate to Members of Congress
today is that while the President's National Strategy for
Homeland Security released on July 16th properly acknowledges
that cities are on the front lines in our national effort to
secure America's homeland from terrorism, the Federal
Government has not yet provided cities with the direct
resources we need to successfully carry out this new mission.
Therefore, I urge you to enact legislation to strengthen
the partnership between America's mayors and the Federal
Government by providing cities with the direct resources we
need to improve emergency telecommunications, to obtain new
technology, public safety equipment and to expand first
responder training that will ensure that our cities will be
safe and our citizens will live free from fear.
Indeed the war has come to America's shores only 50 miles
from Norwalk and made municipal first responders part of
America's national security team. But as Mayor Menino of
Boston, the President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said on
July 16th, 10 months after the horrific attack of September
11th, we are still awaiting Federal assistance to support our
efforts to ensure that cities are prepared for and can respond
effectively to any emergency.
To date, Connecticut has received relatively little Federal
funding for enhanced security. Last year we received just $2.6
million from the Department of Justice Domestic Preparedness
Equipment Grant Program. Those funds were distributed to the
State's five largest municipalities, and of course the Groton-
New London area because of their nuclear power plants.
If I may slightly correct Ms. Farrell's comments, this year
the State's Office of Emergency Management anticipates
receiving about $4.6 million from the Department of Justice,
and Norwalk will participate in this grant as the sixth largest
municipality in the State.
Our share of this Preparedness Equipment Grant will include
Level A, B and C suits for hazardous materials, hazardous
detection equipment, $100,000 for a mass decontamination
trailer that can also be used as a local command center, and 3
portable and 1 mobile 800 megahertz radios to be used for
command and control that will allow the chiefs behind me and
the EMS director to have direct communications with the ITAC
and ICAL frequencies, which are manned 24/7 by the State
police.
I'd like to compliment the State's Office of Emergency
Management and the Adjutant General of Connecticut, Major
Cugno, for preparing a comprehensive domestic preparedness
strategy for these grants and for consulting with
municipalities on their needs.
But it's obvious that this equipment grant, as welcome as
it will be, is by no means sufficient to meet our needs. Are
four federally funded emergency telecommunications radios to be
delivered more than 10 months after September 11th really an
adequate response to the biggest emergency facing our country
in the last 50 years?
Like other municipalities, Norwalk has not waited for
Federal funding, but has moved on its own with neighboring
communities to enhance its first responder capabilities. Let me
mention eight of the initiatives we've taken since September
11th since I know that you're on a fact gathering mission here
today.
First, Norwalk adopted an Emergency Medical Services Plan
that establishes performance standards for each segment of the
city's emergency medical services team, including police, fire
and Norwalk Hospital.
Second, we've adopted an overall Emergency Medical Services
Mass Casualty Response Plan to assist first responders.
Third, we've adopted a Southwest Regional Mutual Aid
Agreement that strengthens intertown aid agreements for EMS
ambulance service.
Fourth, we have worked to improve regional municipal
cooperation. The chief elected officials, fire and police
chiefs and others meet to exchange information. And during
these meetings the priorities were identified as compatible
telecommunications, equipment and training. And we have another
meeting next week on August 6th.
Fifth, we've worked to improve regional security
coordination. The police and fire chiefs have followed up with
the elected officials meeting and have formulated a
comprehensive regional strategy. In particular, they've adapted
a $20,000 grant program from Conn-DOT to purchase a number of
the 800 megahertz radios to be stored in a central regional
location for quick distribution in a time of crisis.
Sixth, the police chiefs have developed a regional plan to
deploy as many as 24 officers to any location to augment the
baseline staffing of any community.
Seventh, we're putting a lot of effort in Norwalk to
enhance the school security plans. We have participated in the
FEMA program to train school personnel to manage their
facilities for up to 72 hours in the event of a disaster when
first responders may not be able to succeed. And all of the
costs for this training are paid by FEMA in Maryland, while
Norwalk will pay the cost for training of education personnel
in City Hall next month.
Eighth, we've also developed a school emergency response
plan. That means quick visual access for each school to provide
a layout for emergency personnel, including where a gym or
cafeteria or library are located if they have to come in from
the outside.
In terms of Federal legislation, I would just mention three
priorities. First, we do need to connect the telecommunication
systems used by police, fire and EMS, as all the articles after
September 11th would indicate. Connecticut is far ahead of the
game because unlike other States, we have designated an 800
megahertz system of shared frequencies for emergency
communications, and now our challenge is to obtain the hardware
to utilize it effectively during a crisis.
Second, provide direct funding for cities. First responder
funding from the Federal Government should be provided directly
to cities and towns. We're the first responders and we need the
best training and equipment possible. The best approach would
be to establish a Homeland Security Block Grant Program, which
unfortunately the current first responder legislation in the
Senate, Senate Bill 2664 does not authorize.
And third, and I would just mention this in closing, when
funding for training is provided, we believe that first
responder Federal legislation should include funding for
overtime. All training, for example, in the Norwalk Police
Department is done on an overtime basis. The new training to
prepare for forces against biological, chemical and nuclear
attacks may result in unavoidable overtime expenses. And I say
this as a Mayor who has cracked down the hardest in our city's
history of overtime and reduced overtime budgets in both police
and fire departments significantly. But now the bill, Senate
Bill 2664 specifically forbids overtime funding. I urge you to
give that a second look and to give municipalities the
flexibility to use funds for overtime where overtime arises out
of training first responders for mass disasters.
In conclusion let me say that it is critically important to
strengthen the partnership between mayors and the Federal
Government on homeland security. This hearing is an important
opportunity for you to hear local municipal officials, and by
working together we can create the national effort we need to
prevail.
Thank you again for holding this hearing, coming to Norwalk
and asking for our views on homeland security.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knopp follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.016
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
I'm just going to go down the list.
Thank you, Alex.
Dr. Schwab.
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM SCHWAB, PRESIDENT, NORWALK COMMUNITY
COLLEGE
Mr. Schwab. Congressman Shays, Congressman Tierney, members
of the State legislature, invited speakers and guests, I'd like
to welcome you to Norwalk Community College. We're honored to
serve as a venue for a very important and essential meeting,
and that is how do we protect our communities more--even more
than what we've done thus far.
Mr. Shays. Dr. Schwab, I'm going to just interrupt you to
say that the nicest and most----
[Interruption by audience member.]
Mr. Shays. I'd like to thank you for the extraordinary job
that you do as University President, and I do think this is
truly the finest community college that I'm aware of, and I say
that with the knowledge that I have another community college
which I'll say is the second finest. But this is a superb place
and you bring tremendous energy and I thank you for your
welcome and I appreciate your kindness.
Mr. Schwab. Thank you, Congressman Shays.
NCC is one of 1,200 community colleges in the United States
and I believe that we're always playing a major role in
educating those who President Bush refers to as the first line
of defense against domestic terrorism; police, fire, emergency
medical, and health care personnel. I would like to add one
other thing, and I don't think there's been a lot of attention
given to this, but this is computer security. We've expanded
our role since September 11th by launching three new
initiatives. We've created a Public Safety Academy. We
developed a computer security degree, and we're putting
together a Computer Security Institute.
The Public Safety Academy would include law enforcement,
fire and nursing and paramedics training. And I see First
Selectwoman Farrell talked about the importance of training and
I think that's a real role as a community college. We offer
degrees and certificates in all those programs, but in
addition, since September 11th we've offered emergency response
team training for base fire and emergency medical personnel
through a curriculum designed by the Connecticut Office of
Emergency Management and through FEMA.
Through partnering--I see the police and fire chiefs here,
and we're partnering with them in Southwestern Connecticut to
deliver first responder training, and this fall we'll
inaugurate that by offering in-service certification courses to
the police in the area departments.
Our computer security degree. There's a dire need for
professionals in computer security. We have a partnership with
Western Connecticut State University and, in fact,
(indiscernible) from Western Connecticut was here today. And
it's one of the first undergraduate programs in the country in
computer security.
We've also cooperated with three other community colleges
in the State and we're talking to Central Connecticut State
University. We had a meeting with the University of New Haven,
who has a renown program in forensic science and also in
criminal justice. And we're also--the Director of Work Force
Development and the Office of Work Force Competitiveness was
down here last Friday along with representatives from Patel
Institute that is doing great work for the State of Connecticut
in making sure that the needs of the IT community are met. And
so to reiterate, we need professionals in the field.
What NCC would do is provide the first 2 years hands on in
the laboratories and things of this nature, and then they'd
move on to Western Connecticut and pick up the theoretical
knowledge they need. I have talked with people in the area and
in the State about what we're doing and I've heard responses
such as we'd like to make this a gemstone of IT in the State of
Connecticut, that is the computer security.
We're well positioned. When you came in, if you looked at
the big building across the street, that's our center for
information technology. We want to be touted as the center for
IT. And the reason we ended up building--or part of the reason
we ended up building over there is through the work of
Congressman Shays and his staff in securing a half a million
dollars in Federal grants to equip it and to make sure it's
done right.
Mr. Shays. Representative Tierney said if he was
representing you, you would have gotten a million. [Laughter.]
Mr. Tierney. I noticed the building across the street is
not that big. [Laughter.]
Mr. Schwab. Touche.
So we've really directed our efforts since September 11th.
When you think about what's going on in computer security or
the lack thereof, I remember a few years back Cornell students
had hacked into--I think it was the Department of Defense
computers. When you think about the advent of wireless and what
that means for security, it's a huge issue.
So our program that we developed, we're asking the National
Security Agency to bestow their alma mater on this particular
program. We've also asked the National Science Foundation and
the Federal Government for equipment, personnel and training.
And just to show how serious we are about computer
security, we hosted a cyber security conference here in April
and we had 120 people who attended that day, many of whom are
probably in the audience today.
We also want to put in a Computer Security Institute and
offer computer security workshops in conjunction with the
National Institute for Standards and Technology. Our focus, and
these are the people that are most vulnerable, are small
businesses, non-profit agencies and municipalities, to help
them.
So these are our initiatives, and we know we need to do
more. And we've hosted today's event and what I'm saying today
as well is that we're willing to host more of these events.
We're willing to work with Mayor Knopp and with the First
Selectman in Southwestern Connecticut, with SACIA and with
SWRPA to bring local, State and Federal emergency response
teams together for training and coordination. We'll make
ourselves available. We have the facilities. They're yours
because we know it's an important issue.
I'd like to thank the Subcommittee of National Security for
bringing us all together today, and Congressman Shays and
Congressman Tierney. I think I'll give preference if you don't
mind, Congressman Tierney, to Congressman Shays since he's been
such a great advocate for NCC. And we know that we must
collaborate with one another in order to create a safe and
secure environment, and we at Norwalk Community College are
saying we're ready, willing and able to work with you toward
that end.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwab follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.019
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
We've enlisted First Selectman Baldwin. And we didn't give
him warning that we were going to ask him to speak so we
appreciate him coming to the dais like this, the desk, and we
appreciate your work preceding your work as First Selectman as
an officer on the police force.
STATEMENT OF MR. BALDWIN, FIRST SELECTMAN
Mr. Baldwin. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Representative Shays, Representative
Tierney, members of the committee. I represent a community of
35,000 people that houses NASDAQ, which is a very sensitive,
and particularly in this day and age, a very important part of
our national economy.
As Representative Shays stated before, I'm a retired police
officer, but more importantly I was a former marine and served
in Viet Nam. And there's two things we should have learned from
that experience. One is to define our mission and the other is
to provide resources to fulfill that mission. What you've done
so far is define the mission. What you haven't done is supplied
the resources for us to fulfill that mission.
I was fortunate enough to be preceded here by comments by
Mayor Knopp and First Selectwoman Farrell, who did an excellent
job of outlining a lot of the detail. In very broad terms I
will say that I support wholeheartedly all of their proposals,
but most importantly the direct funding for such things as
communication equipment, an emergency management center and
training for our first responders.
We have already endeavored to put together an emergency
management team, that began probably 8 months ago, to
coordinate the efforts of our EMS, fire and police departments.
But as I said before, we're a small community. We don't have
all the resources of a larger city or the Federal Government.
We need your help and we need it right away.
Joining me here today are Chief Berry from our police
department, our fire marshall, and Bob Pescatore, our emergency
management coordinator. And they will probably go into more
detail as to the specifics that are needed, but I will tell as
a First Selectman in this community that it's important that we
get funding right away or we will not be prepared to fulfill
our mission.
Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much, Mr. Baldwin, First
Selectman Baldwin.
You're on, sir. Thank you. Mr. DeMartino.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS DE MARTINO, DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS
Mr. De Martino. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members.
I am Thomas DeMartino, the director of Emergency
Preparedness----
Mr. Shays. Just hit it.
Mr. De Martino. I am Thomas DeMartino, director of
Emergency Preparedness for the town of New Canaan, and I am
representing the Honorable Richard P. Bond, first selectman.
The Office of Emergency Preparedness was----
Mr. Shays. I'm sorry, Mr. DeMartino. You moved the mic away
and unfortunately I need to have you move the mic closer.
Mr. De Martino. The Office of Emergency Preparedness was
created in November 2001 as a result of the events of September
11th. It is staffed by myself, Ms. Judy Wisentaner, who's
deputy director, and Mr. James Hardy, chief of plans and
operations. I am accompanied today by Police Chief Chris Lynch,
who is available to respond to questions concerning public
safety.
Chief Lynch.
The written submissions were provided by the principal
first responders, police and fire, as well as a response from
our Health Department.
I had indicated that the Emergency Preparedness Office was
created last year. Its function is to coordinate the
interaction of emergency service assets from both within and
outside of the town. Overall planning for the potential of
terrorist or natural hazard events has been its predominant
activity to date. Rewriting the town's emergency operating
procedures to comply with current FEMA standards is near
completion, as is the evaluation of the town's existing
emergency operations center with regard to its location and
suitability.
Interaction between first responders has been heightened.
Regular communications between police, fire and EMS has
resulted in defined responsibility and protocols for weapons of
mass destruction incidents. They have conducted consolidated
training and have organizational strengthening.
Each of the first responders has revised their SOP's or
added special orders, as well as making equipment purchases to
reflect today's threat environment, which may provide an
appropriate segue since your letter of invitation made mention
of significant challenges in terms of equipment purchases,
communication interoperability, training, data sharing, and
coordination.
New Canaan knows its place on the food chain for Federal
grant requests and we recognize that requests for funding for
first responders would be more quickly granted to a regional
rather than a local request. I think this is a State issue, but
Federal guidance would be helpful.
Purchases of equipment for individual protection and for
communication interoperability are required at the local level.
For example, we have seen devices in the New York City Office
of Emergency Management which allow different radio bands and
frequencies, as well as cellular and landline phones to
communicate directly with each other. Equipment of this nature
is absolutely essential to virtually every town and region in
this State, and I believe that the Federal Government should
ensure that this necessity is realized.
Your invitation asked specifically for a discussion of
emergency response plans with regard to the release of nuclear,
biological, radiological and chemical material. In short, I
view current plans as inadequate to deal with all but the most
minor weapons of mass destruction incident. The role that we
envision from the Federal Government of Homeland Security in
this regard is one of an enabler; directing, protecting--
facilitating the availability of requisite detecting,
protecting and monitoring equipment and providing the
appropriate guidance for education, training and evaluation.
The most critical challenge facing planners for a major
weapons of mass destruction scenario are those related to mass
evacuation. An incident prompting large numbers of evacuees
into or out of the community with the related transportation,
shelter and health issues is perhaps the single most realistic
threat facing our town at the moment. We look to higher
government to provide the guidance to facilitate an effective
response plan.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to express
our views, and as we sit here, we're available to respond to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeMartino follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.030
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
We're going to start off with Mr. Tierney. You can have as
much time as you'd like.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank all the witnesses for your testimony. It's
extremely helpful. On that, I wish Ms. Farrell had stayed only
to--if not, to have a brief discussion on the K-1 potassium
iodide situation because we did put some language in there
originally that we're extending the ten-mile radius out to
twenty and would have made the Homeland Security Secretary
responsible for developing plans and guiding the community to
develop plans for that. If, however, it was taken out by the
Select Committee, now we're hoping that it can be put back in
somewhere in the process. It was actually Chairman Shays'
committee that put in that provision and he and Ose from
California and I worked hard on it. Hopefully that will come
back in because I think that's a concern and one that could be
easily remedied and addressed.
Let me ask anybody on the panel that has an answer to this
to tell me, A, how the Fire Act and COPS programs have worked,
or effectively if their funding mechanisms work with respect to
your communities. And then because I'm an advocate and I know
that Chairman Shays is an advocate of direct local funding,
let's put on the record, if you would, for us why that is so
much more important than any other mechanism of funding. We'll
start left to right or right to left.
Mr. Knopp. I would say just in Norwalk we haven't gotten
anything from the COPS Program. We haven't gotten any COPS
funding through them and we've not experienced much funding
through the Fire Grants. I think generally in the State we've
received those stipends successfully. My community has not
participated in that.
Mr. Tierney. OK. Do you have an opinion on the direct
funding programs coming out of Homeland Security down to the
local first responders on the way we fund those, whether you
favor something like the direct funding in the COPS Program or
the Fire Act or----
Mr. Knopp. Yes.
Mr. Tierney [continuing]. Do you have a feeling otherwise?
Mr. Knopp. Yes, very much. I think it's very important that
the funding come, or at least a large part of the funding come
directly to the municipalities.
Thus far in the Department of Justice Grant Program, what
we've seen again is the State works it through General Cugno
and the Office of Emergency Management. That's a very good
statewide plan, but nonetheless all of the equipment that we're
getting, for example, are primarily for regional responses and
many of our municipal needs are not going to be met through
that program. As I mentioned, our getting four radios is just
about our entire municipal telecommunications element from that
Department of Justice Grant Program. So we believe that direct
funding is very important.
Ironically, as I understand it, the COPS Program is being
cut back significantly while we're trying to increase funding
in other places. I would urge you to try to retain as much as
possible of that COPS Program and also to create a fire fighter
parallel program that you would be able to fund 75,000 or
100,000 fire fighters in the country.
In Norwalk, for example, we are eight fire fighters below
our authorized level because of the high expense of maintaining
such a full force, and we would welcome Federal support to
increase the number of fire fighters on our force. It would be
useful for things like training and mass casualty response.
Mr. Tierney. Well, I have a request for all of you then
because generally the feeling on this is that we definitely
applied for that, and if I know both the chairman and I and
others, it's not a party matter. It's not a party matter at
all. We've worked very hard for the Fire Program, Fire Act and
COPS Program for money coming down directly to the communities.
It is not the President's intention to do that. It is--so far.
But an indication that lumping these programs in in a general
sense is they are going to take a cut, which you don't think is
wise.
So to the extent that any of you feel it appropriate, if
you want to write--obviously you don't have to write to
Chairman Shays. He's on board fully on that. But to your U.S.
Senators, to the President, to the administrators on this
program. It's extremely helpful that they get the message from
local communities to join in the argument that we're making
down here because it's substantial and it makes a huge
difference in whether these programs are successful or not. So
I'd thank you if you're inclined to do that.
If anybody wants to add to that.
Let me just ask each of you right now--I'm sorry, Mr.
President. I'm sort of skipping over you, but I will come back
to you at some point.
Who would be the person or the entity with whom your
community now contacts first in case of emergency? If you have
a disaster, if you were to have a biological or chemical
incident or a nuclear bombs incident, which present agency
would you naturally contact first?
Mr. Knopp. Well, what we would do is to contact both FEMA
and we would contact the State Office of Emergency Management
through General Cugno's office.
Mr. Tierney. Is that pretty much the same with you?
Mr. Baldwin. That's right.
Mr. Tierney. So nobody goes directly to the FBI or----
Mr. Knopp. [Shaking head.]
Mr. Tierney. And with respect to your hospitals, can you
tell me what your impression is right now of your hospital
preparedness in terms of dealing with a biological or chemical
incident that might cause a large number of people to be
affected by this?
Mr. De Martino. You know, a minor incident perhaps could be
handled well by our local hospitals, as I understand it, but a
major incident I don't think they're equipped to handle that.
Mr. Tierney. OK. Not equipped in what sense? In personnel
or in training or in equipment?
Mr. De Martino. Well, in personnel and equipment and the
ability to be able to accept large numbers of individuals who
might be affected by a radiological or chemical incident.
Mr. Baldwin. Mass casualties would be problematic in our
area because we have a high concentration of people in Upper
Fairfield County and they're only serviced by two hospitals. So
that's a problem.
Mr. Knopp. There are 32 hospitals in Connecticut. They all
operate on a regional basis, and by and large I think they've
all learned a lot of lessons from September 11th. And this is
where the drills come in. That's why it's so important that we
be able to fund these live drills so that hospitals can
interact with the police and fire.
One of the aspects of the role of hospitals I think that
should be supported is they're public health roles and
initiatives and emergency intervention role. It's the case that
if, for example, somebody who has anthrax symptoms goes to one
hospital and two other people with anthrax symptoms go to a
second hospital and two others that might have been in touch go
to a third hospital, it's very important for the State to be
able to coordinate and see that there is a public health
crisis, even though at any one hospital it's only one or two
patients who might be affected.
And that's what I call the public health infrastructure.
We're trying to involve the cities' health directors more in
emergency planning, and I think the State has been very
progressive in trying to help coordinate information among
hospitals to alert us that there really is a public health
emergency going on even though within our town it's not more
than one or two people affected.
Mr. Tierney. Dr. Schwab, does your school deal with public
health issues also? Do you have any programs that would
underlie the beginnings of a career in public health or----
Mr. Schwab. Yes, it does. We have programs, a paramedic
program. In fact, most of the rigs that are on the road now,
the people in there were probably trained by us. A nursing
program, a medical assistant program.
And just to sort of followup on what you had said before
about the COPS Act, I'm not real familiar with that, but a good
many years ago----
Mr. Shays. Just get a little closer to the mic.
Mr. Schwab. Oh, I'm sorry.
A good many years ago there was an act that was put through
by Congress called the Law Enforcement Education Program in
order to train police and correction officers and those going
into criminal justice. I'm just wondering whether that's
something that might be resurrected and used for first
responders, whether it's medical personnel, because surely
there's a shortage in that area, police officers. Mayor Knopp
talked about the fire fighter shortage. I mean, could that act
be resurrected, and then we could work more people into those
critical areas.
Mr. Tierney. That's important. Thank you.
Back to you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
At the concurrence of Representative Tierney, we're going
to invite our State legislators to ask some questions and then
I'll followup and if Mr. Tierney wants to followup with any
questions as well, we'll go from there.
I'm going to start off with Senator McKinney and then we'll
just go--I'll just go to Jack Stone. I think he came second,
and Representative San Angelo, and then we'll go to you, Madam,
and then we'll end up with Representative Duff.
Mr. McKinney. Thank you, Congressman Shays. I want to thank
you for bringing this important hearing to Norwalk and tell you
how exciting it is to call you Mr. Chairman as well. And
welcome, Representative Tierney.
I actually wanted to followup on Congressman Tierney's
question about direct payments to municipalities. You know,
obviously I tend to believe that when the money is flowing, the
less it stops along the way the better. But as a State official
I guess I'm alarmed that our local municipalities here feel
more comfortable that they're going to get money from the
Federal Government than they do from the State level. And
without hurting anyone's feelings because this is a very
important issue, I wondered if you could sort of better
describe what fears you have if the money were to go to the
State first.
Mr. Knopp. Well, as a former State legislator--[laughter]--
you know, when I served on the legislature, we had a $500
million surplus, and somehow in the last 10 months we have a
$400 million deficit. I don't know how it happened.
I think basically the problem is this, that one of our
concerns is that the State's emergency infrastructure is also
understaffed and needs funding. And the question really is how
much does the State rely on Federal funding to help solve its
budget crisis and, therefore, does it have the funds to pass on
to municipalities.
There are a number of shortages of positions in the Office
of Emergency Management at the State level. When you get these
funds, do those get plugged in to help deal with the State
budget crisis or do they get passed on to municipalities. I
think one of our concerns is that Federal funds will replace
State dollars and State programs and won't be used to
supplement the municipalities. And I think that actually, in
fact, did happen in this last budget crisis.
Fortunately the DOJ Grant on emergency equipment prohibits
States from spending more than a minuscule amount on
administrative costs and, therefore, there are limits on who
you can hire to fill gaps in the Office of Emergency Management
structure.
Again, they need more people. We need more help. We just
want to make sure those funds get to the first responders and
don't get used to plug the State budget problems.
Mr. McKinney. Let me just followup on that. Would you also
be equally uncomfortable that if the Federal grants were to go
to States but directed at municipalities but it would be the
States deciding which municipalities it goes to?
Mr. Baldwin. We have gotten grants directly from the
Federal Government. Quite honestly, the process is a whole lot
less cumbersome than going through the State. I think Mayor
Knopp hit the nail on the head when he said there's a need to
stop gaps, something to help the State of Connecticut take care
of its budget problems at the expense of the municipalities,
and that's why we have a greater comfort level to deal directly
with the Federal Government.
We've gotten bullet proof vests for our police. We've
gotten our SRO officers. We've hired dispatchers and so forth
directly on Federal grants without having to go through the
State. That does become a problem we have because----
Mr. Knopp. I just want to say one thing, Senator McKinney.
You know, I've said I was a legislator for 15 years. I'm a new
mayor, and all this is very new to me. I think the biggest
surprise about being a mayor is that unlike many economies in
Europe where, in fact, municipal security inquiries are either
State or Federal responsibilities, the United States is almost
the only country in the world in which local security is a
municipal and mayoral responsibility. In Japan it's a Federal
responsibility. In Germany it's a State responsibility. So, in
fact, we are responsible for the first responders at the
municipal level and that's why I think it makes sense to have
the funds come directly to us.
Mr. McKinney. And my last question is in terms of
priorities. I know there's a lot of need for training,
communications equipment, and other equipment, but if you had
to prioritize which one is first right now, which would it be?
Mr. Baldwin. Well, I'd have to say communications only
because knowing the people that are in this room today, police,
fire, EMS personnel that are represented, we are fortunate here
in Fairfield County to have really true professionals. These
people know what they have to do. They know again what the
mission is, but they're waiting for the resources.
Mr. McKinney. Right.
Mr. Baldwin. Communications is the absolute need.
Mr. Shays. You know, I'm just going to use that as an
opportunity because I did want to ask this question. And if the
next panel would think of this, the answer to this question, I
won't have to ask it again. But what are the most critical
needs, and I have a list. Is it detection capability? Is it
decontamination capability, communication equipment, personal
protective gear and suits, emergency medical personnel,
emergency medical training, hospital treatment surge capacity,
training in general exercises? Where would you try to put this
list from detection capability all the way down to exercises?
I'm not going to ask this panel that question now, but if you
could just try to focus in.
Mr. Stone.
Mr. De Martino. I wanted to respond to Senator McKinney's--
--
Mr. Shays. Sure.
Mr. De Martino. I concur. However, I would put personal
protection equipment equal to communications interoperability
as our priorities.
Mr. Knopp. Can I just also respond?
I agree with Ray. I think that the telecommunications is
the first need. They're all obviously important needs, but we
now have to make sure that fire and police can talk to each
other, that we can use our mutual aid pacts on a regional basis
to call in a lot of personnel. If they can't talk to each
other, it doesn't do any good. So I think you get the biggest
bang for the buck by telecommunications.
The State, as I mentioned, is far ahead of other States
because it set aside the 800 megahertz band width for
communications to the State police, and, therefore, we really
can have interoperability and very effective telecommunications
on a very short-term implementation phase.
Mr. Shays. I thank you, gentlemen, for those questions and
the answers.
Let me just take the opportunity to recognize two very
capable staff of Congresswoman DeLauro, Stanley Welsh and Scott
McDonald.
Would you both raise your hands, please.
They're right over here and I just would point out that
their Member of Congress had the extraordinary privilege of
being on the Select Committee on the New York (indiscernible)
of Government.
I might say to all of you so you can picture what happened
when the President presented his proposal. His bill came to our
subcommittee. Our subcommittee was the first to deal with the
legislation. We had a hearing on that, but the full Committee
of Government Reform was the committee that voted it out. We
were the only committee of Congress that had the 100 percent
full piece of it, but other committees had jurisdiction to--the
Judiciary Committee and others had jurisdiction in
transportation. They took that little part out of it.
And so the base bill came to our committee through the
Select Committee. They altered it. In some cases we didn't like
the changes they made. They then merited some of the other
parts of other committees and I think did a good attempt at it.
I think Congresswoman DeLauro was very supportive of some of
the things that they did in our Government Reform Committee
that was taken out by the Select Committee.
But we appreciate both of you being here. Thank you. And we
appreciate the fine work you're doing with your boss. Sometimes
I think she works for you, but I know she's the boss.
Also I think--is there anyone from Nancy Johnson's office
here?
[No response.]
Mr. Shays. Thank you. I'd been told she might be here as
well.
Mr. Stone.
Mr. Stone. Thank you, Congressman Shays. And I do want to
thank you for putting on this hearing today and welcome
Representative Tierney, who happens to be from my home State
originally.
I want to go to Mayor Knopp for just a moment. Shortly
after September 11th there was a very, very informative session
held at Norwalk Hospital and I know you had a great part in
putting it on there. And I have to say that the information
that was imparted to us at that session was less than
optimistic in our capability of handling any type of disaster.
In the face of the comments that you've made here in
establishing a performance standard, etc., relating to the
medical aspects of this, where would you say we stand today in
terms of where we were a year ago?
Mr. Knopp. Well, I think that's a good question, Jack. I
think the--we can't forget that a large part of the response to
terrorism has to involve public education and public health
organization. So I feel that we are better off than we were on
September 11th because there's a much greater I think awareness
among the public in terms of public health officials about how
to respond to these kinds of disasters. You know, if a nuclear
weapon were to go off tomorrow, obviously the question--the
answer is no.
But in terms of dealing with, first, unfounded fears,
developing procedures to verify what the problems are, I think
that we are growing in our sophistication and recognizing that
this is not just an equipment or telecommunications issue. It's
also a matter of public health and social organization. And I
feel that hospitals, Norwalk Hospital and others are doing a
very good job of now involving public health directors in this
kind of outreach education.
Mr. Stone. As a followup to that, and I'm sorry that we
don't have medical people here on these panels today, but you
mentioned, Mayor, that we have 32 hospitals in the State of
Connecticut and unfortunately close to half of those are
financially distressed. What type of burdens or what type of
relief is going to be necessary to really bring us up to
standard? I realize it's a hospital question----
Mr. Knopp. No.
Mr. Stone [continuing]. But you're the closest to a
hospital here.
Mr. Knopp. Obviously having hospitals upgrade their
emergency procedures is going to be a costly matter. These are
issues that the State health organizations have to deal with in
terms of setting their rate structures.
One of the issues that we're getting with Norwalk Hospital
is how to set up certain treatment facilities so that in the
event of an emergency, we make sure that the anthrax spores, or
rather contaminants don't spread throughout the hospital. These
are highly sophisticated, high-pressure rooms that prevent
spreading of this kind of contamination. This is going to be an
expensive operation.
Mr. Shays. I believe we have two EMS folks. Particularly
not from a hospital directly, but staff health systems as well
as the EMS coordinator. So we can get into that later.
Mr. Knopp. Sure.
Mr. Stone. May I ask just one more question----
Mr. Shays. Sure.
Mr. Stone [continuing]. In the area of communications. We
all know that there are all sorts of communication systems
available. Obviously police car to police car, headquarters,
etc. What do you envision as the need for the communication?
Realizing you can't have everything necessarily, but what would
be your priority? I mean, a capability directed to the State
police or to the surrounding communities or to General Cugno's
office? What is the priority to the communications aspect?
Mr. Knopp. I think the priority now is to have us obtain
equipment that allows us to utilize this 800 megahertz system,
that allows us to talk to surrounding communities but is
patched through the State police. I think that is where you get
the biggest bang for the buck. Connecticut is one of the States
that has set aside this band width. We ought to take advantage
of it.
Mr. Baldwin. I agree and I'd take it just one step further
in getting even more basic. I think being able to communicate
amongst the different emergency organizations, fire, police and
EMS even within our own community. We most recently purchased
a--I don't know if it's appropriate to name the name of the
company, but a NexTel phone to allow us to have walkie talkie
communication with all our emergency management teams and not
having to rely virtually on cell phones because it didn't work
on September 11th.
So getting as basic as that, having that in place is
important to getting in touch with our public works people,
getting in touch with, again, the obvious ones, fire, police,
EMS, your Health Department. Everybody that's involved has to
be able to be communicated with. And, you know, money for that
is not a lot of money, but it makes a tremendous impact I
think.
Mr. De Martino. There is equipment on the market that will
let us have our cake and eat it, too. I'm not that familiar
with it. I've seen it one time. They made reference to it at
the Office of Emergency Management in New York City. They're
testing it now. But you can select who you want to communicate
with and it's on a separate frequency. And I also think that
satellite phones are a consideration. I don't have the answers,
but I do know what ought to be looked at and we can come up
with solutions real quickly.
Mr. Stone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Representative San Angelo.
Mr. San Angelo. Yeah, first let me thank Congressman Shays
for holding this hearing and Representative Tierney for joining
us here in Connecticut.
I guess I want to take a step back for just a minute. I
understand the mission of Homeland Security for the Nation and
the State of Connecticut. I think I understand the needs of the
local service providers. I guess I'm wondering about the plans
to get there. I'm wondering if you had any precise plans or at
least a process to go through from Homeland Security down
through our Office of Emergency Management to a municipal
level. I'm hearing these different towns want to do different
things and have different priorities. I guess I'm wondering
what is the plan to get to overall State coverage and overall
competitive coverage.
So I guess I would like to know has the State provided you
with some kind of resource where you're directed, these are the
priorities you should look at, these are the kinds of things
you should study, here's the regional approach we're looking
at? If you have that kind of communication, I think that's
probably the most important thing that you need to understand
what's happening.
Mr. Baldwin. Well, shortly in my term and not too long
after September 11th, we did have such a seminar up at Oakdale,
and they provided us with a booklet that allowed us to work as
an operating guide. And I can only speak for my town. We
followed that guide very carefully and it's been a tremendous
help to us. But apart from that seminar and some of the other
seminars that were attended by Emergency Management
Coordinator, Bob Pescatore, who's here today, and Chief Berry,
there hasn't been much else.
Mr. San Angelo. Representative Knopp, I guess what I need
from you is in your city have you seen a direct response that
you know what the priorities should be based upon a State or a
Federal plan and is there a process in place that you feel
comfortable with to address the needs?
Mr. Knopp. Well, as Ray said, there was a very helpful
meeting up at Wallingford, although that proceeding was
primarily geared toward helping municipalities gear up to apply
for Federal funds and the Department of Justice Grant.
One thing to remember, Ron, is that the police and fire
departments do have many protocols already established and
there already are very many mutual aid agreements worked out
between municipalities, between hospitals and between the
emergency ambulance services, and General Cugno in the Office
of Emergency Management has been very helpful in making plans
generally available.
As far as I know there's not yet an official State of
Connecticut emergency response plan in place. Otherwise, we
(indiscernible).
Mr. De Martino. I didn't mean to interrupt, but I wanted to
add that I am also familiar with the document that was given
out. I attended that session upstate, but everything is
predicated on the FEMA plan, which is fine. A single plan in
which to follow which is the basis (indiscernible) is very
important. But the State plan really, in fact, is the FEMA
plan. And we have received assistance from the State to
(indiscernible) Regional Office of Emergency Preparedness, but
it's still based on the FEMA plan.
Mr. San Angelo. And my last comment was--my concern was
when we talk about the Federal funds making it to the cities,
my concern is the State having some coordinated plan. If we're
only going to get those limited amount of resources from the
Federal Government, we need to use those resources that best
benefit all the systems of Connecticut in some coordinated way.
And that's what concerns me about giving the money directly to
local municipalities. Their need may not meet the needs of the
area around them in a way that we can best utilize those
resources. That's my concern about that local grant process. I
understand it's easier for you to deal with issues. You get the
money, you buy what you want. But I'm not sure the message----
Mr. Baldwin. Well, there are already in place mutual aid
pacts. I think the funds are necessary to enhance those mutual
pacts as to allow them to, as we said before, to fulfill their
mission. But there already is in place, as Mayor Knopp said,
protocols within not only the local police, fire and EMS, but
also within the surrounding towns.
So I think we need to give the local police, fire, and EMS
a little more credit because I think they really have a plan in
place. I think they're professionals and I think they're
prepared to deal with it. But, again, resources. We haven't
seen any money for 10 months.
Mr. San Angelo. And let me just say that I do think the
local police do a phenomenal job. My concern in that is that
Norwalk will do a phenomenal job for Norwalk, and I want to
make sure that the State has full coverage. I know even in
Hartford each agency has their own priorities and sometimes
those priorities together don't serve the State in the best
possible way and that's my concern, is working with those
services.
Mr. Shays. What I think is going to happen is that clearly
if you are a very large city, you're going to get direct
grants. The challenge we have in Connecticut is that given our
largest city is between 140,000 and 150,000, to the Federal
Government it doesn't register. You're kind of a small
community.
So the successful grant applications in my judgment will be
the regional ones in Connecticut. But then the question is
could those regional applications go directly, and I think they
can. That's kind of what we're hearing is the desire. But
you're going to be more successful if you put a package
together with those colleagues, and I know that's happening.
But the workplace, for instance, in Bridgeport that is
working in collaboration with a lot of different groups and
different government agencies, as well as non-profits has won a
lot of grants by their success in partnering both
geographically and in terms of common causes.
But we hear your message. We wanted to come to you. That's
why we're here. This is great.
Representative Boucher.
Ms. Boucher. Thank you, Congressman Shays, and also,
Congressman Tierney, for attending this important hearing.
I only have one question and I hope that the panel will
consider it and also the other two panels that are going to
come forward to be thinking about it.
Mr. DeMartino was the only person on the panel that
mentioned the issue of mass evacuations. Have any of the other
panelists thought about this eventuality in their discussions
and in their meetings? Have you been in contact with the
Department of Transportation, the State police and also the
National Guard, or is this something that is being deferred to
the State Office of Emergency Preparedness?
I would think that in a case such as mass evacuation there
would be quite a bit of panic that could result in injury and
even death, and it is a concern.
Mr. Baldwin. I'll take a crack at that one. I mean, we
can't deal with commuter traffic here in this area of the State
on a rush hour basis. Imagine what it's going to be like in a
mass casualty situation. So I think until we put in place some
type of plan to deal with the simplest of problems, which is
our rush hour traffic, then it's going to be difficult to deal
with plans.
Mr. Knopp. Maybe this is a new argument. (Indiscernible.).
[Laughter.]
Ms. Boucher. Then maybe we should think about mass transit
options to get most people in one fell swoop out of harm and
into safety.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Representative Duff, again welcome.
Mr. Duff came to a committee meeting I had and I didn't
recognize him and I've had this tremendous amount of guilt. So
I'm going to probably give you a little bit more time than I
should.
Mr. Duff. Thank you. Thank you so much, Congressman, and I
thank yourself and Congressman Tierney for being here today.
It's truly an honor to be up here with you as well.
Just a couple of questions, but the first comment I'd just
like to make is about my vivid memories of September 11th. As
First Selectwoman Farrell has said, it certainly is a regional
issue and I think we have to think of it that way.
I hold vivid memories. I was working in Greenwich at the
time and so was my wife, and we happened to drive in to work
together and when we saw what was happening, we both--I picked
her up. We drove home. And as we were on I-95, there were about
40 or 50 ambulances driving in the fast lane toward New York
City. And that is something that will be etched in my mind
forever, and truly it does bring home to you how regional this
is because our people went down to New York and were the first
people down there to help our comrades down in New York City.
And so we really have to think of it that way.
The question I'd like to ask Mayor Knopp and the rest of
the panelists is how are the communications that we get from
say the Federal Government when there's different kinds of
scenarios we need to watch out for, potential harm in our
waterways or possible anthrax problems or different kinds of
communications, how is that system working? Has it improved
over the last few months and how do you think we can get it
maybe a little better?
Mr. Knopp. Congressman Shays, do you mind if I invite the
chief really to answer that question?
Mr. Shays. Unfortunately you can't. I would have to swear
him in.
Mr. Knopp. All right. Well, based on what the chief has
told me, one of the problems we're having with the Federal
Government is a very inconsistent type of communication,
especially with the FBI on threats. Just like First Selectwoman
Farrell said, the color coded system just doesn't seem to be
taken seriously at all.
We get both e-mails and other types of communications on
threats. You know, some seem serious, some seem frivolous. We
don't get a followup to the initial communication. I can say
that's a part of the system that needs an awful lot of work.
And the police are very anxious to get a higher quality of
information from the FBI in particular, but so far that system
has been unsatisfactory.
Mr. De Martino. We feel we're receiving an awful lot of
information that requires attention because you can get too
much information sometimes. You're overworked sometimes, but we
prefer to filter it in at our level--not filter it in, but
examine it at our level and continue to receive the information
provided to us.
Mr. Duff. OK. So you'd rather have more than less?
Mr. De Martino. We'd rather have anything you want to send
us from either the State or the Federal Government.
Mr. Duff. You had also I think also been in coordination
with the (indiscernible) we had and it seemed like every time
that the records of preparedness or whatever it was called, and
it was kind of abandoned I guess by the early 1990's and maybe
there's still something like that.
But kind of going through what we're really talking about,
emergency communications network, training, equipment. We have
to worry about our communities in New York City, school
security, computer security, our transportation waterways,
chemical attacks. Do we need or what kind of--what would make
it easiest I guess on a regional basis on how to best deal with
this as far as staffing levels go so that the communications go
around and also making sure that we're all coordinated and on
the same page and we're also thinking about school security and
a plan for schools and somehow we can give Trumbull a head
start with their plans maybe or vice versa? What would help as
far as I guess staffing to provide that?
Mr. De Martino. I think you hit the nail right on the head.
I don't know what the staffing level should be. I hadn't
thought of that. But in our town we're a three-person volunteer
group working with very professional and very effective first
responders. It's hard for us to do it on a part-time basis with
jobs and the like to keep abreast of things.
What I'm asking for is the guidance, whether it's either
from the Department of Homeland Security or the State. I don't
care where it comes from. We want guidance on how to address
these very measures that you have brought up. Help us to devise
a sensible and realistic plan and we'll apply it to the local
need.
Mr. Knopp. One thing we're looking to do, Representative
Duff, is--I convened a meeting of the city's emergency
services, medical and public health personnel to assess our
emergency planning, and it became apparent that there's no one
individual in the city who is assigned the responsibility of
reviewing all the components of our response systems or
identifying the unfilled plans and unfilled needs. Therefore, I
expect to be hiring a consultant on a part-time basis, a
retired individual from a law enforcement background to help
the city really assess all of this.
Both Chief Berry and Chief (indiscernible) told me that
they simply are not able with their heavy responsibilities to
be contacting FEMA, to be contacting OEM to try to work out
these communications. So it was very important for us to try to
do that, and I hope we can find some grant funds or some other
funding method for starting this on at least a temporary basis.
Mr. Duff. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. I'm going to just quickly ask a--not
quickly. I'm going to ask a quick question and I'll get a long
answer. I just want to make sure. I'd like to go to the next
panel, but I want to know if any of you want to put on the
record anything? Is there a question we should have asked you
that you were prepared to answer that you would like to put on
the record? Anything that you need to----
[No response.]
Mr. Shays. Well, let me thank all four of you. I am going
to ask that you respond--we'll put it in writing. I read a list
of things which potentially could be important to the issue of
the detection equipment and the others, and we might try to
have you rank them in terms of importance. I think it would
make better sense if you consult your fire and police officers
and the EMS folks, and so we'll go from there. So I thank this
panel very much.
I would note that we have only one reporter today. So do
you need a break, dear?
Court Reporter. [Nodding.]
Mr. Shays. So we're going to have a 4-minute break, 5-
minute break and then we'll start the next one.
[Recess.]
Mr. Shays. The record will just note that we swore in the
witnesses and they all responded in the affirmative. We had
welcomed them and I read off the list of witnesses. They have
been sworn in.
And I think we'll just go down the list and, Chief Berry,
we'll start with you. I'm going to ask you if would try to be
as close to the 5-minute rule as possible. I have a clock. If
you run over, you run over, but if you can stay close to 5
minutes, that would be nice.
Chief Berry.
STATEMENT OF POLICE CHIEF JAMES BERRY, TRUMBULL POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Chief Berry. Well, first of all, I would like to thank you,
Congressman, Congressman Shays, I would like to thank you and
Representative Tierney for coming out to our community and for
allowing me to participate in this process. I think it's very,
very important. And as I think about this whole process, I
think about the fact that knowing the people that--the
individuals that we're dealing with, the September 11th
anniversary is coming up, and I don't want to sound like a
sense of urgency, but I think it's very, very important that we
facilitate this process and move it right along. So I'm very,
very grateful to be here to speak on this situation.
The United States is probably engaged in one of the most
difficult and dangerous situations they have ever been involved
in. The gravity of these circumstances threatens the future of
our culture and our way of life. I strongly concur that we must
strengthen our Homeland Security and that there must be a
collaboration of agencies on the Federal, State, and local
levels to make this possible.
I believe that this is a war that will be fought on many
fronts as well as our own soil. A strategic analysis of our
defense mechanisms will dictate that we must have a strong
defense at home to protect our soil.
Mr. Shays. Can I just interrupt for a second? Can you hear
in the back? Is it OK?
Fine. Thank you. They can hear you.
Chief Berry. In my opinion, this strength at home will be
greatly enhanced by properly equipping the thousands of first
responders that are already trained and dedicated to the
preservation of life of the American people. If we increase the
war effort abroad, the first responders at home will be on the
front lines in this war effort. The urban terrorism that some
local and State law enforcement officers confront on a daily
basis in America probably has in many respects prepared these
law enforcement officers to deal with this type of terrorist
behavior that may be perpetrated on the streets of America.
Equipping us and sharing information with us is the most
important strategy that I can think of relative to Homeland
Security. We are in dire need of equipment such as PPE,
personal protection equipment. The Trumbull Police Department
does not have any personal protection equipment at this time.
In the event of an incident in which the Trumbull Police
Department needs the suits, we will call Bridgeport PD, who had
60 suits given to them by the Federal Government, or Westport
PD, who has purchased 100 suits on their own. The suits range
in size from medium to XXXL, but we do not know what size would
be available to us.
The Federal Government should provide PPE suits and masks
to each local police department and State police barrack. This
would help prepare us to deal with radiological, chemical or
biological material. Our close proximity to New York City and
cities such as New London and Groton makes it imperative that
we be better equipped to deal with materials such as the ones
listed above.
Communication is also very important when it comes to
equipping us with Homeland Security defense. This communication
should be broken down into a local, regional and State system
of communication. From a local perspective, the Town of
Trumbull, like most towns, has its own police, fire, EMS all on
different frequencies on bands. The town needs interoperability
for the different agencies and departments to be able to talk
to with each other in an effective and efficient manner.
Training is another issue that should be addressed relative
to first responders. We are the first line of defense. How we
respond and how we handle an incident can determine how many
lives are ultimately saved. Money for training is desperately
needed. At the present time we are at Level 3 Yellow and are
situated 55 miles from New York City, which is at Level 4
Orange. The training should encompass incident command,
responses to biohazards, chemical, radiological and reacting to
the utilization of weapons of mass destruction.
The information that we receive is pretty good information,
but it is sometimes overwhelming because we're not prepared
enough proactively to deal with the situation. I also firmly
believe that the local, State and Federal agencies assigned to
individual States should meet periodically to discuss
information sent out and how to respond to these informational
situations. On the subject of information, I also believe that
Homeland Security should develop some type of early warning
system for our citizens. At the present time, most towns and
cities do not have any means of notifying citizens about
disasters.
Emergency response plans are very important for providing
some type of plan for responding to certain emergencies in a
timely manner to minimize loss of life, turmoil and general
chaotic situations. A plan is only as good as drills and
training so everyone is aware as to how to respond to
emergencies. To facilitate the adequacy of those plans, I think
that they should start as local plans with the idea of
regionalization along with collaboration with any State and
Federal agents that would be assigned to the region.
In summation, I would like to reiterate that equipping and
training first responders in conjunction with communicating and
sharing intelligence from Federal agents assigned to each State
could form a solid base for Homeland Security. The Federal
intelligence base should consist of sharing information also
about foreign students who live in our local communities and
attend our colleges and universities, but who might have
negative reasons for being in America.
I'd like to thank you for allowing me to present this
information.
[The prepared statement of Chief Berry follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.032
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Chief.
Chief Maglione.
STATEMENT OF FIRE CHIEF MAGLIONE, BRIDGEPORT FIRE DEPARTMENT
Chief Maglione. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'm Michael
Maglione. I'm the Fire Chief of the city of Bridgeport. I'm
also here on behalf of the International Association of Fire
Chiefs.
On July 16th, President Bush unveiled the National Strategy
for Homeland Security. In it he notes ``State and local
governments have critical roles to play in Homeland Security.
State and local levels of government have primary
responsibility for funding, preparing and operating the
emergency services that would respond in the event of a
terrorist attack. Local units are the first on the scene and
the last to leave. All disasters are ultimately local events.''
I, along with fire chiefs across the country, agree with
the President.
There are over 26,000 fire departments and 1.1 million fire
fighters in the United States. In addition to our traditional
jobs of fire prevention and fire suppression, we are the No. 1
primary provider of pre-hospital emergency medical care and
response to hazardous material calls. Citizens look to us for
help when any situation escalates beyond their ability to cope.
In short, local fire departments are the first line of defense
against any hazards.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by reiterating two
components of a successful response plan that I discussed in my
prior testimony before this committee. The first component is
the need to train and equip responders at the local level. The
second is implementing a standard incident management system to
ensure smooth command at the scene of a response.
First, we must make sure that the local response plans do
not rely too heavily on Federal assets. They will not arrive on
the scene for hours and sometimes days. This is not an
indictment of Federal capability. It is simply a consequence of
business. We must have properly equipped and trained responders
at the local level.
Also we must consider how to manage the various agencies,
personnel and assets that have come to the scene of an
incident. This means universal adoption of an incident
management system. We have taken steps in this direction. The
FBI is one of the first Federal agencies to begin training in
IMS.
Ed Plaugher, Chief of the Arlington County, Virginia Fire
Department and incident commander at the Pentagon on September
11th, previously testified before Congress that the FBI's
understanding of and adherence to the standard of the IMS
system was invaluable at the Pentagon. We must continue our
work in this area.
With that said, I would like to take a moment to outline
some of the specific actions taken by the Bridgeport Fire
Department since September 11th.
Our department has increased training in hazardous material
operations. We have been a member of the Fairfield County
HazMat team, which is a regional team, for 18 years. This team
is now being copied throughout the State. Additional
communications equipment has been purchased to better
communicate at the command level with the surrounding
communities. We have increased training for building collapse
and for confined spaces, and we have improved communications
with those who respond to our emergency operation centers, such
as the Health Department, The Red Cross, hospitals and
utilities. But there is still many proactive steps that we must
take.
In communications separate command control channels need to
be established so that all agencies can communicate at the
command level. Connecticut is working on a USAR team, but no
startup funding has been granted. Realistic training programs
need to be developed and implemented, and additional funding is
required for public training. Specifically, we need money to
pay for trainers and to cover overtime costs to local
communities while this training takes place.
Mr. Chairman, I am speaking mainly from my experience as
the Fire Chief of the city of Bridgeport, but I am sure that as
resources have allowed, my fellow chiefs in Connecticut and
throughout the United States are taking similar actions.
The final section of my testimony will discuss three
specific actions that Congress can take to significantly
enhance local preparedness.
First and most importantly, Congress must fully fund the
Assistance to Fire Fighters Grant program for the fiscal year
2003. These grants, commonly referred to as Fire Act grants,
assist fire fighters by funding training and equipment that is
basic to fire fighters. Enhancing the ability of fire fighters
to cope with a terrorist incident involving weapons of mass
destruction can only begin after basic competency and
capability have been achieved. Last week the Senate
Appropriations Committee funded the Fire Act at $900 million
for fiscal year 2003. I strongly encourage the House of
Representatives to appropriate the same level of funding.
Second, Congress must address the issues of communication
interoperability, the ability of personnel from all responding
agencies to communicate. This is vital to command and control
for effective incident management. The only effective long-term
solution to this problem is the allocation of additional radio
spectrum for public safety.
In 1997 Congress did just that. Unfortunately, a loophole
in the legislation has allowed the local television
broadcasters to ignore the will of Congress. This situation
must be reversed. Fortunately, a bill has been introduced, H.R.
3397, that will close this loophole. This bill has strong
bipartisan support. Mr. Chairman, I encourage you and the
members of your subcommittee to support this important piece of
legislation.
Finally, the understaffing of fire departments is an issue
that must be addressed. Limited apparatus and staffing reduces
a fire department's ability to respond to major events,
including a terrorist incident, where large amounts of
resources are needed quickly.
Currently there is a bill before the House of
Representatives, H.R. 3992, that would establish a grant
program to aid local governments in hiring career fire
fighters. Last week the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
adopted a bipartisan amendment that would include this program
in the legislation creating the Department of Homeland
Security. We expect that this provision will be approved by the
entire Senate. I hope that the House of Representatives would
recognize the wisdom of the Senate's action and agree to this
provision when the two chambers go to conference.
The fire service is delighted to know that our voice is
being heard at the highest level of our Nation's leadership.
America's fire chiefs through the IAFC have spent many years
writing, testifying and lobbying about the issues of community
safety and security long before September 11th.
Mr. Chairman, in my testimony I detailed concrete steps
that have been taken at a local level to protect the citizens
of Bridgeport. Now I throw down the gauntlet before you and
your colleagues in Congress to pass the legislative initiatives
I have discussed. These initiatives have strong support from
both members of the political parties and they will further
assist the Nation's fire service in its preparedness efforts.
With your help we can further enhance our ability to protect
our citizens.
Thank you for inviting me to testify. I'll be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Chief Maglione follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.045
Mr. Shays. Chief, thank you. We appreciate your testimony
and we appreciate you being here today. Thank you very much.
Captain Newman, I would just say to you as a former
resident of Stamford, it strikes me that your work comes out of
the catastrophe that hit our fire fighters a number of years
ago with the chemical plant and not knowing what was there. How
many officers or fire fighters were injured in that?
Mr. Newman. There were six severely injured in a chemical
explosion. I believe it was around 1982.
Mr. Shays. Yeah, we didn't know that there were chemicals
in the plant.
Mr. Newman. Correct.
Mr. Shays. And that brought about tremendous reform, didn't
it, in the city of Stamford and also around the country?
Mr. Newman. Right. Recognizing the hazards in the community
and having the appropriate personal protection equipment for
first responders.
Mr. Shays. So we will take your testimony as testimony that
has been--that comes from the experience of some real tragedy,
but a lot of learning in the process.
Mr. Newman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shays. You have the floor.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN PAUL NEWMAN, STAMFORD FIRE HEADQUARTERS
Mr. Newman. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee.
Again, my name is Paul Newman. I'm the captain and
hazardous materials officer of the Stamford Fire and Rescue
Department. On behalf of the officers and members of the
Stamford Fire Fighters Local 786, and the 4,500 Uniformed
Professional Fire Fighters in the State of Connecticut, I thank
you for the opportunity to give this testimony today.
As tragically witnessed through the events of September
11th, our Nation's fire fighters are on the front line in the
war against terrorism. In most jurisdictions across the
country, the local fire service has been, and remains, the
first response agency tasked with command and operations at
disasters including building fires, structural collapses,
explosions, hazardous materials releases, and transportation
crashes. All can involve mass casualties.
The current terrorist threats we face include biological,
nuclear, incendiary, chemical or explosive means to destruction
and injury. Coupled with these conventional and unconventional
methods is the realization that secondary means of destruction
do exist and are often intended to kill or injure the first
responders. Therefore, these would be rescuers need to have
sufficient resources and adequate training to effectively
accomplish their responsibilities as the first minutes and
hours of an incident unfolds.
Often times my company is the first to arrive at an
emergency scene. Depending upon how the scene and victims
present, myself and the fire fighters I work with must first
have the appropriate personal protective equipment, including
the right clothing and respiratory protection to approach and
affect rescues. Although signs and symptoms presented by
victims will indicate hazards and help to identify potential
agents, metering and monitoring equipment is needed to aid in
detection and identification of nuclear, chemical and
biological presence.
Decontamination of victims and personnel at the scene is
also a responsibility of responding fire fighters. The ability
to communicate effectively over radio frequencies is another
significant part of this command and control of functions. And
the final part to this whole equation is the personnel
resources to carry out the necessary tasks.
The State of Connecticut recently received approximately
$2.6 million in total for fiscal year 1999, 2000, and 2001 from
DOJ to purchase domestic preparedness equipment and distribute
it to first responders. This is being brought in in-state and
coordinated with the Military Department. The State's objective
in the initial distribution is to provide local first
responders in the identified First Priority Jurisdictions with
standardized equipment. The First Priority Jurisdictions
include the five largest cities over 100,000, and eastern
Connecticut as well as other site specific institutions and
State agencies. The fire services in these jurisdictions are
scheduled to receive approximately $1.2 million of this
equipment. DOJ approved the spending plans around January 1st.
Although the programs are moving forward and more than $3
million is expected in the next--in funding in the next fiscal
year, 2002, only minimal amounts of the equipment have actually
been delivered to the receiving agencies. However, I am pleased
to announce that this morning we received our first shipment of
PPE.
With that mentioned, I still believe that there are some
flaws in the system. One problem is that a comprehensive
program for the procurement, distribution and maintenance of
the equipment has been left unfunded. Additionally, the
equipment being purchased may not include maintenance
contracts. There will be no quality assurance that once this
equipment is distributed, it will be maintained and/or upgraded
as needed.
But perhaps the most glaring deficiency in the program is
the lack of associated training dollars. Our fire fighters are
soon to be handed special chemical protective clothing,
advanced electronic metering equipment, decontamination
trailers and radio systems with many of them having no training
other than the owner's manual. This is not only dangerous to
our responding personnel, but to the public we are looking to
protect. Support must be given to local municipalities in order
to achieve this training initiative.
Although a major nationwide program to train personnel has
been underway, no city in the State of Connecticut met the
minimum population requirements to be included. The funding for
these trainer-to-trainer courses had been established by
Congress through the Nunn/Lugar/Domenici Amendment to the 1997
Defense Authorization Act. This is a program that had been run
by DOD and DOJ, known initially as the 120 Cities Program.
Through the resourcefulness of one of our officers, the
Stamford Fire and Rescue Department was able to send a few
trainers to the program held at Yonkers, New York. We received
this training in May 2000 and subsequently presented the
Domestic Preparedness Training Program to our line fire
fighting personnel in 2001.
Also in 2001, our department began to access the National
Domestic Preparedness Consortium through FEMA, DOJ and DOE,
which provides specialized training in WMD response at
different sites throughout the country. Pre-September 11th and
since September 11th, we have sent officers and fire fighters
to the COBRA-WMD Hazardous Materials Technician and Incident
Command courses at Fort McClellan in Anniston, Alabama, the
Incident Response to Terrorist Bombings course at New Mexico
Tech in Socorro, New Mexico, and the WMD Radiological
Technician course at Bechtel in Mercury, Nevada. Having
participated in all of these programs, I can say that it is
some of the most well organized and presented training that I
have attended in my fire service career.
After the October anthrax attacks, our city, region and the
entire Nation was inudated with what I'll refer to as white
powder calls. This truly tested the ability of fire, police,
health and environmental services to work together on a local,
State, and Federal level. I can honestly say that I have never
worked closer with our local police department on any other
effort. With written guidelines established on the spot, I
believe we handled scores of incidents with the utmost of
professionalism. We ran inter-agency training for awareness and
operations and we improved upon recognized deficiencies. This
was developed through our previous Domestic Preparedness
templates and regularly updated recommendations from the CDC,
FBI and DEP. The cost of these responses and training were
borne by the local municipalities.
Here in Connecticut the current emergency response plans
don't speak enough to regionalization of specialized services.
This is a clear disadvantage to the lack of a county form of
government. One positive example of a regionalized service is
the Fairfield County Hazardous Materials Response Team. This is
an effort of 13 communities in the southwestern part of the
State that have pooled resources for response to hazardous
materials emergencies. This team serves a population greater
than 500,000 people and includes two of the State's largest
cities, Bridgeport and Stamford.
The Department of Homeland Security should ensure that
first responders are recognized as a focal point. Local, State
and Federal politicians were eager to come to the fire
fighter's side after September 11th and say we support you 100
percent, and whatever you need to accomplish your task will be
provided. Those promises lasted until election day when
suddenly fiscal constraints changed the tune of many at the
State and local level. We soon found ourselves back to the same
arguments, threats of reduction of personnel, closing of
companies, lack of adequate training dollars, and contract
negotiation impasses.
Words are not enough. What we need is action, long-term
support, adequate staffing, maintained equipment, and continued
training. We are being asked to put our lives on the line every
day when we leave our families to work. We're asking for your
support so that we can have a greater chance of returning to
them at the end of that day.
I thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Captain Newman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.051
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Mr. Docimo. Sorry. I pronounced it
Docimo. I apologize. You've been to my office and I appreciate
your visits. This is one of the reasons why we had this
hearing.
STATEMENT OF FRANK DOCIMO, SPECIAL OPERATIONS OFFICER, TURN OF
RIVER FIRE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Docimo. Well, thank you. If you're looking on your
schedule, I'm the speaker to be announced.
When you decide in your committee where you're going to put
dollars, take a look at me. I am the first responder. I don't
wear gold badges or slash marks. I come from a combination
department in the city of Stamford that has 17 paid and the
rest volunteers. So I'm going to address some of those issues.
I want to just go over a couple of my credentials because
one of the issues I think you need to understand is who you're
getting your information from.
Mr. Shays. Let me just say we don't want to spend time on--
you are well credentialed.
Mr. Docimo. OK.
Mr. Shays. So we'll pass that by.
Mr. Docimo. Very good.
The point to be made here is that I've been in hazardous
materials since 1989 and have spoken in front of the
Connecticut legislature in 1989 and now all of a sudden we've
got people with 1 or 2 years of experience telling us where to
spend our money and what's best for this country. I will tell
you that we are messed up in some of our issues.
On the morning of September 11th it did not matter in our
State whether we had any HazMat response teams, which we have
none and I'll address that issue later. We have no USAR teams,
nor do we have an awful lot of Federal funding. Well, that
morning it didn't matter. What New York City needed was bodies.
They needed us to support them, which has never happened in
this country's history.
When it moved, which was very quickly, within an hour or
two, my unit, which is a heavy-duty rescue unit, was the only
rescue unit for 25 miles because big cities like Stamford,
Bridgeport, Fairfield, and Westport jumped down to help the
brothers in New York. Yet my little department had to kind of
pick up the slack.
We had no air-monitoring equipment. Your committees talk
about what equipment to buy. I can train you externally. One of
my specialties is air-monitoring. I literally went home, took
the gas detection devices out of my training cache and gave it
to the downtown city fire department so we could operate. That
is a tremendous issue.
Simple things like gloves and masks. And I'll tell you
what, here's a little commercial, Home Depot right up the road
was tremendous in giving us the things we needed that morning.
Over 1 million lines of communications were disrupted when
the towers went down. When we talk about communications, I've
got an issue that I'll bring back up. The bottom line is on
September 11th they needed help.
Hours after the attack our hospitals were on full-time
mode. The local water supplies were being paroled. The fire
stations were bare. These things we call terrorism task force
groups, which are basically some paramedics and HazMat guys,
and I was responsible for the north part of that district. I
was involved in what the Department of Justice calls the
terrorist task force or the tactical considerations. I was one
of five expert--they're called expert trainers to develop that
program.
About 3 weeks after the event we were called by the
Department of Justice with a question, and this is a question
that I'll have to live with the rest of my life. Did we fail as
emergency responders to see the forest from the trees. What are
some of the points? First response to Connecticut in
emergencies such as chemical, biological and radiological
events, we're as dysfunctional as the Osborne family, and I'm
here to tell you that.
In 1989 I spoke in front of the Connecticut legislators on
regional HazMat teams. Back then the career chiefs could not
get together with the volunteer chiefs. So we still do not have
regional HazMat teams in this county. Unionized fire
department--which I am. I'm a union fire fighter. They call
volunteer fire departments rival organizations. How do we
accomplish this task of making sure the first responders can do
their job if we won't even talk. Who is representing the 75
percent of the fire service that are volunteers?
Did we fail to train? You talk about training? In 1989 OSHA
passed legislation that said police, fire fighters and EMS
responders would be trained. Yet simply those people simply
just didn't do it. The police departments in 1989 were
dictating to have various training. Hospitals in 1992. There's
actually an OSHA question that was asked and answered says that
you have to train at the operation level.
Because of the dollars, the Department of Defense, the
Department of Justice, MPA, National Fire Academy, everybody's
fighting for the dollar. What we ought to do in a training
initiative is get the best in the country to come together and
write one program that everybody can use instead of everybody
trying to do their own little gig. The 120 cities that were
given the money, that was political. It had nothing to do with
exposures or needs. It was political. That's where those cities
got their dollars from.
Did we fail to equip? A few cities got an awful lot of
dollars. They purchased a lot of equipment. You know what they
didn't get? They bought hardware and they bought no software.
They were given $300,000. I will tell you that it's a
$299,999.99 question. You see, they bought equipment that would
not help them one iota, but because they got the money to
spend, they weren't giving you guys back a nickel.
There's an approved equipment list. The approved equipment
list was put together in 1998, and yet we're still purchasing
equipment off of that. Now, how would you like for your company
to--if I said your company is finally getting a computer, but
you got to buy computers with technology in 1998. We need to
address that issue.
There's a device called a gastramastricostromy (ph). If you
read the fine print, it says dumb firemen shouldn't buy this.
Yet Montgomery Fire Department bought it because they have the
money and 15 miles away Fairfax, Virginia bought one because if
the Joneses got one, then the Smiths have got to have one. That
kind of stuff needs to stop.
I was involved in Toledo, Ohio doing some training. They
bought the equipment. Seven months later I went to train them.
I had to cancel the class because nobody even took the stuff
out of the boxes to charge the batteries or to see if they got
what they paid for. The government is not supplying any money
to maintain that equipment. So we're going to have an awful lot
of equipment that is simply just going to sit there.
Communications? How can I talk to somebody on the moon, yet
I can't talk to my brother or sister fire fighter behind me. We
need to address the communication issue full on.
Radiological? The government used to sponsor a radiological
program. They pulled that program off. The cold water's warm. A
little fire department like Turn of River Fire Department had
to spend $1,700 of our own dollars to buy radiological
equipment because of the threat of a germ bomb.
In closing I'll leave you with a couple of thoughts.
There's an awful lot of issues on who's a first responder. You
want to know who a first responder is? I'll tell you what I've
been saying all over this country. You all saw the movie Top
Gun. The last thing in Top Gun was the nips were coming in.
They launched a couple of planes. The report was there's two of
them, there's four of them, no, there's eight of them. The
captain in that ship said launch me some more fighters. The
report down on the flight deck was we can't do it. The catapult
is jammed. The captain asks how long will it take to unjam?
From the flight deck he was told 15 minutes. The captain said
in 15 minutes it will be over. On September 11th it was over
before we knew what hit us.
As you look at some of the things as far as first
responder, what I really want to say is that we need to focus
on where we're going to spend our dollars. I'll leave you with
one last thought. Weapons of mass destruction has taken on a
whole new meaning. It is called ways of making dollars. There
are people trying to sell us the one suit, the one book, the
one meter on technology as recently as yesterday's bioassays
were canned because of their inaccuracy.
We have to really look at what our job function is, and we
need to understand that on September 11th the new war is us,
police, fire and EMS. We're the people that died that morning.
And unless the emphasis is put on people like me and my 17-
year-old son that's a volunteer in my fire department, we'll
never win this war.
Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
Mr. Clarke.
STATEMENT OF PAUL CLARKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, EMS
INSTITUTE, STAMFORD HEALTH SYSTEM
Mr. Clarke. Congressman Shays, Congressman Tierney, members
of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to
speak before you today.
My name is Paul Clarke. I'm the executive director of
organizational and clinical effectiveness at Stamford Health
System. Hopefully I will be able to address some of those
hospital questions that came up a little bit earlier.
Additionally, just for your information, I'm a licensed
paramedic in the State and practice as one. So I think that I
can bring some perspective to this discussion.
The fact that a representative of a local community
hospital and health system is included in a field hearing that
seeks input on domestic security and first responder support
is, I believe, a critical step in more completely defining the
term first responder. Without a Homeland Security definition of
first responder that includes hospitals and health systems, I
think it is difficult to imagine and plan for an appropriate
response to acts of domestic terrorism, especially with regard
to those acts involving the potential use of weapons of mass
destruction. Ensuring the readiness of our Nation's hospitals
should be considered as important as training and equipping
local police, fire, EMS, emergency management and public health
organizations.
While there are a great many challenges that we must still
face together, it seems most prudent to continue the process of
strengthening our Nation's first and most important line of
defense against domestic terrorism by identifying the critical
components of the first response system that would be called
upon to deal with an act of domestic terrorism and then
aligning in a systematic, efficient and effective manner
Federal financial, subject matter, and emergency planning
expertise and resources. Anything less, I believe, will likely
result in a fragmented and disintegrated response capability
and a resultant increase in morbidity and mortality from an act
of domestic terrorism.
Community hospitals and health systems, by virtue of their
mission and function, must be considered an essential part of
the first response system and be supported through the
allocation of financial and other support. I don't think I need
to tell the members of this group anything about the financial
crisis that hospitals currently face.
This perhaps somewhat unconventional definition can easily
translate into a mutually beneficial relationship given the
unique attributes of and resources inherent to hospitals. As
was evident in New York City on September 11th and during the
days and weeks that followed, first responders from the police
and fire departments, EMS, emergency management, the military
and the public health community worked together first to
establish a continuum of care in response to the attacks.
That's a continuum of patient care.
The thought of removing any of these relatively unique but
complementary aspects of the response would seemingly greatly
reduce the effectiveness of the actual response. It therefore
seems to reason that as we look forward and plan on
strengthening this most important line of defense, the Nation's
front line of first response, we act collaboratively and
challenge ourselves to break down barriers that are often
inherent in these types of initiatives. Only then will we be
able to truly move forward to realistically address what is
likely the greatest challenge in emergency management planning
in our history.
I think it's fair to say that I believe one of the reasons
I'm here today is because we recently held an emergency
management demonstration in Stamford Health System, during
which time we unveiled some equipment we recently purchased. I
sit next to a couple of my colleagues here and I can tell you
firsthand that we've been frustrated at Stamford Health System,
and I imagine the same holds true across the State, that more
has not come our way in terms of financial or equipment support
since September 11th.
We have spent somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 to
$125,000 of hospital funds to purchase decontamination
equipment, to purchase training from local fire fighters and
instructors, and to try and bolster our front line of defense
so that we had some minimal level of preparedness to handle the
worst case scenario incident. It disturbs me greatly that
hospitals across the country are not more adequately prepared
for a weapons of mass destruction incident.
In summary, I think that the focus of this group needs to
be how to best coordinate the distribution of resources, how to
define the term first responder, and how then to get the
resources deployed and put in place where they'll do the most
good.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clarke follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.056
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much, Mr. Clarke.
Mr. Yoder.
STATEMENT OF ALAN YODER, EMS COORDINATOR, WESTPORT EMS
Mr. Yoder. Congressman Shays, Congressman Tierney, members
of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with
you today. I am Alan Yoder, EMS coordinator for Westport EMS. I
also serve as the secretary to Southwest EMS Regional Council.
Through the council, shortly after September 11th, we
started surveying the EMS services in our region as to what
they had available for personnel, equipment and communications.
We looked at what they had done on their own to prepare for
this. One of the things that helped us along is that all the
towns in our region do have mass casualty plans that have been
in existence since the early 1980's. These plans have also been
updated, the standards, to conform with the State Department of
Public Health and they all follow the New England Council Plan
Mass Casualty Program.
We've done many drills with these programs. We've had a
chance to look and see what works and what doesn't work and
update some of the packages. And based on this, we have some
basic equipment in place to deal with patients, but we found
that it's not adequate for the potential number of injured
patients we could have at this time.
We also now see that we have to incorporate patients with
respiratory problems from chemical or biological attacks that
we had not done before. Previously we always considered that
was for people on bomb wards and when we're ready, we'll
transport them off to the hospital, but we no longer can have
these patients laying flat. You need to set them up because of
their respiratory injuries.
One of the things that we did as a region was look at
packages that we could put together through the Regional
Council to supplement towns, and that's that we would put
together a package for the service to have, provide them with
the initial material they would need, and a package that would
be placed in all the front line vehicles so that there was
protection for the crews. Even as we teach EMS crews to stay
back from an incident and wait for the HazMat teams to go in
and take care of it and make it safe, we know our people are
going to end up in the middle of things anyway. Even if they
stopped at a safe distance, contaminated patients are going to
come to us, and we need to protect our crews so that they don't
become the next round of victims.
We also looked at putting together regional response teams,
free trailers where we could have equipment to supplement both
the EMS services in the towns and the hospitals, knowing that
as we start to move the patients from the field to the
hospitals, it's going to start to decrease their resources as
well.
As we did this review, we also reviewed our communications
system. Here in Southwestern Connecticut we have Southwest
Regional Communications Center. It's commonly referred to as C-
Med. C-Med is what we use to provide day-to-day communications
between our ambulances and the hospitals. With this system all
EMS units can talk to one another. We've had this ability for
many years and it allows us to have the coordination of the
units on the scene with both command and control functions and
it allows us to have centralized, accurate, reliable
information to coordinate with the mobile units, and we can
also get an assessment of available hospital beds statewide.
The C-Med system is designed for ambulance to hospital
communications. We usually don't have the ability to coordinate
once we get outside the vehicles. So we do need to upgrade the
system and include with that portable-to-portable
communications so that once we get outside of the unit we can
continue to talk. We have limited frequencies, but if the
system were to be upgraded, we would also have the ability to
talk on a system to both the police and fire departments in
their coordination where they're still lacking and trying to
put together a system.
I also serve on the Mass Casualty Committee of the New
England Council for EMS. One of the recommendations that group
has made to the EMS directors of all six New England States is
a comprehensive data collection system. That is a real-time
system starting with pre-hospital and emergency room patients
so that we can start to see patient trends throughout the
entire New England area rather than individual hospitals, as
was mentioned by Mayor Knopp earlier.
I've also served as a training officer for 15 years of my
service. I've seen a lot of programs put together for training
individuals that have been very narrowly focused. As programs
come together and additional training is needed for dealing
with these incidents, I suggest that they consider adding these
to the components of the existing Federal DOT EMS curriculum so
that responders can take additional training or do refresher
training as part of the regular EMS programs, reducing the need
to monitor certain patients at different levels for the 3,000
providers we have in this region. They also need to take a
hazardous approach and focus on day-to-day operations and make
it as concise as possible.
The Regional EMS Council is receiving $6,000 over 2 years
for administrative costs associated with conducting a survey of
regional capabilities, which we've already done. We will
continue to update with it and add to that what municipalities
have added on their own and together report on pre-hospital
preparedness.
Also when it is granted, we will work with other State
agencies to develop disease scenario-specific response
protocols for the State. I feel that we don't need disease
scenario-specific responses. We need to have easy to follow
response protocols that are similar to day-to-day responses and
will work far better than something that's specific to a
particular incident. EMS responders must approach all EMS calls
with added trepidation and concern for their own safety,
whether from terrorists or accidental cause. We don't need
different programs, but ones that follow basic guidelines that
are easily adapted to the local available resources.
I believe that the grants programs received for Federal
funds need to be simplified. We're spending far too much money
on administrative costs, thereby reducing the funds that are
available to the local responders. With staff from both State
and local agencies being shifted to complete applications,
they're being taken away from their daily functions. This has
also had an impact on the local responders because the routine
business is falling between the cracks and it can start to
injure our patients the same as a terrorist attack. Whatever we
do, we need to focus on the care of our personnel and the care
that is provided to our patients.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yoder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.061
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Yoder.
We're going to start out with Mr. Tierney. He can have as
much time as he'd like and then I will invite my colleagues to
ask some questions. We're going to try to have those questions
collectively not take as long because we do want to get to our
third panel before Mr. Tierney finds himself on an airplane.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you all for your testimony, and I don't
have as many questions as you might imagine because I think
you've been pretty precise and clear about what the priorities
are, what the problems are, and what some of the solutions may
be.
But, Mr. Yoder, I did want to ask you a little bit about--
you were talking about the complexity of Federal applications
for some of the first responder money. Are you sure that you're
distinguishing between the Federal aspect of those and the
State requirements and how would you size up----
Mr. Yoder. My experience is limited. I know that actually
the EMS director was finally included in this plan. It was done
at the State level, and that we really lost him for about 2
months even with the EMS system at the State level because he
and several of his staff people were working on applications I
believe for a couple of human services. So that's where we're
losing people that usually work with us as they're working on
these other grants.
Mr. Tierney. For anybody that can answer this, I would be
curious to know how Connecticut deals with this situation. What
is the State plan right now in Connecticut in terms of dealing
with a response that's necessary and aside from that, does
Connecticut have a separate response system set up for
biochemical matters or is it all done in one package of
everybody responds to any kind of emergency?
Chief Maglione. Right at this time there is now a formal
process being signed off in the last couple of weeks--in the
next couple of weeks. At present we have what's called Mutual
Aid Plans with our neighbors, and in Fairfield County we have a
regional HazMat team that responds to that type of incident
backed up by Stamford, who has a significant number of
personnel that are trained and/or other local teams in the
State.
However, on a statewide disaster response, that plan is
being put together and the State is being broken down into
sections with a coordinator and if specific needs are
requested, a task force will be assembled. The goal is to be
able to move 1,000 fire fighters within 1 hour to where they're
needed. That's the goal. I don't know if that's pie in the sky.
I mean, considering we're a very small State and if we do not
self-respond with the clogged highways, I think that is
something we need to accomplish.
Mr. Tierney. How far are you from that plan?
Chief Maglione. My understanding is that we're within 2
weeks, 3 weeks.
Mr. Tierney. Following up with you, Chief, and, Captain
Newman, we talked a little bit during the break. Where do you
currently get your training for fire fighter response?
Chief Maglione. Well, in Bridgeport we train in-house. We
also contract out with the State of Connecticut to supply us
trainers in certain areas, and there may be other outside
organizations that we contract with.
Mr. Newman. In Stamford we do in-house training as well. We
take people off the line----
Mr. Shays. Move a little closer.
Mr. Newman. We take people off the line and put them in a
training division for their areas of expertise that they might
have and they get the information across to the fire fighters.
Also attached to the Federal programs that I mentioned earlier,
we had to go out and find those things. It didn't come to us.
Also in the State of Connecticut the Office of Fire
Prevention Control and Fire Training Academy does have programs
for us, but a lot of the Federal dollars that would come
through directly to some of the communities for the specific
training needs are all filtered through that organization. So
unless they come down through that organization, we often don't
get the money.
We recently ran a hazardous materials technician course
that was funded pretty much by the 13 communities that belong
to the Fairfield County HazMat group. We got no State money. We
got no Federal money for that program, and that was a
significant cost.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Docimo, where do you get training for your
volunteers?
Mr. Docimo. We have in-house trainers. We'll also use some
of the same resources. But like Captain Newman said, we got to
hunt those down though. There's an awful lot of, you know,
ceding programs out there, but you really got to almost be in
that little inner circle to find out what agency has what you
need in order to accomplish the task. And ours is a little more
difficult because most of our staff is volunteer. We're talking
about nights and weekends and holidays and those kinds of
issues as opposed to, you know, moving somebody to a training
division.
Mr. Tierney. Well, let me ask all the panel on this. One of
our colleagues just made a proposal that there be a Regional
New England facility where first responders of all types could
go. Can you roughly if I just go left to right starting with
Chief Berry and right down the line and very quickly tell me
what you see as the pros and cons to that type of a program.
Chief Berry. Frankly, I think it's the way to go. And as
far as Fairfield County, we work together very well. We've even
looked at training involving U.S. (indiscernible) teams. So I
think it's the way to go.
From the other side, the negative aspects of it, I really
don't see many negative aspects of it as long as we sit down at
the table and we decide what we are going to do and make proper
plans, you know, to assist each other. I don't see any negative
aspects of working together on a regional basis.
Mr. Tierney. Chief Maglione.
Chief Maglione. As we spoke before, I guess we're going to
go back and forth on this issue. You know, why reinvent the
wheel. Most of the States in New England have their own
regional training facilities, whether they be police or fire.
If those places have to be updated, it's already there. Why
have our members incurring costs of traveling to some distant
location, thereby increasing the expense to the local
communities.
Mr. Shays. So in other words, State by State is good
enough?
Mr. Maglione. As far as I'm concerned State by State
(indiscernible).
Mr. Tierney. And I don't want to sound (indiscernible) but,
Chief Berry, I'm just curious, would it be an impact to you if
you had to send your people to another State within the New
England region in order to get that training?
Chief Berry. Yes, it would. We talked about overtime costs.
Especially if you're talking about small communities. If I send
someone out, you're definitely going to have to pay some
overtime costs.
Mr. Tierney. So does that change your opinion about having
one regional location versus a State region or----
Chief Berry. I think it would definitely hurt us
financially to have to do that. So that's--like I said, if the
organizations effectively were broken down into the State and
then broken down into a regional basis and then the State, I
think it might be better.
Mr. Tierney. Maybe I wasn't clear. When I said regional, I
didn't realize that you were responding to regions within the
State, and I really wanted to know what your opinion was with
respect to one within the region of New England. Maybe I'll get
a clearer answer now that I'm making myself a little clearer.
Captain?
Mr. Newman. The region in New England for Stamford Fire
Department I'd have to say as well as the Connecticut Fire
Academy is concerned is a regional New England facility for us.
It's all the way up at the top of the State. For daily type
programs, a 1-day program or even 2-day programs it's a lot of
trouble for us to get up there and back. You have to go up and
stay there, be away from your family and things like that. I've
traveled all over the country to these programs. It's tough to
get away from your family. And it is a financial burden to the
local communities to pay for these things as well. But as the
Chief mentioned, the facilities exist in the various States.
Having the instructors be able to go to those facilities might
be a better way to go.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Docimo.
Mr. Docimo. Yeah, I think it's almost like a real estate
question. Location, location, location. Like the captain even
said, to go from Stamford to Hartford, we don't utilize that
facility because of that. What you may want to look at if
you're going to do that in the regional centers is to deliver
the high level of training that we can't get in the localized
areas, specialized training like the Tactics Considerations
Program or advanced air monitoring or the hospital's role in
the WMD event. Those types of issues.
But to effect the training issue you got to bring that down
as a street beat cop, fire fighter, EMS provider. So rather
than doing the nickel-dime stuff where you got to truck 3 hours
away, do that with a more specialized group that can afford, A,
some of the heavy-duty equipment and bring in the best
instructors that we possibly can. That would probably give us
the most bang for the buck.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Mr. Clarke.
Mr. Clarke. From a hospital perspective I think it's fair
to say that we are constrained by financial difficulties that
would make it even more difficult to expose adequate numbers of
the staff covering three shifts to train. We find it much more
effective to identify and bring in local instructors such as
Captain Newman and Fire Fighter Docimo. That has been very
effective. And we found in Stamford anyway, given the great
number of resources and the high degree of expertise, to be a
worthwhile cause to sort of partner with the local first
responders.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Mr. Yoder.
Mr. Yoder. Well, if your plan was to locate the center
within Westport, CT, we would be more than happy to attend.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tierney. It was not my plan. It was my colleague's. If
it was my plan, it would be (indiscernible), but it's not.
Mr. Yoder. I have a feeling it would be very crowded. I
have a service of 120 volunteers and I do not have the ability
to send them out to a New England regional school. I need to
bring the training in to them. I can get far greater training
done. I don't have the associated personnel to cross train in
the class like many departments do. So I'm limited to whatever
it costs to bring instructors in.
And for the most part it's interesting because in working
with this volunteer service, very rarely do we ever pay to
bring an instructor in. We're able to get whatever training we
need on a volunteer basis because of the reputation the
services have.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Gentlemen, I'm struck by the fact
that we all need each other, don't we? All of you are highly
dependent on the other and it's a very humbling thing to see,
and I know that you all go out of your way to work closely with
each other.
I want to say, Mr. Docimo, you are a colorful figure and
you keep me awake, but I'm not sure I agree with one part, and
maybe you just were trying to emphasize it. Your testimony is
you have no HazMat units within the State of Connecticut. Maybe
you need to define that.
Mr. Docimo. Yes. After the event in Stamford when we burned
the four fire fighters, and one of the fellows that was burned
was a part of my wedding party, we tried to organize a HazMat
group. I was--that's 1983. It took me 14 months----
Mr. Shays. Just give me more direct because----
Mr. Docimo. Yeah.
Mr. Shays [continuing]. I need an answer.
Mr. Docimo. OK.
Mr. Shays. Let me just say something to you. You have so
much knowledge and it's hard to--but just stay right to the
point.
Mr. Docimo. In the State of Massachusetts they run seven
regional response teams. That was after an event that occurred
out on the eastern shore of Massachusetts. We have no State
funded, State supported HazMat teams. Hartford, CT had a team.
They lost it because of funding. New Haven had a team. Lost it
because of funding.
Mr. Shays. So there's no locally funded HazMat team?
Mr. Docimo. Stamford maintains it because we had the event
and we burned four fire fighters. They have----
Mr. Shays. And let me just ask you, Captain Newman, how
many is that?
Mr. Newman. In Stamford we have 45--currently 45 people
that we consider to be technician level trained in HazMat----
Mr. Shays. But they're not totally devoted to HazMat?
Mr. Newman. They are fire fighters that respond--a three-
unit task force and they are fire fighters, but they do HazMat
as well. And then we also do--you know, I have to differ with
Mr. Docimo here. We do have a regional team. I'll agree it is
not State supported. It is not federally supported, but it is
supported by the 13 communities that do belong to it on a
regional basis.
Mr. Shays. And those start from where? Don't tell me all 13
but----
Mr. Newman. Stamford through Stratford. Every community on
the coast and basically one town up in----
Mr. Shays. Chief, you want to jump in on this issue?
Chief Maglione. Well, I'd agree with Captain Newman. We do
have a regional team and it is not funded by the State, but is
funded by the communities.
Mr. Shays. Now, is it your recommendation, Mr. Docimo, that
we need to have a State funded regional HazMat organization?
Mr. Docimo. In other States the only HazMat teams that
really survive are State funded regional teams. I am not
knocking midcounty. I am not--they were formed out of a need,
which if you go to Pennsylvania or Massachusetts, you have
things like standardized SOP's all over the State. You have
standardized equipment lists. These guys are street fire
fighters trying to do a job by getting the funding support from
13 communities. We need to look at regionalization. The key to
this thing is to be able to get that resource onsite in the
shortest period of time. I firmly believe that regionalized
HazMat teams are the answer to the problem.
Mr. Shays. OK. I just wanted to understand.
Chief Maglione. Mr. Chairman, may I just add one little
bit?
Mr. Shays. Sure.
Chief Maglione. I completely agree on the State funding for
regional HazMat. What exists in Massachusetts right now was a
Connecticut plan that was never put into effect.
Mr. Docimo. Because they stole it from us. Absolutely.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Yoder, is it the testimony in Westport that
they have 100 HazMat suits? Is that what I'm hearing?
Mr. Yoder. Through our police chief, he went out and
purchased suits and respirators for each EMS and the police
department.
Mr. Shays. And they are different--do they have different
gradations of effectiveness?
Mr. Yoder. I don't know. They're still in the box.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Mr. Yoder. I believe actually they were doing the training
programs this morning. So they're just getting into that aspect
of it.
Mr. Shays. Now, Stamford has 60 not in the box?
Mr. Newman. Stamford has a large amount of equipment. I
don't know the exact numbers, but they're Level A, B and C
protection as far as personal protection ensembles. A lot of
stuff is coming down through the Federal DOJ program, and in
Westport--the Westport Fire Department is the base of the
county HazMat. They are getting a lot of this personal
protective equipment as well to supply both the fire fighters
and EMS and police also.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Docimo, your testimony would be if they're
still in the box, that's kind of an illustration of your point
that we're not really trained yet to use them?
Mr. Docimo. Actually you'll violate OSHA law if you put
them on. The other thing is a lot of departments are buying
carbon filter type respirators, which NIOSH, which is the
approving agent, will not allow in a chemical emergency. There
are police departments not only in our State, but nationwide
that went the cheap way out with a couple hundred dollar gas
masks that the minute they put it on they violate seven OSHA
laws.
Mr. Newman. I'd like to add that's where this DOJ funding
for all this equipment came down, especially here in the State
of Connecticut. No dollars were attached for training for it.
It was almost--you asked earlier about what's the priority
here. All of it together is a combined effort, but unless you
have the training and the personnel resources to go along with
that, none of it's going to work. Not one piece of that whole
puzzle is going to solve the problem.
Mr. Shays. You know, this is very instructive and very
helpful, and you're all giving us honest answers. We're all
elected officials trying to deal with this issue.
I'm eager to know, Chief Maglione, would you add anything
to this point here about getting equipment and clearly knowing
how to use it and to be able to train all is one package?
Chief Maglione. Yeah, you asked earlier about what the
priorities were, and communications and training on an equal
basis are the priorities in my view. The equipment is going to
flow, whether we're going to purchase it ourselves or it's
going to come from some other source, but you can have all the
equipment in world, but unless you go out there and train--and
I mean really train, have live drills. Not what we experienced
2 years ago at the Marriott up at Trumbull, but actually get
out in the fields where we have backup companies where
Stratford is going to come--and I'll use this as an example.
Stratford and Milton are going to come to Bridgeport or
Westport is going to move into Fairfield and Fairfield is going
to come--we're hoping to do that in November. It's just going
to take a lot of work. But that's the kind of training that has
to take place.
Mr. Shays. I have just one last element with health care
issues. Do you have the ability to tell me if I should feel
confident and Mr. Tierney and the other Members up here that
the hospitals are on a daily basis providing information to the
State that there is the kind of coordination we have been told
there is about particular outbreaks so that we can see if, in
fact, there is chemical exposure and there is biological
exposure and so on?
Mr. Clarke. I can address the issue of biological exposure.
We very strictly follow CDC protocol, Center for Disease
Control, and report any unusual patterns and infectious disease
identification there may be.
Mr. Shays. But it may not be unusual to the one hospital.
It becomes unusual when you notice----
Mr. Clarke. Right. That is reported on a very regular basis
up to the State. So the infectious disease (indiscernible) is
right on top of that. What you should feel uncomfortable about
is being in a situation where you might be exposed to a
chemical or other type of characteristic agent and have to seek
care in a hospital. Hospitals are generally unprepared to deal
with that.
Mr. Shays. Let me do this. I'm going to explain to my
colleagues that I want Mr. Tierney to get to the next group. I
then--when he has to leave, we can still ask, all of us, that
next panel, and then we're going to have people from the
audience who may make comments will be able to ask questions.
But I do--if there's one or two questions from any of you,
let's put it on the table.
Do you have some questions you would like to ask, Mr. Duff?
Mr. Duff. Yes. Thank you.
I just want to ask Captain Newman about the point during
his testimony that towns in Connecticut didn't meet the
population numbers for some of the funding for the grants,
correct?
Mr. Newman. Correct. Home rule here in Connecticut is it
has its advantages but it has its disadvantages as well. Some
of the communities that did benefit by the 120 City--the
largest population I believe is 180,000 people. Some of them
included counties or regional districts. We have no regional
districts here. So there's a difficulty in 13 communities
deciding where that population number is coming in and who is
the governmental authority overseeing those 13 communities.
Mr. Shays. Any other member? Mr. Stone.
Mr. Stone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just quickly to Captain Newman or whoever would like to
respond, it's my understanding that Midcounty HazMat has a far
more difficult time obtaining funds because they're kind of a
combination of a bunch of communities. If you were an
independent fire department, for example Bridgeport,
independently asking for funds or if we had a county
government, it would be in a much easier position to get
funding, but by the fact that we have geographical county lines
but not, in fact, county government, it makes it far more
difficult. Is that a true statement?
Mr. Newman. I would agree with that statement, yes.
Mr. Stone. Do you have any suggestions on how it might be
easier?
Mr. Newman. The State right now is--I see as the only
realistic approach to being able to commit dollars to
regional----
Mr. Shays. See, that's the challenge we have. We wanted to
go directly to the local communities, but somehow the State has
to get involved in this. It strikes me that's the challenge
that we're facing.
Mr. Newman. If for whatever reason one of these 13
communities decides to pull out of the pack, the system could
fall apart. And if that one community was the community that
received the Federal dollars or whatever dollars, then the rest
of the group could suffer from that.
Mr. Shays. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Boucher or Senator McKinney.
Ms. Boucher. I'll hold them for the last panel.
Mr. Shays. You'll hold them for the last.
We would have other questions to ask you gentlemen. You're
on the firing line and a tremendous contribution to this
dialog, and I thank you, and we're going to get right to our
next panel, if that's OK. So I thank you, and I'll call our
next panel.
We have Daniel Craig, Regional Director, Federal Emergency
Management, accompanied by Gerald McCarty, Acting Director,
Office of National Preparedness; Adjutant General William
Cugno, Connecticut Military Department; Captain John Buturla,
executive officer, Division of Protective Services, Connecticut
Department of Public Safety; Harry Harris, bureau chief of the
Connecticut Department of Transportation, accompanied by
William Stoeckert, director, Highway Operations.
Gentlemen, I need to swear you in, if you would stand and
raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Shays. For the record, our witnesses have responded in
the affirmative.
And I do want to say that you bring a smile to my face in
part that you were willing to be the third panel and to listen
to panel one and two. You broke protocol, but it really is
important from my standpoint that you be able to hear what was
said and now your testimony is that much more valuable to us.
So we're going to go with you first, Mr. Craig, Director
Craig, and then we'll go to Acting Director McCarty. Pardon me?
Unidentified Speaker. (Indiscernible).
Mr. Shays. Oh, I'm sorry. We're going to have one person's
testimony, but then you'll participate in the whole dialog.
And then we'll go to you, General Cugno. General, I'm going
to be real strict on time because you love your job so much I
have to watch you closely. [Laughter.]
Then, Captain Buturla, we'll go to you and then to Harry
Harris. OK? Thank you. Mr. Craig.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL CRAIG, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Craig. Thank you, Chairman Shays, and Congressman
Tierney. Thank you for being here.
I'm Daniel Craig, Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Region I Office in Boston. I'm pleased to
be here with you today to talk about the challenges facing
emergency managers and first responders.
FEMA Region I includes the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
and the States of New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode
Island and Maine. Region I is home to approximately 14 million
people residing in urban and rural areas. We have significant
disaster activity within the region, having administered to 25
Presidential Disaster Declarations within the last 5 years.
While we are vulnerable to a broad range of natural and
technological hazards, our greatest threats are a result of
severe weather, especially floods, and the potential for
terrorist attacks.
FEMA Region I has 81 full-time employees, including 320
part-time intermittent on-call employees. The on-call employees
help regional staff respond to Presidentially Declared
Disasters and emergencies. Presently we have employees working
in Vermont, West Virginia, Texas, Arizona and Guam, responding
to the effects of a typhoon.
The regional office is located in Boston, Massachusetts.
The Federal Regional Center, which serves as our Regional
Operations Center, is located in Maynard, Massachusetts. The
agency also maintains five identical and geographically
dispersed mobile emergency response units. Ours is located in
Maynard, Massachusetts. Region I is lucky enough now to have
one of those five response units.
At the Region I office we coordinate also with other FEMA
regional offices, especially Region II in New York, which
covers New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and (indiscernible).
The directors of all ten regions meet monthly to ensure
regional coordination and communication, and our staffs work
together on all types of training, exercises, disaster response
and recovery programs.
Immediately following the World Trade Center disaster,
Region I was in direct support with FEMA Region II. The
Regional Operations Center in Maynard, Massachusetts was
operational within a couple of hours and Federal resources
required at the disaster location were originally coordinated
through our facility in Maynard. Not only do we coordinate with
other FEMA regions, but we also coordinate with other Federal
agencies involved in the Federal Response Plan.
Under the Federal Response Plan, FEMA coordinates a
disaster response that involves up to 27 Federal agencies and
12 emergency support functions. Each of the 12 emergency
support functions is led by a Federal agency both nationally
and in the local regions. In the past 10 years the Federal
Response Plan has been used to respond to the Northridge
earthquake, Hurricane Floyd, the bombing of the Murrah Building
in Oklahoma City and the disaster of September 11th.
In order to maintain our readiness and coordination for
large-scale disasters, including acts of terrorism, regional
Federal agencies regulate and exercise a response plan. FEMA
Region I meets quarterly with the Regional Inter-agency
Steering Committee to share plan efforts, exercise preparedness
and responsiveness. The risk is a group of Federal agencies in
New England who work together during the emergency response to
both natural and man-made disasters. At FEMA Region I we also
work closely with New England States, especially here in
Connecticut, for preparedness for all disasters man-made or
natural.
One way we assist the States is the Radiological Emergency
Preparedness Program or the REP Program, which includes
planning, exercises and training. This programs ensures offsite
emergency plans and preparedness activities are in place and
can be implemented to protect the health and safety of the
public living in a city of commercial nuclear power plant.
Staff review and evaluate offsite emergency response plans
developed by State and local governments. These plans after
implementation and determined to be adequate, are sent through
special reports to the U.S. Regulatory Commission for their
approval.
FEMA Region I currently has four operating commercial
nuclear power plants; Seabrook Station in New Hampshire,
Pilgrim Station in Massachusetts, Millstone here in
Connecticut, and (indiscernible).
Through the years of working with other States we have
developed a strong working partnership to strengthen our
response to emergencies and disasters, especially here in
Connecticut with Adjutant General Cugno, the State Emergency
Management Director, and the new Office of Homeland Security
for the State. Our region has participated in several training
and planning meetings bringing together selected officials and
representatives of the first responder community throughout our
States.
The exercises and planning meetings provide a forum for
discussions relating to first responders, planning, training,
equipment, exercises, border issues, mutual aid agreements and
other Homeland Security issues. A showing of its cooperation
will be held in a November exercise called Operation Yankee,
which will happen at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode
Island, which will include emergency managers from the Federal,
State and local level of our Federal and State partners.
The State government has spent millions of dollars directly
responding to Homeland Security needs, including the anthrax
crisis. While much has been done, we've identified many
shortfalls in our Nation's ability to respond to weapons of
mass destruction. These shortfalls must be addressed. Homeland
Security measures must be sustainable and will require ongoing
commitment of Federal, State and local resources. This is why
the President's First Responder initiative is vitally
important. And you all know that a first responder is
(indiscernible).
In addition to the right equipment and planning
capabilities, first responders have been telling us that they
need a single point of contact with the Federal Government.
They need a single entity to take a lead in coordinating
programs, developing standards, providing resources and
training to help them respond to terrorist events. This
approach builds on a collaboratively developed national
strategy and not just a Federal one.
We've heard from other sources too, including the Gilmore
Commission, which has pointed out that Federal Government
terrorist preparedness programs are fragmented, uncoordinated
and unaccountable. It has also stressed a need for a single
authority for State and local terrorist preparedness support.
Other independent studies and commissions have also recognized
the problems created by the current uncoordinated programs. In
our view, it is absolutely essential that the responsibility
for pulling together and coordinating the myriad of Federal
programs designed to help local and State responders and
emergency managers to respond to acts of terrorism be situated
in a single agency. That is why we are excited about the
President's creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
Last, 10 months ago several thousand people lost their
lives in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the
Pentagon and United Airlines Flight 91, which crashed into a
rural field in Pennsylvania. 450 of them were first responders
who rushed to the World Trade Center in New York City, fire
fighters, police officers, Port Authority officers. These
events have transformed what was an ongoing dialog about
terrorism preparedness and first responder support into action.
Since September 11th, our responsibilities have greatly
expanded in light of the new challenges and circumstances.
Our Nation's first responders are the front line defenders,
and may be required to respond to a terrorist attack, a natural
disaster or a technological disaster. We know that they must be
better prepared to respond to threat of terrorism and we should
ensure that they have training and equipment to do so. We must
take the steps to unify a fragmented system of Federal
assistance that has not served them well at all. These
investments will pay dividends by enhancing our Nation's
ability to respond to any emergency.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today and
I'll take questions after.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Craig follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.069
Mr. Shays. Thank you. I noticed that you summarized some of
your statement and still ran over.
And, General Cugno, I have to for the record say that he
was allowed 8 minutes. So you will be allowed up to that.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF ADJUTANT GENERAL WILLIAM CUGNO, CONNECTICUT
MILITARY DEPARTMENT
General Cugno. Thank you very much, Congressman. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here. On behalf of the 6,000
men----
Mr. Shays. Just turn that mic to face you.
General Cugno [continuing]. We appreciate the opportunity.
I'm going to change a little bit of my testimony. I
provided you a written document for the record----
Mr. Shays. It will be on the record.
General Cugno [continuing]. And I'm going to give you the
abbreviated version because I'm sure it will alleviate minutes.
I would like to offer a number of comments on the previous
panels that came up because they addressed some of the issues
that were brought up, specifically my role and responsibility
as the Chair of the----
Mr. Shays. I'm going to request that you not talk so fast.
Even though I'm limiting your time, it will be better testimony
if you speak more slowly.
General Cugno. OK. I'm concerned that there's a clear
understanding of the Domestic Preparedness Steering Committee
that the government has established. In a sense with the--as it
relates directly to the Federal Government's application
process concerning Justice Department grants, I would like to
be able to respond to questions that were brought up earlier.
The Connecticut Domestic Preparedness Steering Council that
I chair brings together on a regular basis the various
stakeholders representing those throughout our State that have
a role specifically in domestic preparedness. As I mentioned,
Governor Rowland commissioned this in May 2000, and it has a
primary function to be an inclusive organization. Inclusive in
that we have a number of organizations that are represented
from the Connecticut Hospital Association, Fire Fighters
Associations and the Chief of Police Organization. In doing so,
the council collectively integrates Federal resources at a
State and local level. To this end, much has been accomplished
to facilitate the prioritization and flow of limited resources
to best deal with today's threats.
In addition, the Steering Council recently, as you heard of
this afternoon, conducted a leadership symposium directed
toward municipalities here in the State. Of 169 towns and
communities within the State, 160 of them participated. We
invited executive leadership from the towns and encouraged them
to bring their emergency management officials. I'm happy to say
that more than 700 Connecticut professionals participated.
The purpose was to provide local leaders with information
in a printed guide on how to assess, strategize and plan for
emergencies that affect their community. Specifically the
document incorporated guidelines explaining how to do a risk
assessment within their community, how to develop local
strategy, and a sample emergency plan and updated emergency
numbers should they have to contact officials within the chain
up to the State headquarters.
In Connecticut, management of an emergency at the State
level is a collective effort between the Department of Public
Safety and the State Military Department through its Office of
Emergency Management. Mr. Vin DeRosa, who is our Deputy
Commissioner with the Department of Public Safety, the Division
of Protective Services, is Connecticut's liaison to Governor
Ridge at the White House on Homeland Security. In my role as
the Adjutant General of both the National Guard and the
Military Department, I oversee the Office of Emergency
Management and also this program. I coordinate daily with
Commissioner DeRosa. This is a program that we find working
quite well.
Both the Department of Public Safety and the State Military
Department work together to share actionable information and
intelligence to place State and local governments in the best
position possible to mitigate and respond to an act of
terrorism, and we rely on the Federal Government to share the
same. And to date I do believe that much more could be done or
be improved upon.
Specifically, I know that there will be a question
regarding whether or not we support the Office of Homeland
Security and we do. I think it is a good idea and I think that
following the model within the State, it can provide great
benefits to the States throughout the country in expediting
information and intelligence in a rapid State to the firm.
Individuals at the State and local level have asked do we
need one in the State. It's an issue that I believe is being
reviewed. Commissioner DeRosa and I are dealing with it to
determine whether or not we would recommend that to the
Governor or to the State legislative body.
The events of last September highlighted how important it
is to arm our first responders to combat various threats posed
to them. Not just for daily routine occurrences, but also for
the possible eventuality of a rare catastrophic event such as
that on September 11th.
The Connecticut Senior Steering Council through inter-
agency cooperation established three priorities, three
priorities that have been discussed a number of times today.
Those priorities were interoperability for communications.
Mr. Shays. Hold on just a second. We're getting a funny
noise. Why don't you pull that mic back. We're getting funny
sounds.
OK. Thanks.
General Cugno. The three priorities were personnel
protection equipment, that we've heard much discussed about
here today, communications interoperability, again discussed at
length today, and finally training and exercises. Now, this I
might add from 20 individuals, members of the domestic
steering, professionals within the field. Not surprisingly,
emergency management agencies at all levels of government
across the country have also identified these same topics.
Prioritization and regionalization planning is essential
because of the limited available resources. For example, it's
estimated--and this was based on a survey that we did. It is
estimated within the State of Connecticut just to provide
personnel protection equipment to all towns and communities,
and I'm talking about a simple Level A suit, would be $226
million. We at the State level realize funding of this amount
is unrealistic, thus requiring thoughtful and inclusive
prioritization. This is one of the reasons why Governor Rowland
commissioned the Domestic Preparedness Steering Council.
As outlined in the President's National Strategy for
Homeland Security, it's understood that Federal funding is no
substitute for State and local monetary responsibilities in the
emergency preparedness arena. Federal funding for State and
local emergency preparedness is obviously limited.
To date, Federal funding has supported State and local
governments in their efforts to best equip and train our front
line responders. Moreover, as the President's strategy clearly
states, the definition of first responders has broadened
extensively since September 11th. It no longer just includes
traditional fire fighters and policemen and emergency medical
technicians. It now includes a wide variety of other
disciplines which will require plans and resources and training
to fully integrate into our communities' emergency plans.
To date, the State Military Department has received $2.6
million for the fiscal year 1999, 2000, 2001. Much has been
discussed about this today. I'll be happy to discuss
distribution of that as dollars and materials have come in and
how we have insisted on regionalized strength. We've also heard
today that $4.6 million will be forthcoming from the 2002
Justice Department grants. I'm happy to say that more than 70
percent of the moneys received has been spent on standardized
equipment which are being shipped directly to first responders
throughout our State in accordance with priorities developed by
the committee that I chair that are representatives of the
Domestic Preparedness Steering Committee.
One of the organizations that was not mentioned today is
the Connecticut Hospital Association. They too provide
invaluable information for decontamination and providing
assistance to hospitals needs. I would be happy to talk to that
on questions.
The Connecticut Department of Health----
Mr. Shays. I need to have you come to your conclusion.
General Cugno. Yes, sir.
The Connecticut Department of Health received $14 million,
and we would be happy to talk during the question period on
that.
I think you'll find that a number of the areas that were
discussed today have been topics of consideration and concern
with the Domestic Preparedness Committee. I would be happy to
answer questions that you might have on this.
[The prepared statement of General Cugno follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.077
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Captain.
Thank you, General.
General Cugno. Yes, sir.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN BUTURLA, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DIVISION OF
PROTECTIVE SERVICES
Captain Buturla. Thank you and good afternoon, Mr.
Chairman, Representative Tierney, distinguished members of the
panel. On behalf of Deputy Commissioner Vin DeRosa, who extends
his regrets for not being able to be here today, and all the
dedicated men and women of the Department of Public Safety,
thank you for providing an opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee.
I come here not only as a first responder and captain of
the State Police, but now as the executive officer of the
Division of Protective Services, which is in essence the
Homeland Security Office for this State. On a side note, I am
an adjunct professor at Housatonic and I have to agree with you
that it's a (indiscernible). [Laughter.]
That's another story. I just wanted to go on record saying
that.
The State of Connecticut has changed after September 11th.
The changes in domestic preparedness and emergency management
procedures were necessary to meet the evolving world and
threats to our great Nation. Deputy Commissioner Vin DeRosa was
appointed to his position in the Department of Public Safety in
August 2001 and on September 11th his mission and that of the
Division of Protective Services has expanded. It is now the
mission of the division to utilize all available resources
within State government and to develop and implement unified
safety and security measures to prevent, mitigate and manage
incidents threatening the quality of life of the citizens of
this State.
Governor Rowland has also designated Deputy Commissioner
DeRosa as the Homeland Security Advisor for the State in
liaison with Governor Tom Ridge in the Federal Office of
Homeland Security. As such, our responsibilities include
coordinating the State's response to terrorism incidents and to
ensure that the statewide strategy is consistent with the
National Homeland Security strategy.
The Division of Protective Services is presently organized
into four major components that relate to Homeland Security.
These components were created after September 11th to more
effectively and efficiently deal with new responsibilities
placed on first responders.
The first major component is the Office of Statewide
Security, which consists of a critical infrastructure
protection unit, an Urban Search and Rescue Task Force, and a
Transportation Security Section. I would be happy to expound
upon any of those after my testimony here.
The second section is the Domestic Terrorism Section, which
includes participation in the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force,
the development of a Homeland Security advisory system for
dissemination of information to all stakeholders, and an
intelligence unit for the collection and analysis of the
dissemination of information.
The third and fourth sections are the Training and
Education Section, and our most recent responsibility is the
development of the Citizens Corps for the State of Connecticut.
The Division of Protective Services is also coordinating
the Governor's initiative on radio interoperability for first
responders by our participation in the Communications Task
Force. The task force is pursuing the possibility of very
shortly offering State police 800 megahertz portable radios to
local incident commanders, thereby to give them the ability to
talk to each other and various State resources in a time of a
crisis.
The effectiveness of the current Federal programs to equip
and train first responders is tied primarily to Federal budgets
and grant programs that were previously in existence. The
funding streams to first responders can best be categorized as
in a state of suspense. The only Federal funds available are
those that had been obtained prior to September 11th. Everyone
in the first responder community and various other affected
agencies are all waiting to see the much discussed Federal
Homeland Security funding.
Emergency response plans have always been subject to review
and change. September 11th has mandated all communities and
private concerns with ties to local, State and national
critical infrastructures update their emergency plans. The
development of an all-hazards approach to planning has been
recommended. However, as with any plan, there must be exercises
of the plan and resources needed to manage the incident.
We support the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security and appreciate the support that Governor Ridge and his
staff has given to our State. From defining terminology,
eliminating seams in disjointed Federal agencies, providing
fiscal services, and the development of clear accountability,
the Department of Homeland Securities is a required partner to
the States in responding to new world threats. To have one
agency with a central focus and a point of contact for Homeland
Security is not only crucial to the national strategy, but for
the development of the State strategy as well. The prevention
and response to terrorism is a grass roots concern. The first
to respond and the last to leave will always be the local and
State first responders and our resources.
The United States of America has long been considered the
most powerful nation in the world. Many factors, including our
democracy, open borders, constitutional privileges and our role
as defenders of freedom have contributed to this belief. This
makes us a country that many wish to come to, as our parents
and grandparents may have done, to begin a better life. It also
makes us the target in the world of terrorism.
Our way of life was forever changed on September 11th. We
must now build an organizational infrastructure on the
national, State and local level primarily to protect because if
we can't protect, we don't need a component of protection in
being able to respond to terrorists. That is the mission of the
Division of Protective Services. We will continue our
commitment to lead the State's efforts in Homeland Security.
I appreciate this time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Captain Buturla follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.084
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much, Captain.
Mr. Harris, I saw you this morning, and I'm familiar with
your activities and I appreciate you being here this afternoon.
STATEMENT OF HARRY HARRIS, BUREAU CHIEF, CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman
Shays----
Mr. Shays. Move that mic closer.
Mr. Harris. Good afternoon, Chairman Shays, Representative
Tierney, and members of the State legislature. My name is Harry
Harris. I'm the rail administrator and bureau chief of the
Bureau of Public Transportation for the Connecticut Department
of Transportation. I am joined today by Bill Stoeckert, who is
the director of highway operations for the Bureau of
Engineering and Highway Operations.
Since September 11th, the Connecticut Department of
Transportation has instituted a variety of changes to address
emergency management procedures and preparedness. Conn-DOT has
developed emergency response plans which outline the
Department's Homeland Security Advisory System. And attached to
my testimony is a copy of all of the plans that have been
developed by each of the various bureaus within Conn-DOT. In
addition to those plans that I've submitted to you, I will
attempt to summarize some of the more salient provisions
relative to each of our operating bureaus.
First of all, with regard to the Bureau of Aviation and
Ports at Bradley, the first responders there are the
Connecticut State Police. Troop W, which is located at the
airport, have taken specific first response steps in accordance
with the Homeland Security Office as just outlined to you. As a
result of September 11th, all of Bradley's fire fighters
recently completed a 70 to 80-hour training program and now all
are hazardous material technicians.
Furthermore, the State unit was also given the opportunity
to participate in the program whereby Bradley will receive
equipment and supplies that would be most useful in the event
of a mass casualty incident specifically related to weapons of
mass destruction. Bradley was one of the first airports in the
country to experience implementation of the Federal
Transportation Security Administration Federal Security
Director program and now has that program up and operating
onsite.
In terms of our ports, Conn-DOT controls and administers
the Admiral Harold E. Shear State Pier in New London, and with
coordination with Federal and local jurisdictions participates
in the care and supervision of the State's waterways and
harbors. The department continues to work closely with the U.S.
Coast Guard on security of the ports. There has been a
concerted effort to develop better communication links and the
Coast Guard is reaching out to local and State entities. Under
the new Coast Guard program, we're taking a look at various
ports in the State in terms of security and what needs to be
done there. We are currently requesting funding under that
program.
The attached Bureau of Aviation and Ports Homeland Security
Alert document has a provision for evacuating cargo vessels
from their berths in Connecticut harbors should the threat
assessment warrant such actions. This evacuation would involve
using Connecticut licensed marine pilots to get the vessels out
of harm's way or to prevent the vessels from suffering a
catastrophic catastrophe which would then in turn cause
problems for other facilities and emergency responders.
In the Office of Rail Operations we were--several things
have come out as a result of the incident on September 11th and
how we have to response to them. We have made major changes in
the way we operate and personnel identification and so forth.
But I think one of the key issues that came out of the
September 11th issue was one that has been discussed fairly
frequently so far this afternoon, and that is the issue of
communications.
At the time of September 11th, most of our communications
were limited to cell phones. Our personnel was divided between
New Haven, Stamford, Newington and the command center in Grand
Central in New York. So some of the things, as we have talked
about, is the need to improve our ability to communicate
between Conn-DOT and Metro North and Amtrak in a crisis
situation and to communicate between ourselves, and we're
looking at a second command center as being something needed to
be set up in this part of the State.
We also have a lot of problems with our infrastructure that
needs to be addressed in terms of bridges and other things that
could cutoff the rail service in the event of a catastrophe
type of situation.
Similarly, in our Office of Transit and Ridesharing, we
have 14 different transit districts in the State of
Connecticut. Most of them have old and antiquated
communications equipment where it is difficult to communicate
with their own buses. It is impossible to communicate within
the transit district. So a transit function in lower Fairfield
County that involves Connecticut Transit, the Bridgeport
Transit District, the Norwalk Transit District and the
Stamford, CT, Transit operation have no way of communicating
except through cell phones and through ourselves, and that is
another issue that we're looking at.
For the Bureau of Engineering and Highway Operations, the
Office of Maintenance and Highway Operations have prepared a
Homeland Security Advisory System Response Plan. This 11-page
document outlines all of the responses. It's included in your
program.
But prior to September 11th Conn-DOT had in place
Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Procedures using a
Traffic Management Plan for a Millstone Nuclear Power Station
disaster event. Implementation plans for a 2, 5 or 10-mile
impact have been coordinated and developed with the Connecticut
State Police and the Office of Emergency Management. The
purpose of the Traffic Management Plan is to assist State and
local enforcement officials and other emergency responders to
engage in traffic and access control. The concept of operations
includes traffic control and access control.
Diversion plans for highway incidents on limited access
highways along I-95, 395, 91 and 84 have been developed in
cooperation with the local and State police, first elected
officials and Conn-DOT field personnel. Guidelines for
implementing the Traffic Diversion Plans have been developed
for use when a major closure occurs on the expressways.
Coordination of field personnel and field resources using
variable message signs, HAR radio and other means have also
been developed.
Again, I tried to summarize the written document and I'll
join the panel in responding to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7386.137
Mr. Shays. Harry, thank you very much or, Mr. Harris.
Representative Tierney needs to leave here in about 10
minutes. So he's got the floor and he's got a driver ready to
take him.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much.
I thank all of you again for your testimony.
Captain Buturla, my understanding is that you're
essentially the Safety Protective Services individually or
personally involved in coordinating the State's Homeland
Security, for lack of a better terminology, approach; is that
right?
Captain Buturla. That is right.
Mr. Tierney. So let me ask you, have you then taken all of
these different agencies within the State, whether it be the
National Guard or Mr. Harris's Transportation Department or the
State Public Health or State Police and so forth and sort of
merged them together as one entity?
Captain Buturla. No, there hasn't been a merging of
agencies, not like would be proposed on the Federal side.
Mr. Tierney. Instead you're sort of coordinating that
effort, right?
Captain Buturla. It's more of a coordinating effort between
our division and the general who chairs the Domestic
Preparedness Steering Council and brings everybody to the table
to work on things collectively.
Mr. Tierney. And is that working well?
Captain Buturla. It is.
Mr. Tierney. And do you work on memorandum agreements or
any other formal basis or just how do you do it?
Captain Buturla. Well, much of what we do is if an
incident--or if we are looking at a specific problem area, we
would reach out to various experts. If we had an issue with
transportation, we would contact the Department of
Transportation, and whatever the issue may be, we will work to
resolve it within State government. And usually by resolving it
with the State government will reach out to the local agencies
also.
Mr. Tierney. Are you then responsible for advising the
government with respect to the allocation of resources, if you
identify a situation, advising the Governor and the State
legislature as to where you might--or what resources are best
for a particular concern?
Captain Buturla. We may be depending on what the issue is.
Mr. Tierney. I raise it because I had a particular concern,
as well as Chairman Shays on, you know, a number of matters
with respect to this. I have great concern about the
President's plan of putting 177,000 people from different
agencies, lumping them together into a new organization. I
think most of the Members of Congress agree that we ought to
have a standard local position for Homeland Security. My
preference would be that individual work more on a State model
where that individual then has the authority to bring together
all the parties and work out agreements as to how they will be
addressed going forward. I am considerably concerned about
putting FEMA in or putting the Coast Guard in and other Federal
agencies in total.
We had testimony from the General Accounting Office that it
would take no less than 5 and probably closer to 10 years to
get an organization like that together with some sort of
operable form where we would actually be able to get some good
coordinating results. I don't think we have that amount of
time. I think we have to move a lot quicker than that. That's
why I think in some sense the proposal is unmanageable and
problematic for us. I would much rather see a model where we
have the cabinet local position coordinating things with the
authority to call people together.
The concept that these different cultures, the turf
battles, the budget battles, all those things are going to
create problems that we have a lot of cooperation diversions. I
don't think it's a good idea to sort of put them together until
they find out later on it just doesn't work, and I have that
real concern here.
I also have the concern that we're going to lose some of
the other core functions, some of the agencies with respect to
FEMA in particular by putting them together in a agency whose
core responsibility is national security so it assumes and
moves the others to the back on that.
So I wanted to share with you, and I don't want to put you
on the spot because I know you're a company guy here and I
don't want to do that. But we're building a record here and I
wanted you to have some comfort. But I wanted to tell, you
know, the former FEMA Director, James DeWitt, who I credit with
doing great things for that department, it used to be people in
my town, the citizens didn't want to see FEMA coming. When they
said FEMA's coming to town, they'd try to throw up boards and
just keep them out. But I think that's turned around. Now
people look to FEMA. They look for them to assist.
Well, we had a comment over the last decade FEMA has
responded to over 500 emergencies of major disaster events. Two
of those, two of them were related to terrorists, Oklahoma City
and New York City. His view, ``entering FEMA into a Homeland of
National Security agency seriously compromises an agency's
previously affected response to natural hazards.''
We all know the major FEMA responsibilities that are
unrelated to Homeland Security include, among others, the
following: Providing flood insurance and mitigation services,
including free disaster mitigation, hazard mitigation and flood
damage, conducting various programs and mitigating the affects
of natural disasters such as programs to assist States in
preparing for hurricane and natural earthquake hazardous
reduction programs, providing temporary housing and food for
homeless people, and operating the National Fire Data Center
and National Fire Incident reporting system to reduce the loss
of life in fire related incidents and much, much more.
It may give me some comfort to have you explain somehow why
it is that we have to take the entire FEMA and put it into this
170,000 plus person group with all of the problems that I
envision it's going to create as opposed to having FEMA work
cooperatively with the Homeland Secretary and be responsive in
the incidents of terrorist related events while leaving them
free to deal with incidents other than terrorists.
Mr. Craig. Well, that's an easy question to answer. FEMA
has a role of first and foremost preparedness, whether it's
terrorism, whether it's natural disaster, whatever it may be.
The Office of Natural Preparedness within FEMA was organized in
March of last year before the terrorist events of September
11th. FEMA will be going in the plan to the Department of
Homeland Security as a whole. It's not being carved up. Pieces
aren't being sent anywhere else.
Mr. Tierney. But there's people who are trying. That's
actually not over yet.
Mr. Shays. Let's speak a little slower. I want to make sure
you're on the record.
Mr. Tierney. The fact of the matter is that there are
people who are trying to divide it up.
Mr. Craig. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. So we're not actually there yet.
Mr. Craig. The role of the presiding president is to move
it as a whole to the Department of Homeland Security. Our
functions, our role inside the Department of Homeland Security
will not change. We will still be the lead agency for flood
insurance mitigation, for preparedness. Whatever our functions
are now, that will not change.
A couple of the reasons why it is necessary for us to go to
the Department of Homeland Security, one is--it was talked
about on this panel earlier and other panels over the day, is a
single point of contact with the Federal Government. Not only
just for terrorism grants or first responder grants. There's
approximately $35 billion of Federal grants for terrorism this
year spread across numerous Federal agencies, which will all be
part of this Department of Homeland Security. If there's that
single place that first responders or local governments or
State governments can go to get access to most of the grants,
to the expertise, to the training, to the planning expertise,
it is going to be better for the local communities and for the
State communities.
The goals, the mission of FEMA will not change in the
Department of Homeland Security. We will still complete our
mission. Preparedness for terrorism is one part of that, yes,
but our preparedness for all events is what FEMA works with the
States on and the local governments, and that will not change
in the Department of Homeland Security.
But to better coordinate with the other Federal agencies--
we do have a tough time with some of the Federal agencies
coordinating, and getting them into one department will help.
There are numerous agencies involved, Federal agencies, pieces
of the State department. It will help us coordinate better with
them. We have numerous meetings with the other Federal
agencies. Some do come. Some that don't come. And we will--it
will help us having one department better coordinate with the
States, with other Federal Government agencies.
Mr. Tierney. Well, I hope you're right. I suspect that it
will come out that way, but I think right now if we had a
secretary, they'd be able to call those people together and get
them to the table to have that kind of party. It wouldn't
entail dropping everybody into the same pie. So I would suspect
that you're being honest and, frankly, being wishful more so
than (indiscernible).
I think FEMA, as I heard from the earlier testimony,
already is the primary point of contact for most communities
and I think it does a good job on that. And knowing there's two
out of 500 incidents that fall under terrorist attacks, it
still gives me great concern. But knowing that you're one of
the individuals working with FEMA, it does at least give me
some comfort and I appreciate the services you give. I know
that you took office I think the day before September 11th,
which had you on (indiscernible).
Mr. Craig. One comment on the earlier statement that the
local governments call FEMA first. We will not and do not do
any response without the State requesting it from FEMA. We
don't work directly with the Federal Governments, the local
governments. They don't come directly to us. They will call the
State Office of Emergency Management and they will contact us.
But we don't work directly with them.
Mr. Tierney. So I thank you for your services, and again I
hope your wish (indiscernible) with the President's merger goes
into effect.
And before I leave, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank all
of the witnesses that testified today, all of the fellow
panelists for their courtesies. I know that I probably had more
questions to ask and I may have taken some of your time. I'm
very good at that. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
community for being so gracious and I hope to be back sometime
soon.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Tierney, again, I appreciate this. This is
the second time you've come down to the district and I
appreciate the fact that you spent your day with us, and travel
safe.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. I am going to recognize Senator McKinney and
then I'll have questions after. Senator McKinney, we're going
to go to you next.
Mr. McKinney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In looking at the purpose of the hearing, obviously we're
here to hear about progress that's been made in local
preparedness, and thankfully there has not been a tragic
incident that has tested our preparedness. However, General, we
did have, I guess for the lack of a better term, the false
alarm with the reservoir in Easton where three individuals were
apprehended on top of one of the water tanks. And I'm just
wondering if you have sort of learned anything from that
incident in terms of the task force, you know, operation manual
that you were putting together in coordination between the
State and local agencies and the different agencies of police
and health departments that might be useful for Chairman Shays?
General Cugno. The answer to your question is yes.
Specifically, the incident that happened, Chief Solomon, who's
the Chief Police in Easton, was quoted as saying that by
following the guide that was provided and by the State's
leadership, was able to come up with the answers and immediate
response from the State with resources that he thought they
otherwise would not have had. It was a cooperative effort
between Protective Services, the commissioner of the
department, Vin DeRosa, and I'm sure many of them were onsite
with a number of resources from the State directed to that
incident. Within 2 days the incident was over and finished.
And I might add that the Federal Office of Investigation
also participated with law enforcement support. The State
police participated. The Department of Health participated. Dr.
Garcia's office participated. There were a number of Federal
and State agencies who supported the effort throughout the
State. It was done following the guidelines that were provided
them. And basically it started with a phone call to the
region's representative and that is the Office of Emergency
Management.
As Dan has mentioned, it's not directly to FEMA. It goes to
the region. Connecticut follows the Federal response plan and
we reach them, the municipalities, with the incident command
system. The incident commander was Chief Solomon.
Mr. McKinney. And my last question is for you, Mr. Harris,
Harry, and it's probably a question that's already been
answered, but obviously we've seen, you know, a great deal of
emphasis on airport security obviously after the events of
September 11th. Yet our trains and our ships can be used as
weapons or transportation for weapons. Are we doing anything to
protect those methods of transportation? I mean, obviously if
you make sure that someone gets on a plane without a weapon,
you don't have to check them when they get off, but that's not
necessarily true with somebody on cargo ships. Where are we
moving in that direction?
Mr. Harris. I'm afraid I cannot respond in too much detail
on either trains or cargo. The ports--the Department of
Aviation and Ports is taking a look at cargo and shipments and
developing security procedures. They are participating in this
pilot program and taking a look at that. I cannot--I would have
to get back to you with more details, that which can be
discussed, to answer that question.
On the rail side of it, there's been a lot of talk and a
lot of discussion in terms of using the rails and how that
could be a potential for terrorism. Again, there's some things
that you just can't discuss with any more--you know, it's very
close to, you know, in terms of what they do and such as
Amtrak.
Amtrak is now requiring, you know, that all passengers
provide additional, you know, photo ID's and so forth. That
simply is not practical on a commuter rail line. There are
police, you know, riding the trains. There are, you know, Metro
North personnel riding the trains and so forth, but when you're
moving 50, 60,000 people on a rail line in the morning, it's
just not, you know, possible to do that level.
There's also been a--basically levels of threat assessment.
How much damage could be done by an individual. An airplane
became a moving bomb. A train can't be. It can't get off the
tracks, you know, and kind of stuff. So there has been a lot
of--we've looked at assessments of points of vulnerability.
Obviously Grand Central is the highest target area and there's
a lot to be done to protect Grand Central. Less so we've looked
at the various stations along the line, but obviously they're
not as high a target.
The infrastructure, the movable bridges. We have four
movable bridges in the State of--three movable bridges on the
Metro North line. If any one of them gets hit, then the North
East Corridor ceases to exist. And we're looking at threat
assessment and what can we do to protect those and to maintain
those. But that's basically what's been done.
Mr. McKinney. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Ms. Boucher.
Ms. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
What I've picked up this afternoon and in other meetings as
well are these areas of concern, and I just want to touch on
two of them and ask two questions.
What I'm hearing is that communications is an issue. It's
huge. That we can't communicate between each other, and then
this is--in our first responders as well as hearing you mention
on trains and having employees be able to communicate with each
other.
The other big issue is equipment, PPE's or detection
devises, that there's got to be training because the equipment
is so sophisticated that it isn't going to be used unless
there's training. In addition, there has to be maintenance on
that equipment to keep them. I heard that there needs to be a
standard plan that's distributed--at least a standard plan that
everyone can follow and that there should be drills, that there
should be State funded HazMat teams, that we need to grant
local funding. There should be a notification system, early
warning single point of contact. Those seem to be the big
prevailing issues.
Now, the question I have for the general is when you
mentioned in your discussion that you have a model plan in your
documentation that is distributed but not necessarily a single
plan, it's just a recommended plan and that local communities
then develop their own, I'd like for you to react on the fact
that it sounds to me like the local individuals are looking for
maybe something more directive.
And then the question for the captain as well as Harry was
on my previous question on not necessarily incident driven, but
an evacuation. If, in fact, you can't communicate amongst
personnel, then how do we put into place a mass evacuation plan
that would be safe? Those are my two questions.
General Cugno. If I could respond. First I understand is
the question of the plan. There has to be a basic fundamental
understanding of the Federal response plan. We fully support
the municipality or local official is completely in charge. The
first responders, as we discussed today their needs and
requirements, every day go to work and have an emergency plan
to respond to an incident within their community. The needs and
requirements that they have have been categorized into
additional equipment and personal protection into
communications and into training and exercises so that they
know how to do that.
The problem--when the first Justice Department grants came
for 1999, 2000 and 2001, states--in our case, we put together a
plan on how we would distribute it on a priority basis because
it was an insignificant amount of money. It was $2.6 million.
That's insignificant when the needs are almost $300 million.
So we said where is the threat and what are the priorities
for distribution and how do we get the professionals to
recognize we have other requirements. We came up with a
regionally supported regionalization program. It is not a State
funded program. But is, however, funded from the Justice
Department. The grants that we received this year from the 2002
budget, which is more than $1 million, goes just to
regionalization and providing those that sign on to provide
regional support for specific types of equipment.
Another thing that wasn't addressed today on a regional
basis is the 31 hospitals. Every hospital received regional
type equipment from the Domestic Steering Committee as part of
the Justice Department grant. Those are success stories to
answer part of your question. The plan and integration of it is
us providing resources because our State is small rapidly
moving from one end of the State to the other. So we minimize
duplication because we know it is not affordable to provide
every community every specific item that they would like. I'm
not saying that they don't need it. And we also know that
Federal funds that we receive are not a substitute for the
general fund applications that have been implemented. So that's
basically it.
Ms. Boucher. Thank you.
Captain Buturla. I'll address the communications issue
first. Probably today, not tomorrow, all 169 towns will receive
a letter regarding the fact that the State is willing to
provide two 800 megahertz radios to each community in an
attempt for a relatively quick solution of the interoperability
problem. This will allow for the incident commanders to at
least have communication so that we won't end up in a situation
like what occurred in New York City where police and fire don't
have the ability to talk. Communications is certainly something
that is crucial to whatever type of emergency response, whether
it be a local or a statewide response or even some type of
national incident where we're bringing in Federal resources.
Our division--and we're setting up a search and rescue task
force that is a multi-disciplinary type of organization that
would have police, fire, structural engineers, medical
personnel, all different types of representatives on this.
We're in the process of setting this up. That too has a
communications component that we're dealing with and that we're
trying to link all that into a Connecticut sub-communications
system or a State police radio system. So we are working on
communications. The Governor made it his initiative to do this
and get some type of initial fix, if you will, for the
communications interoperability situation.
Mr. Harris. Let me respond to the communication issue
looking at what happened on September 11th. Metro North has its
own radio system. It's separate from, you know, the railroad
system. They are able to communicate with all of their trains
and all of their field personnel, but Connecticut--because of
our unique relationship here in Connecticut where they are the
operator and we are the owner of the system and we're the
contractee, if you will, we do not have the ability to patch
right into that system. So we have to be--the Metro North
people are to find out what they're saying to one another.
When the commissioner in Hartford wanted to know what was
going on, he called me via cell phone to find out what was
going on so that I could relay it to him after I called on the
cell phone to either New York or to New Haven to find out what
was going on because I was in Stamford. So there is
communication, but with that kind of incident, that kind of
major problem, you know, it just doesn't work.
The Metro North system is also a single system. If for some
reason their communications get shut down, then there is no
redundant backup system for that, which is one of the things
that we're looking at. If we had to involve Connecticut Transit
and all the buses and all the other players in there, we have
no system other than the telephone to contact the various
transit districts.
So while it's in place for an emergency of that kind, it
clearly left some holes that need to be looked at. If you're
looking at a massive evacuation kind of scenario, it gets all
that much more complicated. And, again, the reason why I think
we need some kind of a command center that has that ability to
communicate back and forth to all the various players is
because of the fragmented nature of public transportation in
the State of Connecticut and the different players that are
involved in it.
Ms. Boucher. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Before calling Mr. Stone and Representative--Representative
Stone and Representative Duff, I just want to kind of have both
of you start to think of the question--the answer to this
question. I am hard pressed as a representative from the Fourth
Congressional District as to why we would be under the Boston
FEMA instead of under New York. I think of ourselves from the
New York Metropolitan area and I feel that FEMA did a dirty
trick appointing someone from my own congressional district and
sending them up to Boston. If you could both think about that
response, and, Mr. McCarty, I'm going to ask you to respond
first as to why we shouldn't be looking at the entire
metropolitan region. So that's what you can look forward to
because I'd love an answer to that.
And let's go to you, Representative Stone, and then
Representative Duff.
Mr. Stone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are to my knowledge three levels of protective
clothing for first responders. It's my understanding that there
are as many as 16 potential biochemical weapons that can be
utilized. Is any one of those suits capable of protecting our
first responders in each one of those situations, and if so,
what's the practicality of providing that outfit to each one of
our first responders?
General Cugno. Well, when we did the analysis for the
Domestic Preparedness Steering Committee, we decided to
standardize the suits that the State would be procuring with
the Department of Justice funds using Level A. Level A meaning
an excellent suit, and that's what we went with. I heard
testimony today that some of the communities have purchased on
their own suits. Some bought A's and some bought B's and C's
for lesser threats or lesser incidents.
The intent of the State was on a priority basis to procure
Level A and to begin distribution. We've distributed to a
number of towns within the last--in the last few months. As
equipment becomes available, manufacturers will--we're not
distributing it from our office. It's coming directly from the
manufacturer to the communities here.
In Fairfield County about--of the total grant for 1999,
2000 and 2001 more than 22, 23 percent of the dollars were
expended here in the three largest communities, and also in
addition to that HazMat dollars. In the 2002 grant, as that
money becomes available, that equipment will also come in as
suits for that, too. I can give you a breakdown of the towns. I
would be happy to.
Mr. Stone. OK. Thank you. Staying with you, General, we've
heard a lot of talk today about communications and people keep
referring to 800 megahertz. In some of the hearings that we've
had in Hartford you talked a great deal about a 700 megahertz
system. I'm just wondering what the distinct advantages would
be for the State of Connecticut over what's currently in place?
General Cugno. Well, one of our colleagues earlier on the
panel, he touched on it. He got into it pretty--it's got to be
(indiscernible). You got to get the 700 megahertz emergency
operations channels out. There simply are not enough
communication channels. It isn't the hardware. No would should
leave here thinking it's the radio.
Commissioner DeRosa and Protective Services are immediately
impacting and responding so that the police chiefs that are out
there in all communities will be able to at least discuss or
communicate with someone in the incident command system, nets
as we referred to it, but the real problem is these first
responders need additional frequencies so that we can set it up
and establish proper communications and proper nets rapidly.
Mr. Stone. There's also been some talk that it would be
very advantageous for us to have a centralized communications
system, for example, one for Fairfield County, which would
coordinate all police, fire and EMS activities.
General Cugno. I think that's an absolute benefit to the
chiefs of police for all Fairfield County if they're able to
establish nets, if you will, when they have the additional
frequencies. Those are benefits of the frequencies, and they
are absolutely necessary. So yes, and then hardware should be
provided to adapt to those, but they have to have the
frequencies.
Mr. Stone. Does that become a duplication of the State
effort or is that just----
General Cugno. Absolutely not. No, that does not duplicate
the State effort at all. The State police operate the 800
trunking service with some smaller communities (indiscernible)
on. We did that during the licensing. One must remember that
all the activities for communications are licensed through the
FCC. Now, we compete for those frequencies. That's a little
understood item. We compete with the business world to get
those frequencies. It should be mandated for public safety.
Mr. Stone. And, Captain, just one last question.
Captain Buturla. Sure.
Mr. Stone. The USAR teams, we've heard about them for
awhile. I know it's a lot of work to put it together. Where are
we and when can we expect it to be up and running?
Captain Buturla. The USAR team--I'm very happy to say that
we just received some DOJ funding to begin equipment purchases.
It takes about a million and a half dollars to adequately equip
initially a USAR team. We are modeling the Connecticut team
after the FEMA model. We are at the point now where we are soon
to be advertising the availability of the positions. We're
having some applications reviewed by counsel and looking at the
ramifications of different types of positions that we're going
to select people from.
The team itself will be a statewide team, and you heard
from previous testimony that it takes substantial time to get
Federal resources here. It's our goal to have the Connecticut
Urban Search and Rescue Task Force onsite within 60 to 90
minutes of any large-scale structural collapse, regardless of
the cause, within the State of Connecticut. It is something
that is necessary, and right after September 11th the Governor
came out publicly and said we will have one in this State, and
we are working to that end right now.
Mr. Stone. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Representative Duff.
Mr. Duff. Thank you, Congressman. I'm going to have to go
in a few minutes but, again, I wanted to thank you for having
me up here today.
I think on all three panels there has been a tremendous
amount of testimony about our needs and our wants, and I guess
I would just say that we really need to get our act together
and that some of these--we really need to work well with the
municipalities and we have to have more than kind of a wish
list. I think we have to have a needs list and I think it's
something we need to do sooner than later.
Can everybody hear me?
Unidentified Speaker. Yes.
Mr. Duff. Anyway, the question I had was for the General.
You spoke of the Steering Committee, correct?
General Cugno. Yes.
Mr. Duff. And you're working--is there a way of working
with agencies that may not be part of your task force in the
sense that--I'm trying to think I guess a little outside the
box or anticipate maybe where terrorists or somebody may strike
such as postal services with anthrax. I don't think anybody
really anticipated that may happen. But are there ways of
saying, OK, we know we need to coordinate with the first
responders, police, fire, emergency medical, but are we also
thinking of say the postal service as well as say cargo
companies or any other kind of places where there may be some
weaknesses that may not be governmental agency contrived
businesses but could have--potentially may have some terrorist
implications because of that?
General Cugno. Yes is the answer to your question. The
Connecticut Conference of Municipalities is represented and
that organization is small towns. The business representative
is the emergency medical technicians (indiscernible). The
guidance from the Governor was inclusive rather than exclusive.
And really the reason is you're looking to get a consensus of
approval on the distribution process of Federal resources as
they come in and also in building a safe plan because they're
so limited in terms of dollars. There's limited Federal funds.
So absolutely, yeah.
Right now the funding strength is hung up in Congress now.
With the supplementals soon to be, we'll be able to proceed
again and continue on with the distribution of the priority PD
and other (indiscernible).
Mr. Duff. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Let me start off with that question.
I have a number of questions I'd like to ask all of you.
Let me first thank you, General Cugno, for State
sponsorship of a hearing we had on March 27th when you redid
basically the workout of the disaster on the Amtrak train. And
what we learned from that was just incredible. 200 people
together not knowing how they would work with each other and
seeing them walk through that was a tremendous--it was a
tremendous thing to see the firemen, police, EMS and the Health
Department and so on all getting together.
I want to ask Mr. Craig and Mr. McCarty the question of the
organizational team. And I realize you work within a system and
so this isn't your decision. This is the way it is. But I mean
I can understand why you would have New England as it related
to the Department of Education or some other government agency.
I can understand that it deals with a lot of different
departments and agencies and governments. I have a gigantic
challenge understanding why we live in Greenwich or Stamford or
Norwalk or Bridgeport, why we would want Mr. Craig's
organization out of Boston responding to that crisis and not
the Greater New York area FEMA. And maybe you do and maybe you
just don't know it. So walk me through it.
Mr. McCarty. One thing I should make clear at the onset is
that the lines that separate Region I from Region II is
strictly administrative. It makes no physical or functional
difference to the organization. Clearly during the events of
the World Trade Center, there was no difference between Region
I and Region II. As you well know, the regional office was very
affected by the disaster. As a matter of fact we had to leave
(indiscernible) Plaza, and Region I was actually Region II for
at least 14 hours.
In the events after the World Trade Center, many citizens
in the State of Connecticut were victims of the disaster, and
that's why we felt that they should apply to our recovery
office for whatever assistance they required or whatever
assistance was necessary for them to continue on with their
lives. Clearly those lines that separate the two regions are
strictly administrative and for most purposes, to be very
honest with you, they're transparent.
Getting back to your question, and it's a very valid
question, one of our major concerns is Southern Westchester
County. There's seven large cities in Westchester County and
bordering them is Connecticut and Darien. We encourage those
seven cities to work very closely in developing that HazMat
plan, which again is similar to an all-hazards plan, which is
traffic as well as technological for man-made disasters.
That part of Connecticut, they're working with us because
we've encouraged them to do it and we see that as a very viable
need and interdependency between Westchester County and the
southern part of Connecticut. That's an initiative that's being
done on the local level with the encouragement of both Region I
and Region II.
So, again, it goes back to where administratively speaking,
yes, the State of Connecticut is in Region I, but for all
practical purposes it is transparent to us and the Federal--
another point that I should clearly point out to you is that
I'm also responsible for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
the territory of the United States in the Virgin Islands.
Distance is not a factor in our response capability. It's
hardly even a challenge when I talk about 4,400 miles. So Mr.
Craig's response to Connecticut at only 150 miles is minuscule
to the amount of response that you get--clearly that you're
going to receive from Region I.
Should an incident ever occur, naturally Region I and
Region II will always support each other.
Mr. Shays. Excuse me. We have to stop. You need to move the
mic a little closer. The transcriber missed the last thing you
said. We're almost to the end and I appreciate all your good
work today.
Mr. McCarty. I'm very sorry if I'm creating more problems.
Mr. Shays. You almost have a Boston accent.
Mr. McCarty. No, I don't, sir. That's probably the one
reason why the Connecticut Region isn't in Region II. I have a
Brooklyn accent, sir.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Mr. McCarty. But, again, as far as administrative
functions, that's the only reason it separates.
Mr. Shays. Before I go to you, Mr. Craig, the bottom line
is you're saying that if Mr. Craig needs a resource that Region
II has, he's just going to call you up and you're going to get
it there.
Mr. McCarty. Absolutely. We both--all Regions. Region II
supports Region I and Region III always in these types of
incidents.
Mr. Shays. And if there's paperwork to be filled out----
Mr. McCarty. We leave that with Region I.
Mr. Shays. Pardon me?
Mr. McCarty. We leave that to Region I.
Mr. Shays. Right, but I would make the assumption, and now
I'm almost wondering if I should make that assumption, you
would be sending people down to the area rather than having
them have to come up to Boston to do that work.
Mr. McCarty. Well, are you talking in reference to the
events of the World Trade Center?
Mr. Shays. No, I'm just talking about any filing of any
paper in any action. There are forms to be filled out for FEMA
and you're not going to direct that--and this goes to you also,
Mr. Craig. I mean, if someone has a--see, I don't get in any
big struggle. First off, Mr. Tierney and I have a slight
disagreement on the issue of your intentions. He has doubts and
I don't. But he understands why we're having this debate, and
you gave a very nice answer. I think I was pleased with the
answer and, you know, he hopes you're accurate about how it
will turn out. I mean, so we have disagreements in Congress not
just between Republicans and Democrats, but between Republicans
and Republicans and Democrats and Democrats.
But in the case of filling out forms and so on, if it's
easier for someone to do it in New York, would they do it or
would you actually be sending people down from your office to
Fairfield, CT or to Darien, CT?
Mr. Craig. In the case of filling out forms, almost every
program we have that's federally funded goes through the State
anyway. So those forms get sent to Hartford and Hartford sends
them to us.
One exception to that is the Fire Grant program. I have a
fire point contact employee that actually goes out to all the
local fire houses and works with them in getting that paperwork
filled out, and that would be sent to Boston and not to New
York. But there are very few grant programs that we go directly
to the local governments and most of those go through Hartford.
Administratively if we split up the State, it would be an
administrative measure for a State administrative program in
that they would be working with two different regions, Boston
and New York, filling out forms for two different States,
having planned for two different regions. Administratively it
would be a nightmare.
Mr. Shays. So you're saying administratively it would be
handled, and you're basically saying the response to a disaster
is going to be national indicating----
Mr. Craig. To a Presidentially declared disaster there will
be a site that the locals could go to. We'd open up a disaster
field office for them.
Mr. Shays. But if you opened up a field office, it's
possible that Mr. McCarty's Region II is going to be assisting
you?
Mr. Craig. There's quite a few of his disaster employees
that may come under----
Mr. Shays. And the logic of this is clearly--I mean, you
could have one region of the country that hardly ever has to
deal with a disaster and you could have some that have many.
And I would imagine that you have the ability to move resources
wherever you need them.
Mr. Craig. That's correct. The one example that was used
before was the Atlanta office has approximately 400 disaster
employees. They do not have any Presidentially declared
disaster right now. They have approximately 350 of those
employees allocated to other disasters around the country. So
those employees go anywhere.
It would be a nightmare to split up a State. We do have a
lot of resources that we work together with in Region II. As I
said earlier, the Federal Regional Center, which covers both
Regions I and II, emergencies that are associated with that
comes from both Regions I and II. So we do--as Mr. McCarty
said, those lines are purely administrative for management, but
any response to a disaster would be manageable (indiscernible).
Mr. Shays. Let me just add and speak to our translator
because--transcriber because when we're finished with all of
you, I am going to invite anyone who wants to put anything on
the record, anyone who testified at any of the previous panels,
if they want to come in based on what they've heard this panel
say and add to it.
I am not clear, Mr. Harris, and others on whether we have
an evacuation plan. Do we have an evacuation plan if we have
a--whether it's in Millstone or whether it's a nuclear plant on
the Hudson, do we have an evacuation plan in place that FEMA
has worked on, the State has worked on? Is the answer yes or
no?
Mr. Craig. Yes.
Mr. Shays. The answer is?
Mr. Craig. Yes. That is tested every 2 years.
Mr. Shays. Pardon me?
Mr. Craig. That plan is tested every 2 years.
Mr. Shays. OK. For every----
Mr. Craig. Each and every department.
Mr. Shays. OK. Now, let me go into it a bit. How
comfortable are you that the various units know it? How
comfortable are you that we can implement it? And when I say
various units, so that if I just spoke to someone working for
the State, would they know this plan and would they be
comfortable in articulating it? General Cugno.
General Cugno. Yes, the tests we do, they're certified.
Mr. Shays. You do it and they certify it?
General Cugno. They certify it. And it's an annual
requirement every 2 years. It's a requirement. Our office has--
--
Mr. Shays. But you're not the FEMA director in the sense
that--so help me out here.
General Cugno. The Office of Emergency Management----
Mr. Shays. It's under you.
General Cugno. Yes, sir. And we receive Federal dollars
from FEMA offsetting their pay. We also provide municipalities
several dollars from FEMA, pass-through dollars, and that's
(indiscernible) into the cities and plans.
Mr. Shays. So, Captain, your responsibility is to look at
Homeland Security from not a national disaster standpoint, but
more from an act of terrorism and you don't have this dual
response of securing the homeland whether it's natural or not
natural?
Captain Buturla. We do to some extent. The Office of
Emergency Management is under a (indiscernible) but we do look
at consequence management in a variety of different manners.
Mr. Shays. Let me ask as to where you are under, what are
you under?
Captain Buturla. The Department of Public Safety.
Mr. Shays. Right. So you're not under the emergency
management.
Captain Buturla. No, sir.
Mr. Shays. OK. So you're saying--let me just focus on your
part of that responsibility. It's your focus primarily in
response to terrorist attacks both--and are you both detection
and prevention as well as preparedness and consequence
management?
Captain Buturla. Yes.
Mr. Shays. All of the above?
Captain Buturla. All of the above. We work very closely
with the General Office of Emergency Management and
Commissioner DeRosa and we would be joined at the hip, and
honestly would have to be in order for it to succeed.
Mr. Shays. Harry, are you familiar with an evacuation plan?
Mr. Harris. I know that the Highway Department has an
evacuation plan for Millstone and so forth, but I'm not
personally----
Mr. Shays. But someone in the department is familiar with
it?
Mr. Harris. Yeah, in terms of Millstone and so forth. There
is no mass evacuation plan for the rail system.
Mr. Shays. I mean, it's very impressive how quickly the
State helped empty out the beds where they could in our
hospitals in the Greater New York area or Connecticut. And so
obviously there was a plan. A lot of people didn't know about
it, but when it was implemented, it was pretty darn effective.
So I think that we're going to want to take a look at that a
little bit, this so-called evacuation because the bottom line
is we have a hard time getting around this place when there's
no traffic, you know.
General Cugno. Mr. Chairman, can I add one thing? After
September 11th when the Emergency Management Center opened,
sitting at the head of the table was the Governor and every
commissioner in the State was represented there. Commissioner
DeRosa and I and all commissioners, health through
transportation. Every issue in every incident in every agency's
plan is then directed at that emergency operation center.
That's how the hospitals scheduled--when the individuals were
here meeting and greeting people as they got off the rail
lines, it was directed from that office. When there were--parts
of the public had no knowledge then because they were looking
to see if there was another incident that was going to happen.
Mr. Shays. Any other comments? What I'd like to----
Mr. Craig. I have one comment and that's to remind you that
FEMA has responsibility for those evacuation plans and any
plans related for biological offsite from a nuclear power
station. We don't have any responsibility for incidents or
security plans onsite. That's the responsibility of the inner
city and the owner of the power plant site.
Mr. Shays. Now, this just gives me a good opportunity to
say to you two for the record, I happen to believe it's not a
question of when, where and in what magnitude we're going to
deal with chemical, biological, radioactive or heaven forbid
even nuclear, and for me the real organization of government
has to come in response to what was the threat, what's the
strategy and then how do we organize it.
The genesis of this was bipartisan and the motivation
clearly was bipartisan. There were as many Democrats as
Republicans encouraging the White House to respond. In fact, to
his credit Senator Lieberman was at the very forefront of this
along with many of us, but clearly a much higher profile as the
Senator and he made this committee to basically help us with
this legislation. So Connecticut has been kind of invited to
the forefront in this effort and it is without question needed.
But we will have to work out the parts and work overtime to
make it work.
I am interested to know by a show of hands who would like
to address--I would like to keep you all here, if you don't
mind, because there may be a response.
Who would like to address this committee? You won't be
sworn in. We have one. We have two. We have three. We have
four. And I have a feeling we'll hear from Mr. Docimo. I know
you too well.
OK. Can you raise your hands again, please. One, two,
three, four, five.
What we're going to ask you to do is we're going to give
you a pad of paper and ask you to write in your full name and
give it to the transcriber. We're going to have you come up.
You can make a comment. You can ask a question of the panels.
You can do almost anything you want to do. So we will want you
to repeat your name, say your name, and then make your comment
or address your question.
I'd like these names--can we put them on one pad? Just put
them on one, each one to a separate page.
Who's ready to go? Does the mic work?
Unidentified Speaker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. OK. Talk right into it.
Mr. Browning. I'm David Browning. I'm a citizen from
Stamford. First of all, I am very impressed and reassured by
all the dedication and expertise that I've seen here. I thank
you very much, Chairman Shays, for having the meeting here.
The comment is there's one word that I heard one time here
and that was urgency, and I think Chief Berry said that. This
is an urgent situation here. And I'd like to ask you, Mr.
Chairman, and anyone else, do you think that all of us have an
adequate feeling of urgency about this and that we can, in
fact, get on with the business on a nonpartisan basis and get
something done that will put us in a good position to handle
this whole Homeland Security question?
Mr. Shays. Let me respond to that. This has been remarkably
bipartisan in terms of the whole issue of reorganization of
government, but that's just one part of it. But in dealing with
the sense of urgency, I don't think that the American people
have the same sense of urgency that those who have worked in
this area have. If you've worked in this area, you have some
sleepless nights.
I go sometimes to the Capitol. I look at the Capitol
building and say enjoy the view. It's a precious view. It may
not be there. I look at the Washington Monument and sometimes
wonder will it be there. I think of my wife and brother who
work in the city of Washington. I think of it in terms of the
fact that we literally have a government in exile in
anticipation of a potential attack on the city of Washington or
any other city, but particularly the city of Washington. And
that a government in exile--not in exile but in hiding in a
protected area would be called to reconstruct our government.
And when people were astounded that the President had done this
and some Members of Congress, I was astounded that they didn't
have the anticipation that would be done and it told me even
within government there isn't this sense or recognition of the
urgency of the issue.
But in terms of how is the government working? Night and
day. On the local level, on the State level, but clearly on the
Federal level night and day people are trying to catch up to
this new threat. So the urgency I think is not underestimated
by most in government. I think more so by the general public.
And one of the challenges you have is how honest are you
with the American people. And my practice is tell the American
people the truth about how you do the right thing, and that's
why shortly after September 11th I was saying things in
contradiction to certain things you heard from say the
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
For instance, when he said if we have a biological attack
on small pockets, do we have the ability to deal with it, and
the answer was we don't have the ability to deal with it. When
others said, you know, there won't be an attack or a potential
attack, I was saying I think the honest answer is that there
could be and more likely will be. It's a question of time, not
a question of if, and so on. But I'm pretty impressed with the
sense of urgency at least within our government.
Yes, ma'am, if you can state your--excuse me. Does anyone
else want to make a comment or anything about that first
question?
Mr. McCarty. No, I would just echo that if people were here
when the General said about the task force of the Governor
putting together a coordination between all the State agencies
and departments, especially bringing in the Department of
Public Health, which is usually not talked about a lot in this
area and that is critical, it has been bipartisan. It's been
nonpartisan by us all. We will have to figure out how to pay
for all this, but I suspect that also will be nonpartisan.
Mr. Shays. Yes, ma'am.
Jack, did you want to say something? I'm sorry. I
apologize.
Mr. Stone. I just wanted to add to the comments of both the
Congressman and Senator McKinney, but as the ranking member of
the Public Safety Committee, I have been greatly involved in a
lot of these things that have transpired since September 11th,
and was greatly impressed by two factors. One was the level of
preparedness that this State was at prior to September 11th,
things that we didn't even know about, and then, second, the
urgency of which they responded and put their plans into place.
So I think they're doing a tremendous job and I respect every
one of them.
Mr. Shays. Yes, Representative Boucher.
Ms. Boucher. Just one comment because I agree with my
representatives up in Hartford that this is definitely a
nonpartisan issue and has been, but I am concerned on the part
of the public's perception on what's going on at least with the
media in Washington, that sometimes there might be the
perception out there that a lot of plans are being held up
because of possibly a November election, and I don't think the
public has any patience for that any longer, and I would hope
that no politician sets out to do that.
Mr. Shays. Of either party. Are there any other responses?
Do you want to make a last point?
Mr. McCarty. There was one thing I forgot just as by way of
example of where we are in the State of Connecticut and where
we were prior to September 11th. Dr. Garcia, who is the
Commissioner of Public Health, went down to Washington, DC, and
he was the main speaker at a seminar showing the rest of the
country the Connecticut model because it was far and away
superior to what all of the other States are doing. So we are
the (indiscernible).
Mr. Shays. You've been very patient ma'am. Thank you. Your
name, please.
Ms. Dobson. Thank you. My name is Laurie Dobson and I'm a
candidate for the democratic 141st District team for the House
of Representatives.
Mr. Shays. And what town is that in?
Ms. Dobson. In Darien. First I'd like to just acknowledge
Representative Shays. I think I've come away from this hearing
with a great deal of substantive information. I didn't expect
(indiscernible) efforts and it was very practical and
informative as well.
Yesterday at the Veterans' Town Hall meeting in Norwalk,
Representative Shays justified the possible upcoming U.S. ban
to strike on Iran based on information he said was procured
that three or four American cities were targeted for terrorist
attack. And my question is are any of those cities in this
area? Can you give us any more information?
Mr. Shays. In terms of Iraq?
Ms. Dobson. No, in terms of you justified that there would
be reason for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq based on the fact
that we now have information that three or four of our American
cities have been targeted for an attack, and I'm just very
curious about that comment.
Mr. Shays. And, no, you should be. We did not know in 1995,
believe it or not, that Iraq had a nuclear program. And when
the person in charge of the program in Iraq tried to defect, we
didn't know who he was and we said you don't exist. He had to
prove to our intelligence community that he actually was who he
said he was and there was actually a program. That will send I
think a little bit of an alarm to you that there was just a
tremendous amount of ignorance of what was happening in Iraq.
When we had the investigations later on as to the nuclear,
chemical and biological programs, the investigative teams from
the U.N. were about to certify that Iraq did not have a
chemical, biological, nuclear program, that we were about to
certify that they were OK. The two son-in-laws who defected
from Iraq and went to Jordan were debriefed and they disclosed
that one of them had actually set up a nuclear program. It was
disclosed to the parties that this program was active, and the
bottom line was that we then jumped in and forced Iraq to have
to show us some sites, and, again, we were underestimating
Iraq's ability.
The bottom line is we believe Iraq will have nuclear
weapons between two to 5 years and we believe that they will
place them strategically in some part of the United States. And
that's a little off subject of the hearing today on first
responders, but I'm happy to respond to you about it. But we
believe that if the President of the United States and our
country doesn't respond to Iraq, that you will be in a
situation in the near future where Saddam Hussein will say
we've had nuclear weapons placed strategically in certain areas
in some cities someplace in the United States.
And so the whole issue of dealing with a terrorist threat,
unlike the cold war, has an element of pre-emption, and so that
was the basis for it.
Ms. Dobson. Just this question. Has everything been done as
far as preparedness if you do have any information that these
targeted areas could be in our vicinity?
Mr. Shays. Yeah, we don't know where the targeted areas
are.
Ms. Dobson. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Go ahead.
Mr. Carneglia. Yes, sir. My name is Walt Carneglia. I'm a
resident of Norwalk.
I've had some firsthand experience having done 4 years in
Viet Nam. One of the things that I heard today constantly was
about training. For the past 3 years I've been getting mostly
Internet training from FEMA, from the Department of Justice,
from the U.S. Fire Academy. There's a tremendous amount of
information out there. You just have to ask for it.
I've taken dozens of CDC courses. I'm currently in a FEMA
Incident Command course, title course, which they called me for
a few weeks ago, which is an interactive course that I'm doing
on-line. So there's a lot of training out there, but it's real
fragmented and you have to work real hard to find it.
I'd like to hear some comments because I noticed there was
no one here from the Department of Justice, and they have a
tremendous amount of resources. I've taken courses at six
different colleges on-line that are all from grants from the
Department of Justice.
And my final question is for somebody on the board here.
Just before I came here, I logged onto the Homeland site for
the Citizen Corps and I had volunteered for the community
emergency response team approximately 6 months ago. There has
been nothing in the State of Connecticut. If you go to the
site, we don't have a coordinator there. There is nobody to
contact for volunteering. They're supposed to be contacting us.
Nothing has happened. So that's my main question.
Mr. Shays. Can anyone respond to that? Thank you, sir.
Captain Buturla.
Captain Buturla. Mr. Chairman, the Citizen Corps is
something that is relatively new in FEMA. Tomorrow
(indiscernible) sitting right behind me is going to Boston--or
I'm sorry, to Massachusetts for a regional meeting regarding
Citizen Corps. Representatives from throughout the country are
coming to that meeting, and the purpose of that would be to lay
the framework upon which Citizen Corps can be built. There are
some States that are ahead of us. It is our division that has
the responsibility for Citizen Corps.
So the only thing that I would say to you is be patient. We
will have a Citizen Corps up and running hopefully fairly soon.
Mr. Craig has been very supportive in helping us in this matter
and----
Mr. Shays. You know what, get this gentleman's name and
then see if, in fact, you get information from the Federal
Government as to who--if he's on that list, and I'd like to
know the answer to that.
So you basically registered----
Mr. Carneglia. Yes, I am registered with the--on the
Homeland Security site.
Mr. Shays. OK. He's registered. I'd like to know and if you
can let our committee know if in the course of this work--if
not tomorrow, the next day, but as you start to then get these
lists, was he on it, and it would be interesting for us to then
backtrack and see if, in fact, others are getting lost.
I'm delighted with your question. You made another question
earlier about----
Captain Buturla. Training?
Mr. Shays. Training, yes.
Captain Buturla. I can address some of that. We learned a
lot. We've--this State was unfortunately the target of the
anthrax case. We learned from that we had some people at a
certain level of preparedness and certain level of training. We
have also learned that the need for training for first
responders is there. It's there more than ever. We are in the
process of bringing a consultant in to help us develop a
curriculum.
We have also been working with the law enforcement
perspective, the Police Academy to set up a block of training
for first responders in the law enforcement community. We then
contacted the Fire Academy and have some input into what
programs they are running as long as they fall into the
terrorism type of realm.
Mr. Shays. Do you have a comment?
Mr. Craig. First on training, one of the aspects as part of
the Department of Homeland Security is to bring all the
terrorism training that is spread across numerous Federal
agencies under one Federal agency, one department. FEMA was
responsible for giving a report to Congress on all the
different agencies that have terrorism training and evaluating
all these training programs. In that report it is shown that
those training sessions are spread out across too many Federal
agencies and that it would help to have it under one
department. In evaluating that, if maybe the Department of
Justice, FEMA or the Public Health Service had the same type of
training, let's coordinate it and have that one class for three
different Federal agencies so that people out in the general
public have one place to go to find training sessions.
As far as Citizen Corps, Citizen Corps, as you know, was an
initiative by the President started earlier this year. The
groundwork for Citizen Corps has been started with the States,
and starting out with identifying points of contact, which the
State of Connecticut has done. But the funding for Citizen
Corps and Community Emergency Response Teams was in the
supplemental program, which we're waiting for the signing of
that bill. So the funding for that hasn't come out yet.
Mr. Shays. That's very helpful. I'm really happy you made
the point with your question because that's important.
Do you want to make a comment?
Ms. Boucher. Yes. And, Mr. Craig, I'm not talking about
Citizen Corps, but about the actual training on-line with
regards to terrorism. Do you screen the applicants to a course
like that for security reasons?
Mr. Craig. They do have to fill out a form. Most of our
training programs you have to be a U.S. citizen to take. I'm
not sure exactly how that form works because I haven't done it
on-line.
Mr. Docimo. Can I speak on that issue?
Mr. Shays. Sure. But go ahead and finish. He interrupted
you. Please finish.
Mr. Craig. But I'm not part of that committee or
department. That's done out of the U.S. Fire Administration.
It's part of FEMA, and they control all of those programs.
Mr. Shays. Did you want to say something?
General Cugno. On training again, in addition, the Justice
Department provides to on-line subscribers--you can print the
catalog of more than 100 courses that are available, the
courses that you subscribe to and take the course on-line that
are available. They're available to municipalities. That is
handled by individuals from the Domestic Preparedness branch
and it is likely to be in this reorganization because this
division is going to be part of Homeland Security.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Did you want to make a comment,
Frank?
Mr. Docimo. Yes.
Mr. Shays. Just state your name again for the record.
Mr. Docimo. It's Frank Docimo.
At the National Fire Academy there's actually programs that
we do not let out on-line. There's self-study guides that FEMA
participates in. The National Fire Academy participates in
those. But on the tactical consideration level for EMS, HazMat
and company officers, we do not let that out unless we
physically have the person there. There is some sensitive
materials that relates to not only tactical considerations, but
to implementation that we kind of hold a little closer.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Sir.
Mr. McNamara. My turn?
Mr. Shays. You were the first to raise your hand and----
Mr. McNamara. Well, that's all right. I'll be patient. Do I
sound all right?
Mr. Shays. What's your name?
Mr. McNamara. My name is Edward McNamara. I just kind of
represent myself, but there's a couple of things that occurred
to me when I heard this forum.
A few years ago I worked for a company that had a northeast
contract for remediation of military bases and I was on one of
the teams with a bunch of other people for the emergency
response team for the Environmental Protection Agency. We did a
lot of remediation on Superfund sites. But I had to sign
something that said I have a passport and I have a packed bag
and I'll go anywhere in the world in 2\1/2\ hours. I don't know
if that still exists.
At that time, and this was about, oh, gosh, maybe about 6,
7 years ago, we were also told that we were the first
responders. I think this is what is changing. At that time we
were told we had the authority to tell the police and/or fire
and everyone else get out of the area, you know, let us--
containment was the primary issue of a spill, primarily a
spill.
But what that made me think of is you have to readdress
this issue of PPE, personal protective equipment. If it's
dealing with the Levels A, B and C and if they still are tie-
back saran and the blue acid suits, we used to call them, which
had a self-contained breathing apparatus, which you needed
training in each and every one of those, those suits are so
cumbersome, awkward, prone to rip, tear. They do not lead to
manual labor of any sort or any quick or ready response.
They're archaic. They're really sort of dangerous. If anyone
here has tried them, this fellow over here may have, you know
that they've gotta be modernized and redesigned with more
modern technologically advanced fabrics that will, you know,
allow people to be protected but also work effectively and not
worry about punctures, rips, tears. I don't know if you would
agree. But----
Mr. Shays. One last comment. Do you have another comment?
Mr. McNamara. Yeah, I mean, it's just, you know, these
things have gotta be done. And you do need a mobile CRZ, a
contamination reductions zone. Everything should be ready and
ready to go.
And also I do think--when I watch some things on TV, I was
really kind of surprised. I think we gotta start thinking and
get somebody in that has some technological advanced abilities.
For a man-machine, heavy equipment interfaces that, you know,
allows people to have like a two-armed excavator instead of
fumbling with a one-steel girder. You should operate by arm and
pick it up and move it. And I think a lot of these things could
be done rather quickly with a concentrated effort.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
Mr. McNamara. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. We appreciate it.
Do we have any other comments? Sir, do you want to finish
this up? Is this the last? OK.
And, again, I would like to thank Rosa DeLauro's office for
being here. Would either one of you from her office like to
make a comment? You're all set?
Unidentified Speaker. (Indiscernible.).
Mr. Shays. Thank you. And I'm assuming--do we have their
names? Yes.
Mr. Michelsen. My name is Lieutenant Mike Michelsen. I'm a
member of the Wilton Fire Department and also the Fairfield
County HazMat Unit.
Mr. Shays. A little louder.
Mr. Michelsen. I appreciate all the time that we spent
today on these important issues. A lot of people have
summarized, but from the fire service today and in their
relationship with FEMA, I think it's very important to maintain
a position that the Fire Act remain a separate item.
You also asked about priorities and you wanted an order.
Communications and training have been spoken about endlessly
and they are, in fact, the ultimate priorities. There are
logistical considerations to getting the equipment to us, but
without the training to become comfortable with the equipment
and to be able to maintain it, the efforts would be in vain.
On the issue of communications, even though the State has
home rule, there are two things in place in this State. There's
enabling legislation under Public Act 01117 and there is also
an inter-local agreement under State Statute 7339E, which
enables municipalities to contain their interests to improve
their operational effectiveness.
Now, with the issue of communications, right now all the
jurisdictions are hard pressed with the desire to communicate,
but limitations are a capital resource. What would be desired,
and has been discussed by us in great detail, is the desire to
have Federal money and/or State money utilized to create a
coverage for the capital expenditure. It becomes an ongoing
expense to maintain the facility, but right now we're not
comfortable with the economic circumstances in the
municipalities to successfully lobby for the communications.
It's nice to hear that we're going to get two 800 megahertz
radios, but the realities are we know as professionals that
this will give us the ability to have one line of
communication. It will not allow us to operate. All of this
requires additional frequencies, to say nothing of the
dispatcher for the ITAC and ICAL.
Those issues are what I feel is most important and I
appreciate the opportunity to leave them in the closing
emphasis. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity to hear
you, sir, and I'd like to end there. Unless we have anyone
else, I would like to end with your fine service. Thank you
very much. Your contribution.
I'm going to say again that I'm very grateful to this panel
for staying the distance and listening to everyone else and
appreciate deeply your contribution, all five of you. Thank you
so much. This hearing--and I thank Bill, President Schwab,
for--where is he?
Mr. President, thank you very much for the opportunity to
use this--I like saying Mr. President. I think I'm in the
president's presence. And I would like to thank the clerk, or
the transcriber for her incredibly fine work and her patience
with us and her diligence. Thank you very much.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
-