WASHINGTON (EmergencyNet News) - Despite recent efforts to improve protections against chemical and biological terrorism, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis J. Freeh say U.S. cities and towns remain vulnerable to terrorist attack.

Speaking on Wednesday before a joint hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Judiciary subcommittee on technology and terrorism, Reno told the Associated Press, "We need to make sure we have a significant stockpile -- and I don't think we do -- of vaccines and other medications."

According to FBI Director Freeh, local police lack adequate equipment for dealing with such attacks, calling that "the greatest vulnerability that we have right now."

Freeh also said that several important lessons were learned during the February anthrax scare in Las Vegas. On 18 February, two men were arrested on suspicion of having deadly weapons-grade anthrax. The charges were dropped five days later when the material was found to be a veterinary vaccine. Freeh said it should not have taken the FBI 30 hours to determine the material posed no threat. He said, "That's a long time to wait for an answer."

Michigan Senator Carl Levin said classified administration testimony given to the joint committee earlier this week suggested a "high degree of likelihood that such an attack would occur in ten years."

Reno said the U.S. government was conducting a study of purchasing large stocks of vaccines, antidotes and antibiotics to deal with the threat to U.S. cities of chemical and biological warfare.

Reno said, "Those medications would be strategically placed throughout the country under a procedure that would maintain the shelf life of stockpiles and would facilitate their prompt availability in the event of a major chemical or biological incident."

She also said that the government was studying the need for decentralized laboratories, "located strategically throughout the country," to quickly identify any chemical or biological warfare agent.

In regards to some proposed changes in how the federal government responds to and who would be in charge of a terrorist incident, Director Freeh confirmed that the U.S. was considering a change that would put the U.S. Secret Service -- instead of the FBI -- in charge of counterterrorism activities. Freeh acknowledged that he was resisting that proposal and said the FBI's role as lead agency "needs to be maintained and should not be modified in any way."

 ESR CLOSE UP

Letter to the Editor

Special to EmergencyNet News 
           by Wade Jones, The MJS Group

In June 1995, the White House issued Presidential Decision Directive 39 (PDD-39), entitled "United States Policy on Counterterrorism. PDD-39 was issued to direct and identify measures to reduce vulnerability to terrorism and enhance capabilities to prevent and manage the consequences of terrorist actions.

PDD-39 also includes important information regarding consequence management including measures to protect public safety and measures to relieve the community impacted by the consequences of terrorism. Although investigation of terrorist acts will be conducted by joint-agency agreements, authority for consequence management in situations that occur without warning will rest with the public safety agency receiving the 9-1-1 call.

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. Until recently the United States was spared from the major terrorist events that have occurred in other regions of the world. Terrorism activities were limited to strikes directed at U.S. embassies and military installations outside the continental United States as well as the kidnapping of American business executives. The bombing at the World Trade Center in 1993 changed that perception forever and caused us to pull our collective head out of the ground. However, many Americans dismissed that bombing as being the work of international terrorists (even though it was perpetrated on U.S. soil). While Americans were saddened by the bombing at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, many could not understand why domestic terrorists would blow up a building in Middle America. However, the pipe bomb explosion at the Atlanta Summer Olympic Games served as strong a reminder that terrorism can be directed at any target inside the U.S.

An essential issue concerns the domestic practice of labeling transnational terrorist organizations as activist entities. Examples include certain anti-abortionist and animal rights groups as well as eco-terrorist. All of these entities have carried out terrorist attacks, including bombings, within the previous twelve months in the United States.

With many target opportunities within the United States, the emergency response challenge is significant. Targets are not limited to government buildings or local infrastructure and could include any soft target that can be destroyed to undermine public confidence in government institutions. This includes emergency response facilities such as fire stations and their associated complement of personnel.

Emergency response to a seemingly routine incident could actually be just the opposite. The incident could actually be consequence of a terrorist act and the scene could be a hazardous environment for the responder. While the Incident Command System should be used to effectively manage these events, responders must be alert for clues that other dangers may exist on scene. Terrorist events are crime scenes and first responders should exercise caution when responding to these incidents. Other guidelines may be necessary to assist the scene commander with identifying risk during incidents. First responders to the World Trade Center didn't know what the nature of the emergency was until they located the crater from the explosion.

To date, many public safety agencies have been slow to implement changes into their planning and response programs to include mechanisms for managing potential terrorist events. Communities, ill prepared and fearful of causing panic have chosen to ignore the potential threats to their community. Many leaders have taken the approach that the event will not occur in their community while others are relying on support from other agencies including federal or state agencies for consequence management of the incident. The approach of not preparing for an event that will never happen in their community exposes its citizens and public safety workers to unnecessary risk.