U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

59–450 CC WASHINGTON : 1999

COMBATING TERRORISM: PROPOSED TRANSFER

OF THE DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,

VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 26, 1999

Serial No. 106–27

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian

CARLA J. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

LAWRENCE J. HALLORAN, Staff Director and Counsel

MICHELE LANG, Professional Staff Member

JONATHAN WHARTON, Clerk

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on May 26, 1999 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Cragin, Charles L., Acting Assistant Secretary for Reserve Affairs, Department of Defense ..................................................................................... 6

Light, Catherine, Director, Office of National Security Affairs, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, accompanied by Bruce Baughman,

Director of Operations and Plans, Response and Recovery, Federal

Emergency Management Agency ................................................................. 45

Martinez, Barbara Y., Deputy Director, National Domestic Preparedness

Office, Department of Justice ...................................................................... 37

Mitchell, Andy, Deputy Director, Office for State and Local Domestic

Preparedness Support, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice .................................................................................................................. 19

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Cragin, Charles L., Acting Assistant Secretary for Reserve Affairs, Department of Defense, prepared statement of .............................................. 10

Light, Catherine, Director, Office of National Security Affairs, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, prepared statement of ......................... 47

Martinez, Barbara Y., Deputy Director, National Domestic Preparedness

Office, Department of Justice, prepared statement of ............................... 40

Mitchell, Andy, Deputy Director, Office for State and Local Domestic

Preparedness Support, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 22

Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Connecticut, prepared statement of ........................................................ 4

(1)

COMBATING TERRORISM: PROPOSED TRANSFER OF THE DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS

PROGRAM

WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, VETERANS

AFFAIRS, AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Shays

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Shays, Mica and Tierney.

Staff present: Lawrence J. Halloran, staff director and counsel;

Michele Lang, professional staff member; Jonathan Wharton, clerk;

David Rapallo, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant.

Mr. SHAYS. I would like to call this hearing to order.

Preparing to meet the threat of a terrorist attack here at home,

local, public safety and health care officials today face a confusing

array of Federal programs and agencies offering expertise, training

and equipment. In 1995, the President designated the Federal

Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], as the lead Federal

agency for consequence management, the measures needed to protect life, restore essential services and provide emergency relief

after a terrorism event involving conventional, biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, the Federal

Bureau of Investigation [FBI], part of the Department of Justice

[DOJ], was directed to lead crisis management, the measures needed to prevent or punish acts of terrorism.

In 1996, Congress directed the Department of Defense [DOD], to

provide consequence management training and equipment to cities

through what is now known as the Domestic Preparedness Program while also authorizing FEMA and DOJ to enhance the response capabilities of local police and fire departments. So the proposed transfer of the Domestic Preparedness Program from the Department of Defense to the Department of Justice offers the promise of one-stop shopping for State and local first responders, but

raises key questions that should be addressed before an act of terrorism puts that promise to the test.

The central question, does the consolidation of domestic preparedness programs in DOJ ignore the clear, necessary distinction

between crisis management and consequence management reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 May 21, 2001 Jkt 071842 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\59450 pfrm09 PsN: 59450
2

flected in the President’s original lead agency designations? Will

FEMA be able to assert a primary role in consequence management once the bulk of Federal training and equipment funds are

coming from Justice? How will DOJ resolve inevitable conflicts between the law enforcement imperative to maintain the integrity of

a crime scene and the equally compelling need to mitigate consequences by evacuating and decontaminating the same area when

they are responsible for both?

These are not abstract policy questions. When, not if, terrorists

strike within our borders again, Federal support will be indispensable to an effective local response. Unless that Federal effort is

properly structured and targeted, local planning may be inadequate, local preparations may be hazard, and critical assets may

be misallocated. More than 40 national departments and agencies

have responsibilities in the fight against domestic terrorism. Unless their roles are thoughtfully sorted out now, uncoordinated Federal assistance could, like the Keystone Cops of silent films, only

serve to confuse and confound local response operations.

Our witnesses today represent the key departments and agencies

involved in the proposed consolidation and transfer of domestic preparedness activities, DOJ, DOD, and FEMA. We appreciate their

testimony today and look forward to their continued cooperation in

the subcommittee’s oversight of Federal anti- and counterterrorism

programs.

When we talk about the number of departments within the Department of Justice, you have the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Marshals Service,

Drug Enforcement Agency, Office of Justice Programs.

Then you have the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Then you have the Department of Defense: Joint Chiefs of Staff;

U.S. Army; U.S. Navy; U.S. Marine Corps, particularly their chemical-biological incident response forces; U.S. Air Force; U.S. Special

Operations Command; U.S. Central Command, Defense Intelligence Agency; Advanced Research Projects Agency; Defense Information Systems Agency; Defense Special Weapons Agency; Director

of Military Support.

Department of State: U.S. Information Agency under State starting October 1999.

Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service; Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Department of Energy: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission;

Environmental Protection Agency.

Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration;

U.S. Coast Guard.

Department of Treasury: U.S. Customs Service; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; U.S. Secret Service.

Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, National

Security Council.

Department of Commerce.

Department of Veterans Affairs.

U.S. Postal Service, White House Communications Agency, U.S.

Capitol Police, Office of the Vice President, U.S. Supreme Court

Marshals Office, State and local entities with terrorism-related programs and activities, Governors’ offices, National Guard, State poVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 May 21, 2001 Jkt 071842 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\59450 pfrm09 PsN: 59450
3

lice, State fire, State Departments of Environmental Protection,

State Department of Emergency Management, State public health

departments, city-county fire departments, emergency medical

services, hazardous materials teams, urban search and rescue, city

and county police departments, sheriffs’ offices, hospitals, emergency room physicians. It is a long list.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]

4

5

6

Mr. SHAYS. At this time I would call our witnesses, the Honorable Charles L. Cragin, Acting Assistant Secretary for Reserve Affairs, Department of Defense; Mr. Andy Mitchell, Deputy Director,

Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support, Office

of Justice Programs, Department of Justice; Mrs. Barbara Y. Martinez, Deputy Director, National Domestic Preparedness Office,

Federal Emergency Management Agency; Ms. Catherine Light, Director, Office of National Security Affairs, Federal Emergency Management Agency. In place of Mr. Lacy Smith, we have Bruce P.

Baughman, who is the Director of Operations and Plans, Federal

Emergency Management Agency.

What I’m going to do, as you know we swear in all of our witnesses. If there is anyone that is going to accompany you, Mr.

Cragin, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Martinez, or Ms. Light, if you think you

would call on to actually say something, I would ask them to stand,

and we will swear them in as well in case they would be called

upon to speak.

If you would rise, and if there is anyone that you would suggest

that might, if you would raise your right hands, please.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SHAYS. Note for the record all five have responded in the affirmative, and it’s very nice to have all of you here. Mr. Cragin, it’s

nice to have you here, and I would ask you to open up this hearing.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. CRAGIN, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Mr. CRAGIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

the opportunity to speak with you today about this very, very important issue.

Let me briefly summarize the history and status of the DOD Domestic Preparedness Program as well as our plans for transitioning

leadership responsibility for the program to the Department of Justice.

The Domestic Preparedness Program, as you observed, was established to implement the provisions of the Defense Against

Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996. DOD was designated as

the interagency lead to carry out a program to provide civilian personnel in Federal, State and local agencies with the training and

expert advice regarding responses to a use or threatened use of a

weapon of mass destruction.

In 1997, DOD began providing training and expert assistance for

the Nation’s 120 largest cities. A listing of those cities and the status of their training is included as an attachment to my statement

for the record. To date 58 cities have participated in the training,

and more than 15,700 first responder trainers have been trained.

My Federal interagency counterparts participated in the initial

development of the training approach for this program, and they

continue to participate in the program’s execution today. The training approach for this program involves initial visits to selected cities to plan and customize the training; a week of ‘‘train the trainer’’

training for local first responder, HAZMAT, firefighter and law enforcement and emergency medical service personnel; tabletop and

functional hands-on exercises using chemical and biological sceVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 May 21, 2001 Jkt 071842 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\59450 pfrm09 PsN: 59450
7

narios to further reinforce this training; and a training equipment

package which is loaned to each city for their subsequent training

use.

Although I have oversight responsibility for this program, the

U.S. Army’s Soldier and Biological Chemical Command and the Director of Military Support serve as DOD’s principal agents for executing this training program. The program is accomplished largely

through contracts with certified professional instructors and subject matter experts in the areas of nuclear, radiological, chemical

and biological medicine; public health; law enforcement; and emergency response.

The enabling legislation for this program requires DOD to plan

and coordinate an annual Federal, State and local exercise to improve the integration of Federal, State and local response assets

during a WMD response. The fiscal year 1999 exercise will be held

in New York City in September and involves a biological scenario.

Other components of the Domestic Preparedness Program provide direct support and assistance to the first responder community. These include the Improved Response Program and the Expert Assistance Program.

The law requires that the Department annually use the lessons

learned from program execution to revise or update the program to

ensure the training is effective, that it is technically up-to-date and

is responsive to user requirements. While the Improved Response

Program helps to prevent technical obsolescence, responder feedback from the execution of training and exercises associated with

this program has profoundly influenced the training focus.

Without exception, the No. 1 request of first responders has been

to identify a single Federal agency to lead the training and equipping of first responders. As you observed in your opening statement

and in their words, they seek the ease, convenience and predictability of one-stop shopping at the Federal level.

Last summer, in an effort to respond to President Clinton’s direction to work more collaboratively and aggressively to combat terrorism, Deputy Secretary of Defense Hamre, Attorney General

Reno, FEMA Director Witt, FBI Deputy Director Bryant and Director Clarke from the NSC met to discuss the feasibility of accomplishing that objective. The result was an agreement in principal

that the Department of Justice would assume lead Federal agency

responsibility for the WMD Domestic Preparedness Program.

Since that time the Department of Defense and Department of

Justice have been formulating and negotiating the terms of an

interagency agreement to transfer lead responsibility for the WMD

Domestic Preparedness Program from DOD to DOJ beginning in

October of the year 2000. Although our negotiations are not yet

concluded, we are moving toward finalizing that agreement. DOD

will retain responsibility for the city training and equipping program until the end of fiscal year 2000, at which time DOJ will

honor the commitment to train the remainder of the originally designated 120 cities. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, DOJ will coordinate with DOD during city training planning visits and will provide training equipment grants to cities trained by DOD in fiscal

year 2000.

8

The transition will occur in stages to accommodating existing

budgets and program plans. Checks and balances are built into the

staged approach to the transition. DOJ will coordinate with DOD

throughout fiscal year 2000 and will participate in joint planning

as articulated in the finalized Memorandum of Understanding

which we hope to complete in early summer.

DOD’s focus beginning in fiscal year 2001 will be to continue to

enhance the readiness of its WMD response units as well as installation responders. DOJ will focus on the domestic preparedness of

State and local responders. As a result both Departments will contribute funding to benefit from the lessons learned from the Improved Response Program beginning in fiscal year 2001. Joint planning will be conducted through a multiagency task force to coordinate improvements needed not only for State and local response,

but also for DOD’s military WMD response elements.

Beginning in fiscal year 2001, the Department of Justice will assume full responsibility for managing and funding the first responder hotline, the helpline, and the Internet Web site. DOD will

continue to fund and maintain the data base of WMD-related

chemical-biological information and the equipment testing program

as these program elements are integral to satisfying the DOD mission. DOJ will coordinate with DOD in joint planning efforts so

that the State and local responder communities will continue to

benefit from these Expert Assistance Programs.

DOD will also continue to maintain at least one domestic terrorism rapid response team capable of aiding Federal, State, and

local officials in the detection, neutralization, containment, dismantlement and disposal of WMD chem-bio materials as was required by the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici law. In fiscal year 1999 a

chemical-biological rapid response team as well as 10 rapid assessment and initial detection teams were established to meet that requirement. In fiscal year 2000, DOD has requested the funding to

support the establishment of an additional five RAID teams.

The Department of Defense will continue to support the Department of Justice both during the transition and following its completion. The continued partnership for WMD preparation among local,

State and Federal authorities is mandatory for our success. The recently enacted fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act has made that point very clear. Title III of the act acknowledges the new leadership role of the Department of Justice

in combating terrorism and the need to actively engage the 54

States and territories in the development of a national WMD preparedness strategy.

The act requires that a fully coordinated final NDPO, that is the

National Domestic Preparedness Office, blueprint outlining the

specific roles and involvement of all Federal, State and local NDPO

participants be submitted to Congress within the next few weeks.

The NDPO must develop a plan for consulting with the States and

developing and implementing a national strategy for domestic preparedness that builds on the existing all-hazard emergency management capabilities.

Among other things, Mr. Chairman, the act requires the Attorney General to request that each State Governor designate a lead

State agency or other entity to develop a comprehensive State-level

9

domestic preparedness plan. Each State plan is to be based on a

State-level needs assessment that identifies local and State first responder needs and provides an assessment of the resources currently available at the local, State and Federal level. My colleague

Mr. Mitchell will discuss in more detail the needs assessment process.

Since President Clinton issued PDD–62 a year ago to enhance

our Nation’s capability to combat domestic terrorism, there has

been a concerted interagency cooperative effort to coordinate and

streamline our programs in a way that is fairly consistent with this

most recent round of congressional direction.

We know what we need to do. We have made a good beginning,

but we have a very long way to go. The NDPO is getting started,

and the Attorney General has the full support of the Department

of Defense in her leadership role. We are faced with a multiyear

effort, which requires cooperation, patience and a long-term commitment. I thank you, sir, for your continued support and interest

in this vitally important area.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Cragin.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cragin follows:]

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Mr. SHAYS. I want to correct the record. Mr. Mitchell, you are

next. Mrs. Martinez, you are not from FEMA, you are from the Department of Justice.

Mrs. MARTINEZ. Yes, I am.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you for your restraint.

Mrs. MARTINEZ. We have a great partnership.

Mr. SHAYS. Anyway, great to have you from the Department of

Justice. I was wondering who would represent the Department of

Justice here. OK. You are on, Mr. Mitchell.

STATEMENT OF ANDY MITCHELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE

FOR STATE AND LOCAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS SUPPORT, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Tierney. On behalf of Attorney General Janet Reno, Assistant

Attorney General Laurie Robinson, I am pleased to be here today

to discuss OJP’s programs to enhance the capabilities of State and

local first responders to deal with domestic terrorism involving

weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Mitchell, let me just have you suspend for 1 second to recognize that Mr. Tierney is here. I apologize. I would ask

unanimous consent that all members of the subcommittee be permitted to place any opening statement in the record and that the

record remain open for 3 days for that purpose. Without objection,

so ordered. I ask further unanimous consent that all Members be

permitted to include their written statement, too, in the record, and

without objection, so ordered. Thank you. I am sorry, Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. MITCHELL. No problem. Thank you. In 1998, the Attorney

General delegated authority for key facets of DOJ’s Domestic Preparedness Program to the Assistant Attorney General for the Office

of Justice Programs, who in turn proposed the creation of the Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support to develop

and administer critically needed financial and technical support to

the Nation’s first responders.

Building on experience developed through 30 years of providing

public safety and law enforcement support for training and technical assistance to State and local governments, OJP is focusing on

five interrelated areas. First, we are conducting a national needs

assessment to better help allocate resources and direct our design

of training and exercise programs to meet the needs of the first responders as they define those needs.

Second, our office is providing financial assistance to enable

State and local jurisdictions to buy much needed equipment. This

fiscal year OJP will award $85.5 million to over 200 cities and the

50 States. We just finalized our agreements with appropriation

staff yesterday, and we will have information for the committee on

how those funds will be distributed early next week.

Third, OJP offers a broad spectrum of training to ensure that

State and local emergency response personnel, fire, law enforcement, HAZMAT, EMS, and public officials have the knowledge,

skills and abilities to respond safely and effectively to a terrorist

incident.

20

Fourth, OJP will support local-level tabletop and functional exercises for State and local agencies to help identify strengths and

weaknesses within their current response plans.

And fifth, we offer a wide range of technical assistance to help

transfer knowledge and assist State and local agencies to make

critical decisions the domestic preparedness issue requires.

In delivering training and equipment to emergency personnel,

OJP will closely coordinate and cooperate with the Department of

Justice’s National and Domestic Preparedness Office [NDPO], as

Mr. Cragin has already discussed, which was proposed to coordinate Federal domestic preparedness initiatives and to serve as a

single point of contact for first responders for information on Federal preparedness programs. In working with the NDPO, OJP participates in an intergovernmental coordination process that helps

all Federal agencies to better focus and coordinate program policy

across the Federal Government.

In formulating our plans, OJP in concert with NDPO has made

every effort to coordinate existing and planned domestic preparedness programs with those sponsored by other Federal agencies.

This coordinated approach helps ensure that our programs are integrated with those efforts and that program funding is maximized

to deliver the best training in the most effective manner.

In particular, the intergovernmental coordination has been very

significant and effective as the Departments of Defense and Justice

are planning to transfer the Nunn-Lugar Domestic Preparedness

Program. The Department of Justice is committed to completing

the training in the 120 jurisdictions originally identified by DOD.

Our two departments are working extremely well with excellent coordination between the agencies, particularly from the staff of the

Reserve Affairs Office headed by Mr. Cragin.

I am confident that the program transition will result in a much

more robust and comprehensive Federal training program for the

Nation’s first responders, enabling OJP to integrate our existing

training and other domestic preparedness assets with the Domestic

Preparedness Program implementation.

The integration will also address legitimate concerns regarding

the two programs having different target groups with different

mechanisms. As Charlie said, the memorandum of agreement is

undergoing final review, and we should hope to have that finalized

by this summer.

The training equipment component of Nunn-Lugar is a critical

element. OJP will provide grants for this purpose for the 20 cities

beginning the training in fiscal year 2000 under DOD’s leadership

and in subsequent years. This will eliminate confusion and the difficulties inherent with the current equipment loan program. This

is another area where OJP’s grantmaking authorities and capabilities can enhance the program implementation.

A major element of our program in OJP is the National Domestic

Preparedness Consortium. Funding for all five members was provided for the first time in fiscal year 1999 to develop and implement specialized training for first responders. Each of the consortium members, Louisiana State University, Texas A&M University,

the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, the Department of Energy’s Nevada test site and OJP’s Center for Domestic

21

Preparedness at Fort McClellan, AL, has unique capabilities and

expertise that will contribute to more diverse, well-rounded training opportunities for the Nation’s first response community and

will add significantly to the training opportunities for these responders.

Throughout the development of OJP’s programs and under the

umbrella of the NDPO and our Federal partners, we have made

every effort to keep in close touch with those that we are here to

serve, the Nation’s first responders. We will work closely with, for

example, the National Emergency Management Association, the

National Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Sheriffs Association and other key stakeholder groups. With their help and constant feedback, we will continue to develop and improve our programs so that we can enhance the Nation’s ability to deal with

events that we all hope will never occur. Thank you, and I will be

happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

Mr. SHAYS. We will hear from Mrs. Martinez now.

STATEMENT OF BARBARA Y. MARTINEZ, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

MRS. MARTINEZ. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you

for this opportunity to speak before distinguished Members of Congress and my colleagues regarding the proposed role of the National Domestic Preparedness Office in combating terrorism within

the United States. My intent is to highlight the importance of

achieving coordination across the Federal Government of the various individual agency efforts that currently provide valuable assistance to State and local communities in preparing them to face

the challenge that terrorism presents.

As you have noted, over 40 Federal agencies would have a role

in the response to a true terrorist attack involving weapons of mass

destruction. So, too, are many of these agencies in a logical position

to provide various forms of expert assistance to prepare their State

and local counterparts whose job it is to save lives and protect the

security of our communities if such an event occurs.

The mission of the National Domestic Preparedness Office, as

recommended to the Attorney General by State and local authorities, will be to serve as the central coordinating body for Federal

programs that can help emergency responders prepare for such

events.

As you know, in the past few years Congress and the President

have taken significant steps to increase our national security and

to promote interagency cooperation. Most recently, cooperative efforts against terrorism have been expanded to include State and

local agencies as well as professional and private sector associations. For example, in the preparation of the administration’s 5-

year interagency counterterrorism and technology crime plan, the

Attorney General sought the input of over 200 local and State representatives of response disciplines that would be most likely involved in the response to a terrorist event. Collectively, fire services and HAZMAT personnel, law enforcement and public safety

personnel, emergency medical and public health professionals,

emergency management, local and State government officials as

well as various professional associations and organizations recommended to the Attorney General and others on ways to improve

Federal assistance for State and local communities. These recommendations have been incorporated into the administration’s 5-

year plan.

The most critical issue identified by stakeholders was the need

for a central Federal point of coordination. Due to the size and

complexity of both the problem of terrorism and the Federal Government itself, it was no surprise that the many different avenues

through which aid may be required by State and local officials and

the resulting inconsistency in those programs was simply deemed

to be overwhelming. In essence, the Federal Government, though

well intended, was not operating in an optimal manner, nor was it

effectively serving its constituents with regard to domestic preparedness programs and issues.

38

State and local response officials made a strong recommendation

in the presence of the Attorney General and the presence of the Director of FEMA and the Secretary of Defense for the coordination

and integration of all the Federal programs that rate State and

local agencies for terrorism preparedness. In heeding that recommendation, the Attorney General further conferred with the National Security Council, FEMA, HHS, DOD and others, and with

their support proposed the National Domestic Preparedness Office.

If approved, the office will provide a productive forum for the coordination of the vital efforts of the Office of Justice Program’s Office for State and Local Preparedness Support, FEMA, Department

of Defense, National Guard, EPA, the environmental agency, the

Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human

Services, FBI, and the many other Federal agencies with related

assistance programs.

Stakeholders also cited the need for formal representation of

State and local authorities along with the Federal agencies in the

form of an advisory board to guide the development and delivery

of more effective Federal programs. Federal agencies agreed that

State and local participation is critical to the whole process of domestic preparedness. Therefore, in addition to the advisory board,

it is anticipated that when fully staffed, the NDPO will be staffed

approximately one-third by State and local experts from various

disciplines. These positions will be filled through establishment of

interagency reimbursable agreements or contract hires.

Overall the NDPO will serve as a clearinghouse to provide information to local and State officials who must determine the preparedness strategy for their community. The stakeholders easily

identified six broad issue areas in need of coordination assistance:

planning, training, exercise, equipment research and development,

information sharing, and public health and medical services. If I

could, I would like to highlight just a few of these, the efforts the

NDPO could engage in.

In the area of training, the NDPO would establish a mechanism

to ensure that Federal training programs comply with minimal national standards, such as those of the National Fire Protection Association, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The

NDPO could also develop a national strategy to make sustained

training opportunities and assistance available to all communities

and States nationwide. The NDPO would maintain an after-action

tracking data base for the repository and review of all lessons

learned during exercises and actual events that might assist other

communities.

In connection with information sharing, the NDPO can implement a mechanism to facilitate access by personnel outside law enforcement to information that would be critical for preparedness

and consequence management.

In the area of equipment research and development, the NDPO,

with direct input by emergency responders, has already established

a standardized equipment list which has been incorporated into the

grant application kits used by the Office of Justice Programs. The

NDPO again would serve as a clearinghouse for product information provided by private vendors and testing data provided by approved testing facilities, including those of Department of Defense,

39

to promote a synergy and avoid costly duplication in the area of

Federal research and development.

Finally, in the area of health and medical services, the NDPO,

under the guidance of the Public Health Service of the Department

of Health and Human Services, would coordinate the efforts to support the metropolitan medical response systems, pharmaceutical

stockpiling systems, the establishment of a nationwide surveillance

system, and over other efforts to improve the identification of infectious diseases and the overall integration of the public health and

mental health care community into the WMD response plans.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you

today and in the future as the NDPO continues to mature into the

one-stop shopping for domestic preparedness as proposed by the Attorney General of the United States. She has recently said that the

actions of the first people on the scene can really make a difference

between life and death, and the key is to work together in a partnership among Federal, State, and local communities to prepare a

coordinated response that saves lives and provides for the safety of

all involved. I will answer any questions that you may have.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much, Mrs. Martinez.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Martinez follows:]

40

41

42

43

44

45

Mr. SHAYS. Ms. Light.

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE LIGHT, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY BRUCE BAUGHMAN,

DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND PLANS, RESPONSE AND RECOVERY, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Ms. LIGHT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Mr.

Tierney. On behalf of Director James Lee Witt, thank you for the

opportunity to discuss the status of terrorism-related Domestic Preparedness Program activities. I have provided a written statement

and will now summarize key points from that statement. First I

will give a brief overview of FEMA’s roles and responsibilities with

respect to domestic terrorism and then discuss our position on the

proposed transfer of the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program from the Department of Defense to the Department

of Justice.

FEMA is the Federal Government’s lead agency for consequence

management preparedness and response to domestic incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. FEMA uses the Federal Response Plan [FRP], as the vehicle to coordinate the Federal consequence management activities. Over the years, the FRP has been

used in numerous Presidentially declared disasters and emergencies. The plan brings together 27 departments and agencies to

organize Federal disaster response and recovery efforts in support

of State and local requirements. Most importantly, the FRP provides a known and flexible framework under which local, State and

Federal officials can orchestrate their response and make the most

effective use of available resources.

In implementing its domestic preparedness activities, FEMA

strives to ensure four key points: First, that State and local first

responders and emergency management personal are the focus of

the Federal programs; second, that the needs of the balance of the

Nation, not just the largest cities and the metropolitan areas, are

addressed; third, that initial training is reinforced and sustained

with refresher information and updated instruction; and finally,

that existing plans, systems and capabilities are used as the foundation for addressing the unique requirements of responding to terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction.

FEMA Director Witt has been working closely with the Attorney

General to better coordinate interagency efforts for domestic preparedness including support for the National Domestic Preparedness Office. In addition to supporting the NDPO, FEMA will continue its lead agency responsibilities for consequence management.

With respect to planning, FEMA applies experience gained in responding to natural disasters to the development of plans and procedures for terrorism response. In 1997, we published the Terrorism Incident Annex to the Federal Response Plan, and we continue to work with the interagency community to refine our response. In addition, FEMA grant assistance is being used to enhance State and local planning resources and capabilities.

In the area of training, FEMA has developed and delivered a

number of terrorism-related courses utilizing existing networks and

facilities. In particular, we rely on the National Emergency TrainVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 May 21, 2001 Jkt 071842 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\59450 pfrm09 PsN: 59450
46

ing Center, which includes the Emergency Management Institute

and the National Fire Academy as well as State fire and emergency

management training systems to deliver terrorism-related training

to States and local responders. Additionally, the Emergency Management Institute developed a Senior Officials Workshop for DOD’s

Nunn-Lugar-Domenici program, and the National Fire Academy

worked very closely with the Department of Justice to provide a

curriculum for DOJ’s metropolitan fire and emergency services

training.

Regarding exercises, we are working very closely with the NDPO,

FBI, other departments and agencies in the States to ensure the

development of a comprehensive exercise program that meets State

and local needs.

As for equipment, we assisted in the development of the standardized equipment list that has been referenced earlier today.

With respect to the proposed transfer of the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program, FEMA strongly supports the

transfer from DOD to DOJ. FEMA has worked very closely with

DOD and the interagency community to help institutionalize the

process, and we will continue to work very closely with the Department of Justice as the program is transferred to them.

FEMA is committed to work with the Federal interagency community in coordinating our activities and programs as part of the

overall Federal effort, and we are committed to doing everything

that we can to better prepare the States and local jurisdictions for

dealing with this immense challenge.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to address this subcommittee.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Light follows:]

47

48

49

50

51

52

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you all very much. First, let me say this will

be the first of a number of hearings. The advantage that this committee has is that we are an investigative committee. We are not

a committee that promulgates legislation. We advocate legislation

and then encourage other committees to do it, but we really look

at how programs are working.

The advantage that this committee has is that we aren’t limited

by one department or agency. We have total jurisdiction in the

Government Reform Committee of terrorism and anything related

to it, whether it be in the Department of Defense, Department of

Justice, FEMA or anywhere else. We think that we need to take

advantage of that.

Second, this is really our first hearing, so I am going to go

through questions that have been written out because we really

want them on the record. I am interested in asking some other

questions as well, but I am going to go through to put these on the

record. Some of them are in your statement, but I want them in

response to the questions that I ask.

The other thing that I want to say is that we really are putting

you all in the same table. I am not trying to pit one against the

other, but I am going to ask questions that will hopefully force us

to just come to grips with why decisions are made and so on.

So, one, I appreciate the fact that you all wanted to be at the

same table, but I think what you all are doing is one of the most

important things. It is one reason why I chose to chair this committee. One of my greatest concerns is not an errant missile that

comes to the United States. It is a suitcase or a bomb in a truck

left in Times Square, the absolute rejoicing that some nations

would have if this great country were wounded in some way.

I also say that while your faces may not be public, I believe they

will during the course of the next years because I do think there

will be a terrorist attack; hopefully not one of great magnitude, but

I think there will be. The odds are there will be, in my judgment.

There are three weapons of choice, whether they be chemical, biological or, in fact, even nuclear. So you all are on a very important

mission.

These questions are going to be first addressed to all of you. I

think, Mr. Cragin, this came from your statement. You said,

The Attorney General announced last October a plan to transfer the Nunn-LugarDomenici Domestic Preparedness Program from the Department of Defense to the

Department of Justice. DOJ and DOD are finalizing the Memorandum of Understanding on the transfer of the Domestic Preparedness Program. This MOU will set

forth how the transfer will be implemented.

I would like to just know a little bit more about that ultimately,

but first I would like to ask, Mr. Cragin, why was the decision

made to transfer the Domestic Preparedness Program? What was

the motivation to do that?

Mr. CRAGIN. Initially, Mr. Chairman, the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici

legislation itself authorized the President, beginning on October 1,

1999, or thereafter, to designate an agency other than the Department of Defense as the lead agency for conducting the Domestic

Preparedness Program. So we have the existence of the legislation.

Second, we had been involved, and have been historically, as a

supporting agency in the Federal inventory supporting FEMA and

53

supporting the Department of Justice. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there was a great deal of confusion, as Mrs. Martinez

mentioned in hers, within the first responder community. They

were coming to the Department of Defense for certain aspects; they

were coming to the Department of Justice for others. We also had

as part of this constellation of events that was occurring—in fact,

just a year ago, May 22 of last year, President Clinton issued Presidential Directive 62, which really directed the Federal agencies to

have a much more programmatic and collaborative approach to coordination of WMD responses. So you had all of this happening.

Dr. Hamre looked at the mission of the Department of Defense

as a mission to provide support, but recognized that we really

didn’t on a daily basis have direct contact with the first responder

community, and that the Department of Justice did have that sort

of daily contact through all of the FBI agents in, I think, the 56

field offices out there.

Frankly, it was a very collaborative discussion, as I mentioned in

my statement, between Dr. Hamre and Ms. Reno and Director Witt

and Mr. Richard Clarke, who, as you know, is designated as the

national Director for the critical infrastructure and domestic terrorism at the NSC, and Mr. Bryant from the FBI. A conclusion was

reached following those discussions that it was in the best interests

of America and in the best interests of providing the support to

first responders that we transfer this program to the Department

of Justice.

Mr. SHAYS. Would anyone else like to add to that response?

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I think at the time, as Charlie indicated, there were a number of Federal programs, DOD and the

one in DOJ predominantly, that had similar targets, but different

lists of groups that were eligible in different cities. One of the

things that I think the transfer will accomplish is to eliminate any

redundancy or confusion as to who is eligible for what and provide

a much more comprehensive Federal training program to make a

wider range of training and equipment and other assistance available in a much more integrated fashion. So I think that the transfer in addition to the legal and policy aspects of it, just organizationally, it seemed to make sense, and I believe that the first responder community has responded well to the proposal. We have

not heard any concerns or anxieties from our end that they are concerned about that.

Mr. SHAYS. Would anyone else want to make a comment? The

second question is the decision that you did respond to, why DOJ

and not FEMA? I would tell you that in some ways it seems that

FEMA has more contact with local communities in terms of I would

think that they would be more likely to want to be the one that

would provide the training and the preparedness for the consequence management. So it was surprising to me that DOJ

grabbed it instead of FEMA. So my question is why DOJ and not

FEMA?

Mr. CRAGIN. I think one of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, was because we had two programs that were going down tandem tracks.

We had the Equipment Grant Program that was being administered by the Department of Justice and, in fact, has been significantly plussed up in the last year or so. And we had the Domestic

54

Preparedness Training Program that was over at the Department

of Defense. So there was almost——

Mr. SHAYS. I know why it left DOD. I do know that, but I don’t

know why you chose to go DOJ instead.

Mr. CRAGIN. Because they were doing the equipment grants. Say,

for example, FEMA ended up doing the training. You still have

Justice doing the equipping, so you don’t have a one-stop shop.

Mr. SHAYS. I understand.

Why would not the equipment go to FEMA? It seems to me that

that would have been the logical place to put it.

Mr. CRAGIN. That was the wisdom of Congress, Mr. Shays, that

the equipment grants programs were in the Department of Justice.

Mr. SHAYS. But it is also the wisdom of Congress that the other

part was at DOD.

Mr. CRAGIN. But it was the wisdom of Congress that after October 1, 1999, that portion could, in fact, be transferred to the other

agency.

Mr. SHAYS. Right, but the question is why didn’t we transfer

both to FEMA? That is what I am trying to get at. It seems to me

that DOJ is basically going to be focused on really the issue of crisis management to prevent a crime and then to punish the criminal. FEMA seems logically to me to be the one that works with

local communities, tries to prepare them for the consequence management, and it would seem to me that they should be the ones

dealing with the equipment and management and training, et

cetera. That is what I am trying to sort out. There may not be a

perfect answer, but I would at least like to know.

Mr. MITCHELL. In the instance of the agency administering the

training and equipment and other support programs, it is the Office of Justice Programs which is the principal grantmaking agency. It is an operational agency, as the FBI would be, in the crisis

management responsibilities. So the mission of OJP is solely to

provide a wide variety of training and technical and financial support to State and local governments on a wide range of public safety issues. This is one of many public safety areas in which OJP has

an aggressive and very comprehensive relationship with Governors,

mayors, elected officials, public safety officials throughout the

United States.

Mr. SHAYS. Feel free to jump in.

Mr. TIERNEY. Excuse us going back and forth. We have some of

the same curiosity. Doesn’t FEMA have the same kind of relationships? FEMA might know that.

Mr. SHAYS. Ms. Light, if you would move the microphone down

a little lower.

Ms. LIGHT. Is that better?

Yes, FEMA is responsible for consequence management, and

FEMA does have an excellent relationship with the emergency

management and the fire community because we deal with them

very regularly. Just as we deal with those communities, however,

the Department of Justice deals very regularly with the law enforcement community, which is also a very essential component, as

does the Department of Health and Human Services deal with the

health officials that are part of the response also.

55

Regardless of the department or agency who has lead responsibility, the program is one in which all of the departments and

agencies need to continue to work very closely together to make

sure that we are meeting the needs of the first responders across

the spectrum; emergency management, fire, law enforcement,

health and medical personnel. We have been very much a part of

that program both at the national level and in delivering it out in

the communities, and we will continue to be very much a part of

that program as the program is transferred to the Department of

Justice. It will do nothing really to diminish our role with respect

to consequence management in the aftermath of a disaster. We will

still have that lead responsibility, and we will still utilize the Federal response framework for responding to disasters.

Mr. SHAYS. But what makes the question for me, though, is the

contact you would have by the equipment and the training is now

going to be handled by someone else. You won’t have that kind of

contact. It seems to me that it would have been logical to develop

that relationship because the training for the consequence management is going to be done by someone else, but you are the one that

is ultimately going to have to deal with the consequences.

Ms. LIGHT. We will deal with the consequences, but we are very

much involved in the delivery of that training. We assisted in the

development of that training. In fact, we developed a particular

course that met the needs of the local responders, and we will continue to be a part of the delivery of that training even as the program is transferred to the Department of Justice. Every city visit,

every training program, every exercise that is associated with that

we are a part of and will continue to be a part of.

Mr. SHAYS. That is helpful.

Mr. TIERNEY. What is DOJ going to do?

Ms. LIGHT. Pardon me?

Mr. TIERNEY. What is the Department of Justice going to do with

respect to training?

Ms. LIGHT. The training program, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, the Federal Emergency Management Agency,

EPA, HHS, and Department of Energy are all integral parts of that

training program. When we go out to the cities and deliver that

program, all of us are there as a united entity.

Mr. TIERNEY. Under the direction of DOJ?

Ms. LIGHT. Yes, that would be the case. Now, under the direction

of DOD, but then under the direction of DOD, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. If the transfer is going to move to DOJ, which it is,

why not place everything in the Office of Justice Programs, which

already has established State and local relations for administering

law enforcement grants and programs?

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, the vast majority, the assistancerelated programs of the Domestic Preparedness Program, the city

visit training, the equipment component, training equipment component, the Improved Response Program that deals with enhancing

the training for State and local first response benefits will be transferred to the Office of Justice Programs.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. When is this transfer going to begin to take

place, and when will it be completed?

56

Mr. MITCHELL. The initial transition planning and integration

will begin this summer as we go out, our staff, the companies, the

DOD program personnel, to the initial regional kickoffs for the jurisdictions that will begin the training process, the 20 cities that

will begin the process in fiscal year 2000, and then we will increasingly participate. The program is complex, and there is a fairly long

time line associated from the first initial contact with the city

through the completion of the field exercise and the bio tabletop at

the end of this process. So our MOU is quite specific as to the

DOJ–DOD coordination on those jurisdictions where there will be

a residual activity remaining after the transfer occurs on October

1, 2000.

Mr. SHAYS. What will happen to the existing DOD contracts?

Mr. CRAGIN. The existing DOD contracts will either reach their

conclusion as far as the fiscal year applicability is concerned, or

they will be transferred to the Department of Justice. That is an

issue that we look at on a regular basis because of the fiscal year

program. We are going to be budgeting some last-quarter dollars in

the preceding fiscal year to get over to the first quarter of the transition year so that there is absolutely no hiatus in the program evolution. From the city’s perspective, Mr. Chairman, this will be completely transparent to them.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Thank you.

Mr. Cragin, I think this is also from your statement. You said

the Domestic Preparedness Program currently consists of five program elements: One, the city, training the trainer programs. The

second one was the annual Federal, State and local—FSL—exercise. I think the third one is the Improved Response Program

[IRP]; four, expert assistance; and five, chemical and biological response. What parts of the program will DOD retain, and what

parts of the program will DOJ receive of these?

Mr. CRAGIN. As I indicated in my opening statement, we are essentially going to retain the chemical and biological rapid response

team. As you know, the legislation required that the Department

of Defense establish at least one of those teams. We have established that in fiscal year 1999.

Mr. SHAYS. That is within the marine—— Mr. CRAGIN. That is an amalgam of expertise within the Department of Defense. That includes and can utilize, for example, the

tech escort units, Chemical and Biological Incident Response Task

Force from the Marine Corps. But we have also established, and

not up and running yet, and I believe this committee is going to

have a hearing to discuss the topic on June 23, what we call rapid

assessment and initial detection teams, which will be fielded

through the United States to assist State and local authorities in

assessing an event in determining exactly what they are dealing

with and providing support. So we are going to retain those things.

We are also going to retain part of the expert assistance aspects

because we have mission requirements for those activities within

the Department of Defense.

Mr. SHAYS. As it relates to the trainer program, what part will

DOJ assume, and what part will DOD continue?

Mr. CRAGIN. DOJ will assume the entire aspect of that program.

That is essentially the guts, so to speak, of the Domestic PreparedVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 May 21, 2001 Jkt 071842 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\59450 pfrm09 PsN: 59450
57

ness Program where they go out, as we have to date, with 58 cities

and about 15,700 first responders, and we train them as trainers

so that you get the leveraged capacity of them going forward to

train additional personnel.

Mr. SHAYS. When will the FSL Exercise Improvement Response

Program be transferred to Justice?

Mr. CRAGIN. That will not be transferred, Mr. Chairman, because

by the law the Department of Defense is only required to conduct

that for a 5-year period. So 2001 will be the last year of that program, and we have agreed to maintain that as a Department of Defense-led activity. But I echo Ms. Light’s comments to you. This is

an interagency process. Everybody is collaborative in working this

process, and they all participate in the exercise planning as well.

Mr. SHAYS. I think that is clear. I think it is important for us

to begin to appreciate all of the parts to it, which leads me to ask

after 2001, won’t the program continue? Won’t Congress authorize

it up to 2001?

Mr. CRAGIN. I am going to let Mr. Mitchell respond to the question of the program, but I want to emphasize the Federal, State

and local annual exercise aspect expires at the end of 5 years. The

rest of the program continues.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me just say, you are going to be having an exercise this year in New York City?

Mr. CRAGIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. That will involve how much; over what period of time

will that exercise take place? I am sure that you are planning for

it now, but is that a 1-day event? Is it a 5-day event?

Mr. CRAGIN. I am not sure about the specific days. It will be

more than a day, I can tell you that.

Mr. SHAYS. Actually, I can get into that issue later, that is a little off subject. I will try to make a point to be there if I can.

Mr. CRAGIN. We would be happy to provide your staff with all of

the necessary information.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, we fully intend to take the program as exists and through the interagency process that we are engaging in now to determine what would be the next phase of the

Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Training Program,

recognizing that 120 municipalities, while a large part populationwise of the country, there are areas of the country, 12 States,

where there has been no program activity at all.

So we are going to look at the requirements and also look at

some of the ways that we can improve the delivery of that, hopefully over the next few years, to have a more objective means of

targeting not only the Domestic Preparedness Program training,

but equipment and others on something other than population,

which gets to the needs assessment and the other activities that

are under way now, which hopefully will give us a broader range

of criteria and something more substantive to base targeting of

training equipment on other than population, certainly to address

the support in those 12 States where there has been no NunnLugar-Domenici or OJP involvement.

58

Mr. SHAYS. When you do this training exercise, you invite community leaders from other areas to witness and participate? There

has got to be an answer yes, because I see a nodding of the head

in the audience.

Mr. CRAGIN. I don’t want to say that I anticipated the question,

but I happen to be reading an after-action report on a domestic

preparedness training session that was done out in Oakland, CA.

It was 1 of the 120 cities. This is the student demographics that

they report. Students were selected by the local jurisdiction and

represented several key responder disciplines, major disciplines,

firefighters, law enforcement, emergency medical service and hospital care providers. Other students included representatives from

the Federal Aviation Agency; Federal Bureau of Investigation; U.S.

Air Force; U.S. Army Reserve; and the U.S. Department of Energy;

California Army National Guard; California Office of Emergency

Services and the California EMS Authority; Alameda County Fire;

Contra Costa County Health; OES and sheriff, cities of Alameda,

Berkeley, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, Newark, Presidio of

Monterrey, Richmond, Salinas, San Francisco, San Leandro, San

Rafael and Emeryville; city of Oakland Public Works and Office of

Emergency Services; American Medical Response; Bay Area Rapid

Transit; Lawrence Livermore National Lab; Oakland Coliseum;

Port of Oakland; and Stanford University.

Mr. SHAYS. So the answer is yes?

Mr. CRAGIN. The answer is yes.

Mr. SHAYS. DOD has said, Mr. Cragin, that it will retain control

of the chemical-biological rapid response team. But my question is

to Mrs. Martinez. Does FBI have or plan to have any WMD rapid

response teams of its own?

Mrs. MARTINEZ. In the way of rapid response teams, I would say

we are offering training to the technician level HAZMAT in each

of our offices—excuse me, in 10 of our offices. Operations level has

been met in the remaining 41. I would offer that this largely has

to do with the event of collecting evidence in a contaminated crime

scene as opposed to moving in to do that job that would otherwise

be done by State and local HAZMAT professionals. We feel there

will be a teaming and concerted training effort for sustainment of

certification between the local offices and the local fire and

HAZMAT teams, not to replace, though, the other teams.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much.

Let me just ask a question here of counsel.

Thank you.

Mr. Tierney.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.

Mr. Mitchell, the testimony indicated that under the current program there are 120 cities designated to receive training and equipment loans. Prior to the announcement of the proposed transfer,

GAO criticized the Department of Defense for delivering the Domestic Preparedness Program to cities rather than larger metropolitan areas that GAO said would have greatly increased the coverage. Does the DOJ plan to change that geographic methodology

for determining which places receive training and equipment?

Mr. MITCHELL. Congressman, we certainly concur that there is

limited utility in focusing on a single hub city where under existing

59

mutual aid agreements and other protocols there is going to be a

joint response. I will—in DOD’s defense, they have, as based on

Mr. Cragin’s reason—they have made incremental changes over

time as required by law to broaden that net. We certainly intend

to maintain that broad base so that—working with the local jurisdiction to identify and involve in training all relevant first response

units within the surrounding jurisdictions.

Mr. TIERNEY. Yes?

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.

How many of the original 120 cities under the Domestic Preparedness Program will not be trained prior to the date of transfer?

Mr. CRAGIN. Well, we have done 58. I think that we are looking

at 69 that will be fairly well along in the transfer. As Mr. Mitchell

said, Congressman Tierney, this is a lengthy process that goes on

over a year by the time you get to the local exercise aspects of it.

We have a very precise transition plan with three stages that is articulated in our Memorandum of Understanding, which, as we indicated, we expect will be finalized in summer.

Mr. TIERNEY. You anticipate that all of those that aren’t, at the

time of transfer it can be guaranteed that they eventually will be

trained?

Mr. CRAGIN. That is correct.

Mr. MITCHELL. Under the current MOU, there are really two

phases. Phase one is all of the preliminary meetings up through

and including the delivery of the training and the fielding of the

chemical tabletop. And then there is a subsequent period of time

where they conduct their training and the other exercise is

planned, which is phase two. Under the current agreement, DOD

by the end of fiscal year 2000 would have provided complete training, complete phase one and phase two to 68 jurisdictions, and they

will have completed a phase one training to an additional 37, which

will bring a total of 105 jurisdictions that have actually received

the training. The remaining 37 will be exercised—the phase two

exercise will be part of the transition for responsibilities to OJP.

But there will only be 15 of 120 cities as of the date of the transfer

that have not begun the process.

Mr. TIERNEY. They will still get it?

Mr. MITCHELL. That is true. They will be the first group of cities

that will be targeted to receive the program in fiscal year 2001.

Mr. TIERNEY. One significant change of the program appears to

be that the Department of Justice will offer equipment grants to

cities that it trains after the transfer; is that right?

Mr. MITCHELL. That is right.

Mr. TIERNEY. What about those cities that got loans prior to the

transfer? Are they going to do anything with that, change the nature of that relationship?

Mr. CRAGIN. I think this is another perfect example of why we

needed this all in one shop, Congressman Tierney. Under the legislation that we were administering at the Department of Defense,

there really was no equipment grant program authorized. So essentially what the Department did is it provided a modest amount of

equipment that could be utilized for training purposes, and it was,

to use the term of art, on loan. I would suggest it was on loan in

60

perpetuity, and I think that the GAO made some comment about

that in their evaluation.

But we are talking about equipment grants for an inventory of

equipment that the first responders can utilize operationally rather

than just having a training set. I think the Department of Justice

moved forward with this. They are going to be looking at each of

these entities having the ability to compete and submit requests for

equipment grants regardless of whether they receive the equipment

loan for training purposes from the Department of Defense.

Mr. TIERNEY. So the loans really were just a startup kit, so to

speak.

Mr. CRAGIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TIERNEY. Nobody is going to call that note? Nobody is anticipating calling it, but if they then think they have to upgrade, they

can apply for grants along with everybody else. Is there any pecking order as to who is going to be—liable to be first in line for those

new grants?

Mr. CRAGIN. Let me just say that I don’t anticipate that anybody

is going to call the note. I expect that this equipment will over the

passage of time be degraded, and they will be looking for additional

equipment grants from my colleague Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. TIERNEY. But there is no priority list?

Mr. MITCHELL. For fiscal year 1999 that we just recently completed this agreement, there will be grants made to the 157 this

year, fiscal year 1999, to the 157 largest cities and counties. That

is consistent with the language in the conference report that accompanied our fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill. Plus we will

make additional grants to the balance of the Nunn-Lugar cities,

which, if my memory serves, is 55 cities in addition this year, total

of 212. So they will all receive operational equipment grants this

year.

The training equipment—really if they are doing training, the

training is ripped. It gets used. It is OK to train in a level A suit

that is ripped if it is for training. It is not OK to use operational

equipment to train, because if you take it off the HAZMAT truck,

or you remove it from service to train in, then when that response

unit is called, their equipment is not going to be there, nor can

they use equipment that has been damaged through training.

There are two distinct purposes for the equipment that we will

be providing them currently. DOD’s equipment is for training support. We think that is appropriate. Additionally there will be operational equipment grants also to build both their training capabilities and their operational response capabilities.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.

I think that you have already indicated this, but let me put it

in the record anyway. How will the implementation of the five elements of the Domestic Preparedness Program that Mr. Cragin discussed be divided between OJP and NDPO exactly?

Mr. MITCHELL. I will start with what we are doing in OJP. OJP

will be responsible for all the facets of the city visit program, the

training program, which is the city training itself, the development

and conduct of the exercises that support that, and all of the contractual activities and support that allow us to provide that training.

61

The Improved Response Program, which is the testing and the

validation of programs and activities and equipment that allows us

to upgrade the training and inform the first responder community

of information that we glean from this to help them be better prepared, we will—OJP and DOD—will jointly support that because

they have their own requirements that they need to do that. We

will augment and participate in that for the benefit of State and

local first responders. The Expert Assistance Program, the technicians, the people that will answer the phone, under the current

process that will be a responsibility that will be transferred to the

NDPO.

Mrs. MARTINEZ. Technically that will be the helpline, a hotline,

and a Web site. As we are the information clearinghouse, if you

will, they will take on the execution of the city visit and training

program along with the equipment aspects, and we will maintain

the helpline, hotline and Internet Web site.

Mr. TIERNEY. Helpline, hotline, Internet site. They are all basically the same, three different ways to contact?

Mrs. MARTINEZ. No, sir. The helpline is basically manned 9 a.m.

to 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time with voice mail after that and on

weekends and holidays. It is intended for nonemergency calls, general calls about preparedness and help. The hotline is an emergency call line. That is staffed 24 by 7 by the national response——

Mr. TIERNEY. And the Web site is informational bells and whistles?

Mrs. MARTINEZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. TIERNEY. If I am a local fire department and I want to call

for any of these, is there one number that I call, or do I have to

call individually down the line to the appropriate aspect here in

order to get my questions answered?

Mrs. MARTINEZ. Well, the vision here is that you will have one

telephone number for nonemergency activities.

Mr. TIERNEY. That is somewhere down the line?

Mrs. MARTINEZ. We hope soon, yes. As the NDPO would be approved, we think that would be the very first step.

Mr. TIERNEY. And in emergency situations?

Mrs. MARTINEZ. They would use existing protocols as well as the

hotline, which is the National Response Center that most of them

already use in addition to 911.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Also, to set the record straight, this is really the first hearing.

We had Mr. Clarke in earlier and with respect to this committee

before I chaired it, it had a number of hearings before.

Mr. CRAGIN. I was here.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Cragin, exactly. I need to make sure that the

record reflected that you were here when Speaker Hastert who was

not then the Speaker, chaired this committee.

I would like to now ask Ms. Light as well as Mr. Baughman, if

I could, to respond to this question. Would you describe the types

of relationships that FEMA has established with State and local officials and the structure from which you carry out these relationships? I am trying to think of the operational process that takes

place. So I want to know the relations that FEMA has established

62

with State and local officials and the structure from which you

carry out these relationships.

Ms. LIGHT. FEMA on a regular basis has a relationship with the

State emergency management basically through the State directors. We deal with them on a very regular basis for preparedness

types of initiatives. In a natural disaster situation, just as there is

a Federal coordinating officer that would be designated for a Federal disaster declaration or emergency, there is a State coordinating officer, and our relationship through the State would be the

Federal coordinating officer with the State coordinating officer to

make sure that the requirements by the State are, in fact, coordinated and responded to at the Federal level.

Mr. SHAYS. Could I have a little more detail? In other words, you

also work directly with the local governments as well, don’t you?

You have the fire chiefs, you have the Governor’s office. I would

like a little more detail to this answer.

Ms. LIGHT. We do work with those, but we work principally

through the States. In fact, we have 10 regional offices, as you

probably know, and we have regional representatives who are specifically designated to work with State directors in each of the

States to ensure State coverage. They work directly through the

States with the locals. So the States work more directly with the

local personnel than we do. And in a disaster, in a response kind

of situation where there is actually a disaster, the requirements for

the locality come up through the State, and then they are coordinated at the Federal level.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Baughman, I would really like your contribution.

Why don’t we get another chair up there, I am sorry.

Mr. BAUGHMAN. When local fire departments respond, they set

up an incident command post. If, in fact, they need additional resources, the request goes to the local emergency operations center.

If they need outside resources, they either go through mutual aid

or back up to the State emergency operations center. In such

States as California, they have a statewide mutual aid agreement,

and they can bring in resources throughout the State. If, in fact,

Federal resources are needed, we plug in with the State emergency

operations center. By that time they have already identified what

kinds of resources are needed down at the local level, such as in

Oklahoma City. When we send a team down, we plug in with the

local incident commander down at the incident scene, and we use

our resources just like other mutual aid assess on the scene.

Mr. SHAYS. Wouldn’t it be wise to develop relationships now with

some of our local governments and county governments?

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Actually we do this. We have two organizations

that we deal with, primarily the National Emergency Management

Association, which is State level, and at the local level it is now the

International Emergency Management Association, and we deal

with county and local officials in addition to dealing with NACO

and all of the other traditional organizations at IAFC and IAFF.

Mr. SHAYS. I have three more questions that I would like to focus

in on, and then basically I will just ask you all, if Mr. Tierney has

some more, to just make any last comment that you want to make.

63

I would like to know what authority will the National Domestic

Preparedness Office have to restrict other agencies from initiating

and implementing their own training and equipment program?

Mrs. MARTINEZ. That is certainly not the intent, nor would it satisfy us in any way. There will be no authority, nor will we seek

such authority as to limit other agencies from developing programs.

Our interests, rather, would be that those programs would be developed in association or accordance—compliance with, if you will—

minimum standards that we would all agree to ahead of time.

Mr. SHAYS. My question was not advocating that you have that

authority, but it was to get that response. Thank you.

I would also like to ask the Department of Justice how they are

going to reconcile, which I alluded to in my statement, the obvious

conflicts with crisis management including the followup on criminal

investigations and consequence management. I really think of the

DOJ as being the organization that prevents crimes and then

wants to establish who committed them, but I think of FEMA as

just coming right in there, and we have people who need help, and

we are going to help them right now and the investigation be

damned kind of thing. How do you reconcile since you all now will

be making that decision?

Mrs. MARTINEZ. Largely this is a partnership. As a few of us at

the table did respond to Oklahoma City, we recognize right away

the priority of saving lives. Consequence management sometimes

does require a front seat to what later may put someone in jail,

which is our collective ultimate responsibility at Justice. We are

working very closely with FEMA, and you will see the interagency

plans that we have put together, the Concept of Operations Plan

and the Federal Response Terrorism Incident Annex—will show

that there has been a collaboration of partnership in recognition of

the need to simultaneously address crisis and consequence management, in many cases consequence management comes first.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

My last question. Give me the mechanism that is going to be established between the NDPO and OJP and other agencies. What

kind of mechanism are you actually establishing, a formal mechanism? In other words, I know that you want to agree with each

other, and you are going to cooperate. I don’t mean that facetiously,

that is fairly clear. It is essential to have that happen. But is there

any formal mechanism that will facilitate that?

Mrs. MARTINEZ. At the present time we have a detailee from the

Office of Justice Programs, Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support that is co-located at the NDPO and would have

access to all of the programs and issues that they would be interested in weighing in on. In addition to that, we have individual

program area meetings. For instance, there are committees formed

on the interagency on the issue of, for instance, the development

of a national strategy for training, the development of national

standards for training, the issue of equipment, R&D and so forth,

as I mentioned earlier in my statement.

Mr. SHAYS. I actually thought of one question that I did want to

ask.

Did you want to respond, Mr. Mitchell?

64

Mr. MITCHELL. Just to followup on Barbara’s. We do have staff

actually physically located in NDPO, but we also have other program staff that are a program specific to participate in the actual

working groups on training and exercises and equipment. Plus I

personally sit and represent our office on the Federal Leadership

Advisory Group, which is kind of the umbrella Federal agency

group. So we have multiple opportunities and multiple avenues

where our programs can be integrated and reviewed. Everyone has

a better perspective across the Federal agency of just what everybody is doing so that we can maximize the effect at the local level

with the limited resources that we do have.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell, for responding to that. The

last question I wanted to ask is what is the involvement that you

all have with the national coordinator for terrorism and infrastructure security? Mr. Clarke in the White House, how does he interface with all of this?

Mr. CRAGIN. I think that we all have quite a bit of involvement

with the National Security Council Director, Mr. Chairman, in that

under the PDD–62 directive, a management structure within the

interagency was formed which is chaired by Mr. Clarke. And then

there are subgroups dealing, for example, with assistance to State

and local authorities. I happen to represent the Department of Defense at the NSC subgroup on assistance to State and local authorities. Many of my colleagues at the table are there at those meetings as well.

In response, as an adjunct to one of your earlier questions, it is

that group of interagency officials that work the issues of duplication and coordination of programs rather than the NDPO. The

NDPO is really the conduit between the Federal Government and

all of the programs that it brings to bear in this arena and the

local and State officials.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you all very much. I would make a request

that you consider allowing our staff periodically to just observe

some of these meetings. I would also like to attend a few as an observer, not as a participant.

I don’t know, Mr. Tierney, if you have anything you want to say?

Mr. TIERNEY. I just want to thank the witnesses for testifying.

Finally, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for putting this together and your staff for doing an excellent job.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much. There may have been a question that we should have asked. I am happy to have you ask that

question and answer it for yourself if you would like to. Is there

any comment that any of you would like to make?

Mr. Baughman, I always have the sense that the person who listens the most has the best contribution. Do you have any closing

comment that you would like to make?

Mr. BAUGHMAN. No, I don’t.

Mr. SHAYS. Will you tell me later?

Mr. Cragin, any other comment?

Mr. CRAGIN. Mr. Chairman, I was a trial lawyer for 20 years. I

always tried that gambit, is there any other question that I should

have asked you that I have not? I was never able to win that one.

Mr. SHAYS. Actually, it was a friendly question though.

Mr. Mitchell.

65

Mr. MITCHELL. No, Mr. Chairman. We do thank you for the opportunity to present to you what we think is the beginning steps,

and I think this is really the beginning steps, in what is hopefully

going to be a coordinated Federal effort that focuses principally and

foremost on meeting the needs of State and local first responders.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mrs. Martinez.

Mrs. MARTINEZ. I would just like to thank you and welcome the

interface of your staff with NDPO, in the future.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. We would like that very much.

Mr. Baughman.

Mr. BAUGHMAN. I don’t have anything.

Ms. LIGHT. No questions. Thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much. I appreciate you being here,

and I appreciate your patience.

[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

66

67