U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–626 PDF 2004

TARGET WASHINGTON: COORDINATING FEDERAL

HOMELAND SECURITY EFFORTS WITH LOCAL

JURISDICTIONS IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 24, 2004

Serial No. 108–190

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 24, 2004 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Griffin, Anthony H., county executive, Fairfax County; Mary Beth

Michos, fire chief, Prince William County; James Schwartz, director

of emergency management, Arlington County; and Jacqueline F.

Brown, chief administrative officer, Prince George’s County .................... 85

Lockwood, Thomas, Director, Office of National Capital Region Coordination, Department of Homeland Security; William Jenkins, Director,

Homeland Security and Justice Issues, General Accounting Office;

George Foresman, assistant to the Governor for commonwealth preparedness, Commonwealth of Virginia; Dennis Schrader, director, Office of Homeland Security, State of Maryland; and Barbara ChildsPair, director, D.C. Emergency Management Agency ................................ 25

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

Brown, Jacqueline F., chief administrative officer, Prince George’s County, prepared statement of ............................................................................. 109

Childs-Pair, Barbara, director, D.C. Emergency Management Agency, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 65

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 123

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 4

Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Illinois, prepared statement of ................................................................ 125

Foresman, George, assistant to the Governor for commonwealth preparedness, Commonwealth of Virginia, prepared statement of .......................... 50

Griffin, Anthony H., county executive, Fairfax County, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 88

Jenkins, William, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, General Accounting Office, prepared statement of ........................................... 34

Lockwood, Thomas, Director, Office of National Capital Region Coordination, Department of Homeland Security, prepared statement of .............. 27

Michos, Mary Beth, fire chief, Prince William County, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 93

Moran, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Virginia, prepared statement of .............................................................. 21

Ruppersberger, Hon. C.A. Dutch, a Representative in Congress from the

State of Maryland, prepared statement of .................................................. 14

Schrock, Hon. Edward L., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Virginia, prepared statement of .............................................................. 18

Schwartz, James, director of emergency management, Arlington County,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 100

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 7

(1)

TARGET WASHINGTON: COORDINATING FEDERAL HOMELAND SECURITY EFFORTS WITH

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS IN THE NATIONAL

CAPITAL REGION

THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis of Virginia

(chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Tom Davis of Virginia, Mica, Ose,

Schrock, Waxman, Maloney, Cummings, Tierney, Clay, Watson,

Van Hollen, Ruppersberger, and Norton.

Also present: Representative Moran of Virginia.

Staff present: David Marin, deputy staff director and communications director; Ellen Brown, legislative director and senior policy

counsel; Robert Borden, counsel and parliamentarian; Rob White,

press secretary; Drew Crockett, deputy director of communications;

Brian Stout, professional staff member; Teresa Austin, chief clerk;

Brien Beattie, deputy clerk; Robin Butler, financial administrator;

Allyson Blandford, office manager; Rosalind Parker, minority counsel; David McMillen, minority professional staff member; Earley

Green, minority chief clerk; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant

clerk.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Good morning.

The committee will come to order. A quorum appears to be

present.

I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing entitled, ‘‘Target

Washington: Coordinating Federal Homeland Security Efforts with

Local Jurisdictions in the National Capital Region.’’ We have a

good regional group here today.

This hearing is the committee’s third in our series on emergency

preparedness in the NCR. Following last year’s hearings, the committee asked the General Accounting Office to examine the budget

and spending plans for the National Capital Region in hope that

it would help Congress identify whether this region is sufficiently

funded and whether the funds were being used effectively and efficiently. We are here today to examine the findings and to bring the

key components of our regional homeland security efforts together

to identify what has been done and what work remains.

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 unfortunately confirm

the recognition of the National Capital Region as a top terrorist

2

target. The primary obligation of any government is the safety and

security of its citizens and we have been acting on many fronts to

fulfill this obligation.

The Federal Government and local Washington area jurisdictions

have taken a number of actions to strengthen our ability to prevent

and respond to emergencies and in the National Capital Region,

this requires the highest level of coordination. The National Capital

Region has to be the most prepared in the Nation. It is the home

to 12 local jurisdiction, two States, the District of Columbia, the

Federal Government, including the White House, the Congress and

the Supreme Court. This is not an easy task for a region that has

multiple police forces and emergency plans.

Recognizing the unique nature of the region and the need for a

high level of coordination, Congress created the Office for National

Capital Region Coordination within the Department of Homeland

Security. This office was created to coordinate activities between

the various entities in the region, to ensure the preparedness programs and activities are developed and evaluated under appropriate standards and to ensure that resources are allocated so as

to improve and sustain regional preparedness.

The ONCRC has an important role in setting goals and priorities

and assisting States and local jurisdictions to think, plan and prepare regionally. In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the Federal Government appropriated approximately $340 million for homeland security efforts in the region. It is our understanding that all of the fiscal year 2004 urban area funding totaling $23.9 million, as well as

portions of prior year funding have yet to be obligated. The time

has come to ask difficult questions so that we can determine what

is the road ahead. Congress has dramatically increased funding for

these efforts over the last few years but have we increased our capabilities and preparedness as a region? What have we done with

the Federal funding to date? How are the funding decisions for the

region made? How do we enhance preparedness? What is the remaining gap and how do we intend to close it?

Some Members of Congress as well as some State and local officials have contended that funds provided for first responders have

been insufficient. This has been an incomplete discussion, however,

because in order to determine funding needs, we have to have a

full and accurate assessment of where we are and where we need

to be. It is readily apparent that we need to move away from the

generalities when speaking of emergency preparedness and coordination and talk specifics.

General strategies are a beginning but they must transfer into

specific road maps for local, State, Federal and private sector actions. Yesterday, the infamous Tractor Man who effectively held

this region hostage for 2 days in March 2003 was sentenced to 6

years in prison. Justice was served. We are here again today asking if we are better prepared for prime time. We are here today

wondering whether or how preparedness has improved in the past

14 months. It is my hope that this hearing will further this discussion and in doing so, will help Congress, the Department of Homeland Security and the localities within the NCR to set a mutually

agreed upon baseline capability, identify the gaps, set priorities

and measure progress.

3

The bottom line is that the funding needs of the region and the

Nation are nearly infinite and therefore, it is of the utmost importance to structure the manner in which we go about fulfilling

needs. In its testimony today, the General Accounting Office lays

out the general challenges that the region faces in coordinating and

managing emergency preparedness in our region. GAO’s conclusions are troubling but not terribly surprising given the complexity

of the task at hand. An earlier draft of the GAO report noted the

vacancy at the top of the Office of National Capital Region Coordination is a contributing factor to the challenges we are facing. I am

glad to see that the position has now been filled and that Mr.

Lockwood is here today to share his vision for improving planning

and coordination.

We have two impressive panels of witnesses before us to help us

understand the issues surrounding this important topic. I would

like to thank all of our witnesses for appearing before the committee and I look forward to their testimony.

I now yield to my ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for his opening

statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

4

5

6

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased the committee is holding today’s hearing on the

Emergency Readiness in the National Capital Region. Ensuring

preparedness in this region is particularly challenging given the severity of threats facing the area and the range of Federal, State

and local entities involved in responding to the threats across jurisdictional lines. This committee should do everything it can to promote optimal coordination of these efforts.

Just 2 weeks ago, we saw how quickly communications can break

down in an emergency. The appearance of an unidentified airplane

in restricted air space resulted in panic in the Capitol and confusion among responders. It is my understanding that the Mayor was

not notified until after the threat was resolved.

The challenges of coordinating the activities of the multiple and

overlapping jurisdictions in the National Capital Region are severe.

So too are the consequences if we fail to meet those challenges.

Today, the General Accounting Office will tell us that we don’t

have a good measure of the collective capacity of these jurisdictions

to respond to an emergency. Nor do we have a good sense of what

should be their capacity. Without these essential benchmarks,

where are we and where do we need to be, it is impossible to devise

a plan to get from one to the other. I am hopeful that this hearing

will lead to a better understanding of these benchmarks.

I want to note that Congresswoman Norton of our committee has

been tireless in her work to advance National Capital Region emergency preparedness. Her keen understanding of the deficiencies in

planning and coordination of effort led her to write the original

amendment that laid the foundation for the Office of National Capital Region Coordination, now directed by Mr. Lockwood, one of our

witnesses today.

I want to welcome the distinguished witnesses who I know have

devoted a lot of time and energy to regional preparedness. Your

work may help prevent serious harm to many citizens of this area.

Indeed, it may have already done so. I know I speak for many others in telling you how much I appreciate your commitment to this

effort.

Finally, I want to commend Chairman Davis for having this

hearing and for his strong interest in homeland security issues.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]

7

8

9

10

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Are there any statements on our side? Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate this hearing and I think you called it at a time when

it is fair to look at the regional office. We did not call this hearing

when it just had been created, we are now more than 2 years, probably going on 3 years.

I also want to say my concerns come against a background that

has taught me not to do Monday morning quarterbacking, about

why didn’t we do this. I think the homeland security business is

a startup business for the country. My own work on the Homeland

Security Committee and on the Aviation Subcommittee certainly

taught me that. For example, we were very critical on the Homeland Security Committee of spending but when we probed it, we

learned that much of that was because the States had difficulties

in their own procedures about how to gear up for the money that

came out of this Congress in one huge tranche after September 11.

I certainly have not expected anything like perfection from this

office. I have to tell you that when it comes to coordination, I have

had a tougher standard because we did foresee the coordination

problem in this committee. As the ranking member indicated, my

own amendment for a coordinator was strongly supported on both

sides of this committee and the administration itself not wanting

to add to the expenses had compunctions but ultimately the administration accepted the notion that for the National Capital Region

area where there are 600,000 people in this city, 2 million in the

region and where the entire Federal presence is located, there

needs to be special attention. We have the most at stake in the entire country and we are all aware of this.

So, in this region alone, the Federal Government pays for a regional coordinator. I was sufficiently impressed by at least some of

what I have been hearing from that office that I have since sponsored an amendment that is included again in a bipartisan bill

coming out of the Homeland Security Committee for regional coordinators paid for however by the States in order to essentially

model on what we have done here and today, we look and see what

that model has done.

A very large amount of money in my district alone was tracked.

I know that OMB, for example, called the District often about

whether or not it was spending on a quarterly basis. Sometimes

they got it wrong. I called the District and would have to call back,

you were wrong, we have spent.

When it comes to the region, the concern is not are you spending

the money we have, but are you duplicating what one another is

doing, are you buying the same things across regions, are you saving money, are you coordinating? Is somebody looking at the big

picture, because the obligation of the Government of the District of

Columbia, of Maryland and of Virginia is to be parochial. They are

supposed to look and see whether or not they are doing their job.

The whole point here was for somebody to help them understand

the dependence of the entire region, one on another. We don’t have

a WMATA board when it comes to homeland security, the whole

thing is together. That is essentially what this new post was supposed to do.

11

As I see it, this is a headquarters issue. This is an administration issue. First of all, the vacancy that was there for so long, a

5-month vacancy was absolutely inexcusable and scary, frankly. I

don’t think there was any shortage of people to fill. We have already filled it now with somebody from the region. There were all

kinds of people in headquarters who could have filled it. I have a

problem with that. It became such a problem for the region that

the region sent a letter saying, please fill this vacancy. I would

note that Mr. Ridge is prescribing remedies for regions across the

country now, indicating that this is a headquarters problem, remedies like purchasing together on a multi-jurisdictional basis and

having agreement to do so.

Initially after September 11, anyone can understand the do

something mentality, spend some money, do something, show

something but we were supposed to avoid that with coordination.

The GAO report raises some considerable difficulties about that coordination. We have to get to the bottom of that, particularly since

the Secretary himself in testifying before the Homeland Security

Committee when I asked him about coordination in the regions

that do not have a coordinator has been quick to say that we are

pleased with what we see in the National Capital Region and we

want to model that over the country. So for me, the question will

be, is there a model here to send to the rest of the country.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me thank you for holding another in a series of hearings on

the very important issue of security in the National Capital area.

I have pleased we have Mr. Schrader, director of Maryland’s Homeland Security Office here. I am also especially pleased that the administration has now filled the position of the Director for the National Capital Region Coordination Office. Welcome, Mr. Lockwood,

and welcome from the State of Maryland where you were also very

involved and thank you for your leadership there. I do think we

lost valuable time in the 5-month interlude between Mr. Michael

Byrne’s resignation and your taking over in this position. I hope we

can catch up for time lost.

I think as a Nation when you do approach this issue with two

things in mind, one, we need to focus our resources on those areas

in this country that are most at risk. Of course the National Capital area is among the top targets in that regard. Second, within

those areas, we need to make sure that our resources are spent

wisely and that they are well coordinated. The GAO report that we

are going to be hearing more about today raises some very serious

questions about whether or not we have done an adequate job of

that in the many months since the creation of the office of the coordinator and focusing on these issues. I look forward to that report

and thank them for looking into this because I think if we want

to maintain the confidence of people in this region and around the

country in our efforts, we have to show that these funds, first of

all, are going to areas of greatest need and second, within those

areas, the funds are being well spent.

12

I thank all of you for being here and, Mr. Chairman, thank you

again for holding the hearing.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Any other opening statements? We will just go straight down,

Ms. Watson and Mr. Ruppersberger.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing.

I have just a comment and then a few references to the GAO report.

My comment is this, that we are embarking in a direction that

is absolutely new to us as a result of September 11, the Homeland

Security Department was formulated in a rush and I do understand what it takes to put together a program that really secures

us, that will create a filling of security among Americans and be

a model. It is going to be difficult to do in a hurry, so I just want

to say, we shouldn’t rush through it, we should think through it.

When the GAO reported that the Department did not give

enough feedback on preparedness plans and the jurisdictions have

little idea what they should be doing better, I think is a very cogent point. We need to give direction and we need to think through

that direction. When they reported there were no central source

tracking, antiterrorism grants of the amount in this capital region

and that there was a lack of supporting documentation that indicates a lack of financial controls. Absolutely.

So I am hoping that our panelists will suggest ways in which we

can direct activities to help the region to develop a model. When

there is an absence of clear Federal guidelines, local and State

leaders use some of the funds to plug up their budget gaps. This

is not new. When the money is out there, we are going to use it

for the priorities that we have had traditionally.

I am hoping that those of you can help give the guidance and direction that is needed as this area goes about formulating their

preparedness plans.

Thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, thank you and the ranking

member for returning to this very important topic.

Certainly all Members of Congress have a personal stake in

keeping our Nation’s Capital Region safe for those who live, work

and visit. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize that this

city and even Capital Hill are prime targets for terrorists but like

you, Mr. Chairman, I am a former county executive and come from

one of the States represented in this region, so this remains a vital

topic to me and my constituents.

I have not read the GAO report being released today but I can

only go by what I have read in the papers this morning and what

I have read disturbs me. It states that intergovernmental coordination is critical to any successful plan and we can all appreciate the

complexities involved. Those complexities are three levels of government, various funding streams, funding shortages, jurisdictional

issues, private sector involvement, outreach to citizens and those

who work in the city, planning, training, information sharing and

implementation, complex problems being worked on by some very

dedicated individuals but still almost 3 years after the attacks of

13

September 11, GAO finds that this critical coordination is lacking

and that is disturbing.

An effort such as the National Capital Region Domestic Preparedness Plan needs more than State and local government coordination, it requires leadership from the top down and I believe

the Department of Homeland Security must play a consistent role

here. I am pleased to see Tom Lockwood with us today and congratulate him on his new role at DHS. I know how hard Tom

worked with Dennis Schrader in the Maryland Office of Homeland

Security. I know he brings a wealth of capability to DHS. Good

luck. I urge Secretary Ridge and the other leaders at DHS to support Tom Lockwood in his efforts so that he can provide the much

needed direction to move this coordination forward.

Of course keeping our homeland safe comes with a hefty price

tag. As this region sets its priorities for protection including the

necessary personnel, training, equipment and so on to tackle the

many problems that remain as interoperability, I would hope that

DHS and the Federal Government will provide the necessary resources to make the NCR plan successful. Local leaders are crying

out for funding. The States are doing the best they can with competing priorities. I think we need to find a way to get this money

directly to those who need it the most. There is much we can do

in Congress to make efforts like this all across the country more

successful. We can finally pass legislation to create national standards for homeland security so we know what we mean by being

prepared and make sure we spend our money wisely. We can also

look at viable risks and set priorities based on credible threats and

we can continue to provide this critical oversight.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger follows:]

14

15

16

17

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Schrock.

Mr. SCHROCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me first begin by thanking the witnesses for being here today

and giving us our testimony, and for their efforts in addressing an

issue which impacts all of us greatly here in the Nation’s Capital

and beyond.

In the aftermath of the tragedies of September 11, many lessons

were learned and many vulnerabilities were realized. Given that

the National Capital Region was clearly a desired target of our enemies, it was the recipient of well over $300 million through a

number of grants. These funds were to be utilized by all of our

areas first responders, whether Federal, State or local in a coordinated effort of planning, preparation, training and execution of appropriate responses to whatever the circumstances dictate in terms

of an attack or an incident in the D.C. area. Additionally, similar

grants have also been issued nationwide to heavily populated regions for the same purpose as applies to their respective areas.

We, in Congress are the keepers of the funds and we are responsible to the taxpayer to ensure they are spent wisely and in the interest of homeland security and the American taxpayer. Further,

the NCR is at the helm of this issue and the example we set locally

should provide value to the other areas throughout America. Our

lives, our security and very realistically our futures depend on it.

I look forward to hearing the testimony today and learning of the

progress those changes have had in implementing these efforts that

have been made.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for arranging this very important

hearing. I look forward to a healthy exchange of questions and answers following this testimony.

I don’t live in the District but I live in the Hampton Roads area

where we have one of the largest ports in America and the largest

concentration of military anywhere in the world. So what is said

here today, I am going to listen to carefully because the impact

here is going to have the same impact in our area. Every time I

go home, which are the happiest days when I go home, every time

I pass through the Hampton Roads bridge tunnel underneath that

tunnel, I think, ‘‘who is under there and what are they getting

ready to do.’’ I worry about that every single time. Hopefully we

can learn something here today that maybe will prevent something

like that.

I thank you all, especially those in uniform. I wore the uniform

in the Navy for 24 years, so I naturally hone in on anybody wearing a uniform. I thank you for what you do and for what you are

trying to do to help solve this problem and eradicate terror from

the face of the Earth. Thank you and I look forward to your testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Edward L. Schrock follows:]

18

19

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Moran.

Mr. MORAN OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Chairman Davis.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thanks for joining us today.

Mr. MORAN OF VIRGINIA. I wanted to participate in this important hearing on the emergency preparedness of our region because

it directly affects the lives of our constituents, our districts and the

Nation’s Capital.

The response to the terrorist attack on the Pentagon on September 11 demonstrated the heroism and the professionalism of the

emergency responders in Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax County,

surrounding localities and our Federal emergency responders. I am

particularly proud of the Arlington County fire departments’ emergency response to the Pentagon. The Federal Commission that investigated the terrorist attacks issued a report which characterized

Arlington’s response as a success, overcoming all the inherent complications that arise when so many Federal, State and local jurisdictions are involved. Our Fire Chief sees that I am wearing Arlington’s official tie to underscore that.

Unfortunately, the largest lessons of September 11 made clear

that this region was not adequately prepared to respond to that

disaster and regional coordination was virtually nonexistent. It was

a good thing that an office of the National Capital Region was established within the Department of Homeland Security to address

the unique challenges to emergency response that our Nation’s

Capital is bound to face. Yet, the General Accounting Office will attest today that nearly 3 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11 and after receiving a huge influx of money to secure the region and make it better prepared, the Washington area still lacks

a coordinated plan to deal with emergencies and is unable to explain where critical security gaps remain and why most of the

money that has been made available so far has in fact yet to be

spent.

Not only am I concerned with the lack of coordination among the

various localities, I have been discouraged by the lack of transparency and information sharing of the decisions being made by

the Office of the National Capital Region with the members who

represent it. On September 11, 2003, the 2-year anniversary of the

attack, I suspect a number of my colleagues may have written similar letters, I wrote a letter to Secretary Ridge. The letter said, ‘‘I

continue, however, to hear concerns raised by first responders,

health department officials and law enforcement officers as they

prepare for possible contingencies. I think a checklist with benchmarks might be a very useful approach to measure and determine

this region’s reliable functioning capabilities, those this region has

and those it lacks. The area congressional delegation will do all

that it can to provide the necessary resources.’’ At least as of today,

we have yet to receive any response to this letter or to that proposal. That was more than a year ago. That, I think, gets to the

heart of today’s hearing.

Mr. Lockwood, I don’t mean for you to be the one in the hot seat.

I understand you came very highly recommended and not just by

Congressman Ruppersberger and by Governor Erlich and I know

you were just newly appointed to your position, but it took 5

20

months to have the vacancy left by Michael Byrne, your predecessor, to be filled after he went off to Microsoft.

Mr. Chairman, I do commend you for holding this hearing and

I know you are determined to lead the effort to improve and enhance coordination among the region’s jurisdictions and I appreciate that apparently, at least in the case of the Nation’s Capital,

financial resources are not as much of a problem as is the management of those resources. Again, I appreciate your leadership in

having this hearing, Mr. Chairman. You are right on top of it in

a timely manner given the front page article in the Washington

Post. Again, this is going to be a very productive hearing and I appreciate the opportunity to participate.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. James P. Moran follows:]

21

22

23

24

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you, Jim.

Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.

I want to thank you for holding this hearing.

In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress created the Office for National Capital Region Coordination within the Department of Homeland Security in order to ensure that activities between the regional governments and the Federal Government were

coordinated. By providing millions of dollars in grant funding, the

Federal Government is attempting to assist regional jurisdictions

in preparation for combating terrorism and responding to emergencies. All of the 50 States and the U.S. territories are eligible for

this funding.

As a result of this committee’s two previous hearings, the U.S.

General Accounting Office has requested to examine the budget

and spending plans for the National Capital Region in order to ensure that it is sufficiently funded and that the fund distributed are

used appropriately to address emergency preparedness. The GAO

report entitled, ‘‘U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security Management of First Responders,’’ has identified three challenges in coordinating the homeland security funds provided to the

jurisdictions in the National Capital Region. First, there are no

current standards for determining existing first responder capacity.

Second, there is no existing plan for establishing these standards.

Third, ONCRC has not obtained complete information on the

amount of DHS grant funds available to each jurisdiction within

the NCR. These deficiencies make it difficult to develop adequate

plans for addressing outstanding needs within the region and to determine if DHS funding is being spent effectively and efficiently.

More than ever with our Nation’s increasing budget deficit and

the constant threat of organized terrorist activity, it is important

that we ascertain that the Federal dollars spend to make the NCR

safe are used effectively and efficiently. I have often said, Mr.

Chairman, that one thing it seems that Democrats and Republicans

agree upon is that the taxpayers’ money must be, must be, must

be used effectively and efficiently and there are processes put in

place that ensure a well prepared region in the event of an emergency.

So I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses and hope this

hearing will help us to better assess our progress in preparing the

National Capital Region to deal with potential threats to determine

what our needs are for better coordination and planning and evaluate emergency preparedness funding for our Nation’s Capital.

I am very pleased to see with us, Maryland’s Director of Homeland Security, Dennis Schrader. I am very pleased to have you with

us and all of our witnesses, we thank you.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

We will now move to our first panel of witnesses consisting of

Thomas Lockwood, the new Director of the Office of National Capital Region Coordination, Department of Homeland Security; William Jenkins, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues,

General Accounting Office; the Honorable George Foresman, assistant to the Governor for commonwealth preparedness, CommonVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:52 Sep 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95626.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
25

wealth of Virginia; Dennis Schrader, director, Office of Homeland

Security, State of Maryland, who will not provide testimony but is

available for questions; and finally, Ms. Barbara Childs-Pair, director, D.C. Emergency Management Agency, accompanied by Mr.

Robert Bobb, city administrator, interim Deputy Mayor for public

safety and justice; Mr. Steven Crowell, acting administrator, State

Homeland Security; and Ms. LeAnn Turner, director, Homeland Security Grants Administration.

Let me thank all of you for taking time from your very busy

schedules to be with us today, share your testimony and answer

some questions. Our committee swears all witnesses before testifying.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

We have some lights here on the front table. They will turn

green when I recognize you, they will stay green for 4 minutes and

turn orange for 1 minute and when that red button comes on, we

would like you to move to sum up. Your entire written testimony

is in the record and questions will be based on the entire testimony

but the 5-minutes gives you time to emphasize it.

Mr. Lockwood, we will start with you and move down. Again,

welcome. You are no stranger to this. We are happy to see you on

board and thank you for being here.

STATEMENTS OF THOMAS LOCKWOOD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION COORDINATION, DEPARTMENT

OF HOMELAND SECURITY; WILLIAM JENKINS, DIRECTOR,

HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; GEORGE FORESMAN, ASSISTANT TO THE

GOVERNOR FOR COMMONWEALTH PREPAREDNESS, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; DENNIS SCHRADER, DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY, STATE OF MARYLAND;

AND BARBARA CHILDS-PAIR, DIRECTOR, D.C. EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Thank you. I am honored to be here.

I would like to summarize my statement and ask the full statement be included in the record.

I am Tom Lockwood, the new Director for the National Capital

Region Office of Coordination. I am honored to be here today.

I want to thank Congress for having the wisdom of having an office like the National Capital Region which focuses on a critical region in the United States. Some of the key roles of this office,

which have been summarized by both sides, is the coordination of

activities within the Department of Homeland Security relating to

the National Capital Region, be an advocate for the region, to provide information to the region, to start working with State, local,

not for profit and regional organizations for an integrated, cohesive

plan for emergency preparedness. This is a very complex region.

There are multiple jurisdictions, there are multiple levels of government and divisions within government. It is a challenge but it

is doable.

In the spirit of cooperation, this office is actively working with

the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia and through the senior leadership we have

26

formed a group, the Senior Policy Group, which have been working

at unprecedented levels of cooperation. This office has been actively

coordinating across Federal agencies. A key mechanism has been

the Joint Federal Committee whose members are drawn from multiple Federal agencies across the Federal Government. Specific examples of the efforts being worked on right now are issues such as

protective measures across the National Capital Region; standard

protective measures across the National Capital Region, standard

protective measures; credentialling, working through protocols and

sharing information; and again, not only is the Federal Government working between itself but these will be integrated with local

and State government authorities.

One of the key roles we have to improve, is we need to integrate

and synchronize some of the investments we have talked about

thus far. Working through the Senior Leadership Group, the Senior

Policy Group [SPG], working with the county administrative officers, working with the Emergency Preparedness Council, it has

been quite an opportunity to bring in different views at different

levels, many voices, same message of participation.

It is critical that we have an integrated strategy, that it is a

strategy that is based with local government and State government

working together within the region with an office like this office coordinating between the levels and with Federal Government. This

coordination provides the foundation for the emergency preparedness for the region, the process has been much more formalized in

the last several months where there is active commitment from

local government within the prioritization of the resource allocation. That has been accepted by the region and we have been actively working through that process.

The region will be coordinating over the next several months to

build an integrated plan, Federal, State and local and we are actively committed to that. The region is taking great strides to develop our plans and our protocols; we have been working quite actively with the emergency response community.

In closing, the NCR provides a unique challenge to protect our

citizens, our guests, our institutions. We have worked and developed a solid foundation that is built with a relationship between

Federal, State and local governments, the nonprofits, the regional

authorities, and the general public. We are committed to continue

that relationship on this integrated approach.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lockwood follows:]

27

28

29

30

31

32

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Jenkins, thank you for your work on this.

Mr. JENKINS. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss our report for this committee on ‘‘Federal First Responders

Grants and Capacity Building in the National Capital Region.’’ Our

report discusses issues within the NCR associated with managing

first responder grants, assessing gaps in first responder capacities

and preparedness and the evolving role of the Office for National

Capital Region Coordination and the very difficult task of coordinating and assessing efforts to enhance first responder capacity

across the NCR.

When DHS was created in 2002, Congress created the NCR Coordination Office within the Department of Homeland Security to

coordinate Federal programs for and relationships with Federal,

State, local, regional and private sector agencies and entities in the

region, to ensure adequate planning, information sharing, training

and the execution of domestic preparedness activities among these

agencies and entities.

The office’s responsibilities include preparing an annual report to

Congress that one, identifies required resources; two, assesses

progress in implementing homeland security efforts in the region;

and three, includes recommendations to Congress on any needed

additional resources to fully implement homeland security efforts.

In our work, we focused on 16 Federal grants that provided us

$340 million to NCR jurisdictions for emergency response and planning for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Of this total, the NCR Coordination Office targeted all of the $60.5 million 2003 urban area security initiative funds for projects designed to benefit the region as

a whole. Spending for the remaining $279.5 million for 15 grants

was determined primarily by local jurisdictions to whom in some

instances the grants were directly rewarded. The largest of these

grants, the $230 million, 2002 Department of Defense Emergency

Supplemental, was distributed before the NCR Coordination Office

came into existence and it was targeted primarily for equipment.

Effectively managing first responder grants funds requires identifying threats and managing risks, aligning resources to address

them and measuring progress in preparing for those threats and

risks. The NCR Coordination Office and NCR jurisdictions face at

least three interrelated challenges in managing Federal funds to

maximize results, minimize efficiency and unintended and unnecessary duplication of effort. They need preparedness standards for

first responders in the region and benchmarks such as best practices, a coordinated regionwide plan for establishing first responder

performance goals, needs and priorities and assessing the benefits

of expenditures and last, a readily available, reliable source of data

on the Federal grant funds available to NCR first responders and

the budget plans and criteria used to determine spending priorities

and track expenditures compared to those priorities.

Without the standards, a regionwide plan and needed data, it is

extremely difficult to determine whether the NCR has the ability

to respond to threats and emergencies with well planned, well coordinated and effective efforts that involve a variety of first responder disciplines from NCR jurisdictions.

33

Regarding data collection, the recent report of the DHS Homeland Security Advisory Council has recommended that DHS, in coordination with State, local and tribal governments, develop an

automated grant tracking system that would allow for real time

tracking of the distribution and use of homeland security funds. We

recognize that the NCR Coordination Office came into existence

about 15 months ago and some startup time has been required to

organize itself and establish processes and procedures for fulfilling

its statutory responsibilities.

To date, the NCR Coordination Office has focused on developing

a regionwide plan for use of the urban area security grant moneys.

We recognize that the office had limited opportunity to coordinate

spending from the remaining 15 grants. However, the NCR Coordination Office needs data on how moneys from these remaining 15

grants were spent and with what effect to develop a baseline of

current first responder capacities in the region that can be used to

compare what is to what should be and coordinate and monitor efforts to transition to what should be.

We have recommended that the NCR Coordination Office work

with NCR jurisdictions to develop a coordinated strategic plan for

building and maintaining first responder capacity and monitor

progress in implementing that plan. In their comments on our report, DHS noted that a government structure has now been established that should provide essential coordination in the region.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased

to answer any questions you or members of the committee may

have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jenkins follows:]

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Foresman, thank you for being with us.

Mr. FORESMAN. Thank you and thank you to the committee for

having us.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today to talk about the important issues surrounding preparedness in the National Capital

Region.

Let me begin by acknowledging that the region is indeed better

prepared today than it was on September 11, 2001. I point to the

exceptional levels of cooperation among all levels of government

with the private sector and communications with our citizens during the past 30 days with the dedication of the World War II Memorial as well as the State funeral for former President Reagan.

I also want to personally thank the staff from the U.S. General

Accounting Office who just recently completed their review. They

were diligent in their efforts to obtain a level of understanding of

funding practices in a region that all of us agree is very complex

in part because of the large presence of critical national government functions. Their task was made more challenging by the rapidly evolving nature of homeland security as well as related funding activities.

There are those who say that developing our homeland security

capabilities locally at the State level and nationally is like trying

to build a plane that is taking off. I expect for the GAO the same

is true in terms of their ability to evaluate practices, processes and

goals when the one constant is change.

Since the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001, the NCR has been allocated nearly $400 million in Federal funding. The funding

has come in a variety of ways, direct earmarks through Federal

grant programs and collaterally where we were the direct beneficiaries of Federal agency preparedness initiatives.

The benefit has come in the context of the whole. The sum capabilities of the local, District, State and private sector readiness has

improved across the entirety of the NCR. Having talked about

those benefits, it does not imply that every fire or law enforcement,

emergency management, public health or a host of other local,

State, District and private sector activities with critical responsibilities has been a direct beneficiary.

The simple fact is that there will never be sufficient financial resources to address the full range of potential needs of each community, discipline or organization. Consequently, much of our effort

and the collaborative effort between local government, State government, regional partners and the private sector during the past

21⁄2 years has been dedicated to addressing the higher priority

needs and establishing prevention and preparedness focus that is

right size against a full range of other legitimate competing priorities.

It represents a very disciplined approach on the part of the National Capital Region. This focus has required that we collectively

undertake three key activities in the context of the National Capital Region. The goal from the beginning of local, State and Federal

personnel has been to better coordinate and facilitate the integration of effort and not to create duplicative and competing organizational structures. The Office of National Capital Region CoordinaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:52 Sep 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95626.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
48

tion was in fact established by the Congress in 2002 but the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of National Capital

Region Coordination were not effectively stood up until early 2003.

I would offer that local, State and Federal officials in the intervening time from September 11 and prior to that were effectively

working together on a host of issues. We should not imply that

there was no coordination prior to September 11 and it has dramatically increased in the intervening timeframe, especially even

in advance of the creation of the Office of National Capital Region

Coordination.

While we have been working during the past 21⁄2 years with the

stakeholder groups to gain a better understanding of efforts underway to identify needs to manage risk and to craft a solid approach

of governance that improves our ability to manage the effort over

the longer term, we have been doing this while concurrently moving forward on a host of critical preparedness and prevention initiatives identified by the Congress, State government, local government, the private sector and our citizens immediately after September 11. In short, we have been working hard to address many

critical issues while at the same time putting in place the solid

planning requirements needed to ensure sustainable, practical expenditure of funds over the longer term.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we remain steadfast

in the commitment to find the right balance between speed and

diligence in terms of moving forward with our efforts in the National Capital Region. We are very quickly putting into place the

synchronized efforts that must survey beyond short term accomplishment. We are in various stages of addressing many of the

readily identifiable issues, improve preparedness across the entire

NCR. Public and private sector will require more than addressing

these readily identifiable issues. It is a longer term effort. It does

require the sustained planning activities currently ongoing and

have produced a number of notable accomplishments including the

fact that the Senior Policy Group and our chief administrative officials are meeting literally monthly to discuss these issues in the

National Capital Region.

The one thing I would offer, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Jenkins made

reference to the task force report that was produced for the Homeland Security Advisory Council. There are a number of solid recommendations in that report that mirror some of the issues we

have in the National Capital Region. The one thing I would offer

is I don’t think anyone recognized on the front end what a monumental task this was going to be. Having said that, the one thing

I do encourage this committee to do and you all as Members to do

is to give careful consideration to suspension of the Cash Management Act guidelines for the 2005 grant cycle. That will allow us to

get badly needed cash into local communities so that they can expedite many of the preparedness functions that are caught in the conundrum between the unavailability of cash and the need to go

through procurement processes.

49

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you all for the

opportunity to appear today. Thank you for what you all are doing

for the National Capital Region, the oversight and attention helps

all of us do better.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Foresman follows:]

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Ms. Childs-Pair.

Ms. CHILDS-PAIR. Good morning.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today.

On behalf of Mayor Anthony Williams, I am here today to provide information to the committee on emergency preparedness in

the National Capital Region.

At this time, I would like to introduce Mr. Robert Bobb, city administrator for the District of Columbia and the interim Deputy

Mayor for public safety and justice. The responsibilities of the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice include supporting Mayor

Williams in the continued guidance and development of homeland

security strategy for the District of Columbia; working in partnership with senior Federal, State and local officials within the National Capital Region to guide regional planning and implement regional policy, oversight of spending related to special appropriations and Federal grants, supporting homeland security and the direction of emergency preparedness activities for the District of Columbia.

In order to provide more effective and cohesive oversight, the

Federal Department of Homeland Security now requires that

homeland security grants being awarded to States be funneled

through a single State administrative agent. The Mayor of the District of Columbia has appointed the Deputy Mayor as the homeland

security point of contact through which all grant moneys must be

administered. Over the past 3 years, the Deputy Mayor’s office has

developed an innovative administrative structure and grant management process that strengthens and supports security preparedness in the Nation’s Capital.

The following strategic priorities guided the Deputy Mayor’s administration of the grant funds that came to the city, approved the

District and region administration of grant funding for disaster response and recovery ability by developing and maintaining an understanding of integrated operational capability, developed in coordination with our Federal partners, volunteer organizations, universities and the private sector, assist all levels of the District and

regional government first responders, volunteer groups, universities and the public in meeting the responsibility of public emergency and challenges through program management and coordination activities.

This will allow for a methodology for strategic planning and a

justification for resource allotment, provide critical information to

Congress, the public, the media and the emergency management

community by maintaining strict spending and activity records and

by building partnerships with and among Federal and regional entities, District agencies, other responder organizations and the private sector.

Shortly after September 11, Congress appropriated funds for

emergency preparedness and homeland security, including

$155,900,000 to various agencies of the District of Columbia for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. A special appropriations also was delineated among 12 Federal payment categories across 13 agencies, including the District’s Emergency Management Agency, Fire and

63

Emergency Medical Service Department and the Metropolitan Police Department.

Our goals and priorities included the following: ensure the District of Columbia is prepared to respond to and recover from emergencies and incidents of all kinds, including natural disasters, manmade disasters and terrorist attacks; ensure that law enforcement

organizations are working together to prevent terrorist attacks to

the greatest extent possible; maintain an appropriate balance between security considerations and openness; empower citizens to be

prepared for any emergency or disaster; and engage non-governmental, private sector and community organizations as full partners in the District’s homeland security emergency preparedness

programs.

Our priorities included: outfitting and training our first responders with the proper equipment and tools they need to fulfill their

responsibilities effectively and safely; train key personnel in our

District response plans for all hazards; conduct and participate in

tabletop and field exercises; meet or exceed emergency management accreditation program standards for emergency, disaster

management, and business continuity planning; become the first

city in the Nation to be accredited; and to develop interoperability

among the key Federal, State and District agencies in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Region for large scale incidents. Additionally, as approved by Congress, in Public Law 107–206, 2002

Supplemental Appropriations Act for further recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on the United States, 1 percent of the

funds were separated into a fund for administrative costs.

In summary, I would like to add the following. While we have

our tracking tools, we are spending the money as available and expediting as we can but since September 11, the District has not

faced many challenges in obtaining Federal funding for emergency

preparedness based on the allocation of the $156 million in appropriations. Even though the District has not faced challenges in obtaining funding, we are concerned with maintaining the levels of

readiness in the future if the grant levels are decreased. The upkeep and renewal of equipment, revision of plans based on new

threats and policies and training of personnel within the regions

have a significant financial impact if to the localities without future

grant funding.

Challenges associated with receiving funds include personnel to

support new equipment, maintenance responsibilities and associated training. An additional challenge is the Federal funds require

many agencies to use approved training courses. Training must be

done through federally approved programs but the training courses

that we offer do not fulfill the District’s training needs regarding

preparedness and response. The Washington, DC, metropolitan

area is subject to many potential hazards, both natural and manmade as well as major special events which are specific to the National Capital Region. Protests against the war in Iraq, the World

War II Memorial dedication and the funeral of Ronald Reagan are

recent examples of events that affected the city. The District’s support for all of these events has been improved because of the planning, communications, training exercises made possible with the

Federal funds and the support from the Office of the National CapVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:52 Sep 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95626.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
64

ital Region Coordination and NCRC has created a forum for all entities to engage and communicate effectively through meetings and

conference calls that have allowed these events to occur in a safe

and responsible manner.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify here today and for your

continued support.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Childs-Pair follows:]

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you all very much. I will start the

questioning.

Mr. Lockwood, Department of Homeland Security left this position open for several months. Much of what we have talked about

today is the setting of priorities, placing available resources against

those priorities. No one can be successful in this job if they don’t

have enough visibility and resources within DHS to fulfill that mission. The fact that they left this open so long and so on, do you

think you have needed clout there or do you think we need to write

some law? What do you think? For you to be successful, you have

to be able to have clout within the agency. The fact they left this

open for so long, I think leaves a lot of us in doubt in terms of what

is the commitment of the administration.

Mr. LOCKWOOD. I would like to think they left it open so long

that they could pick the good person for this job. Let me just say,

Secretary Ridge is very much interested in the National Capital

Region. He works here, he is here, his senior staff is here. This is

something very important to DHS. I have talked to Secretary Ridge

on several occasions as well as the senior staff. This is something

everyone is very clear on what this position is.

Coming back to where Michael Byrne was, I am standing on the

shoulders of the giants that come before me. Mike set an atmosphere of cooperation and of coordination. This is a job that you

can’t be successful at unless you work through and with other people, through local government, through State government, through

the Federal Government.

Do I have the visibility in the organization? Absolutely. Do I

have the support? Right now with great team mates like we have

at the table here and behind us, absolutely.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We want to hear from you if you don’t

think you are getting it because I think this is critical for the safety of the government and for the millions of residents who live

here, which leads me to my second question.

We had a disaster in March 2003 with the Tractor Man who got

sentenced to 6 years yesterday, which is I think a fitting ending

to the chaos that he caused in the region. This was before Mr.

Byrne appeared on the scene to coordinate this. This is just my

opinion. This was one of the most badly coordinated efforts I have

ever seen, one person driving a tractor holding up the regional traffic for three separate rush hours. You talk about peoples’ safety,

ambulances couldn’t get through for heart attack victims, if somebody was injured, police couldn’t get through. It was complete gridlock and that was all because they were concerned about one guy

driving a tractor and not wanting to injure this person. It was a

disaster.

If something like that occurs again, are you willing to step in and

weigh all the different considerations for the safety of the public

but also the traffic flow and the fact the Government needs to continue operating, that one person shouldn’t be able to shut down the

Federal Government for a day and a half? That is a prejudiced

question but I feel strongly about that. So do a lot of my constituents.

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Today is day 30 on the job. In day 30, we have

gone through the World War II planning event, we have gone

73

through the Reagan funeral, we have gone through a senior leadership seminar. Will incidents occur in this city? They occur every

day. We have a great team behind us within local government,

within State government to manage those. We have been actively

working the protocols and the procedures to better integrate, better

form incident management and unified command.

Is there work to be done? Absolutely, and that is part of the plan

working with local and State partners.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And everything went well, I think, in a

general sense through the opening of the World War II Memorial

and the funeral but we have had numerous incidents since I have

been involved in politics where one person is on a bridge and having a bad day and stops East Coast traffic for hours, where we really haven’t had a good response that looks at the good of the overall

region. It focuses on that person. We need a global focus on this

to understand what makes this city work, understand there are

tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people affected

by one person.

As you take this job, we want you to keep that in mind. Holding

up the traffic for 6 hours and talking somebody off a bridge is not

necessarily successful, in my opinion. That is my own opinion. It

may be the minority opinion up here, I don’t know, but they finally

shot the guy down with a beanbag, I think in one incident and

didn’t charge him.

If we allow one person to do that, it just empowers the next person. Nothing is going to happen to me, nothing is going to happen

to me. This is the seat of government, we have a responsibility to

keep it going and keep traffic moving. I just think for the average

person, that is what they are concerned about. That is where they

need to see coordination. Obviously we all fear a major disaster and

how we would respond to that and that is important as well, but

I think you are more likely to have these traffic terrorists or something, having a bad day and want to take it out on the region. I

think they need to be dealt with quickly and effectively. My question is, I guess, are you prepared to do that?

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Yes, sir, I am prepared. When we worked together for the Reagan event, we had a series of teleconferences,

Federal, State and local, to make sure we were well coordinated.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I will just tell you if it doesn’t work out,

just be thinking every minute that you are going to be up here before the committee explaining why you are doing everything. Monday morning is always a little different than Sunday afternoon on

the field.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am trying to figure out in a real sense how you figure into unexpected disasters because that is the whole reason for our preparedness. I want to take as an example another traffic example.

The chairman took the example that exasperated the region. I

want to take one that scared the you know what in everybody and

the Congress—thank you, sir—bejesus, I am told. I am talking

about the day we were all chased out of the Capitol. I know we

were chased out of the Rayburn and I have come to think when you

hear these bells go off, well, you know, I will go because I am supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:52 Sep 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95626.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
74

posed to go but once again, they are testing. It was when they

began to talk on the loud speaker that I said, well, I guess I am

going and then we all start—and they told us to run, not walk and

we did what they said and it turned out to be nothing. Let me tell

you what we know and I want to figure out where you fit into this

because this is really what we are interested in. We know you

weren’t the controller, we are trying to figure out what role you

play in light of the unexpected.

First of all, it wasn’t Kentucky’s fault. It turns out to have been

the fault at our end because Kentucky apparently alerted the FAA.

Apparently within the time period he took off at 3:45 p.m., and

they didn’t realize their error until 4:34 p.m. and that was, according to this report, 3 minutes after the Capitol evacuation was ordered and that the aircraft was 11 miles or 3 minutes away.

Who should have been coordinating apparently was the National

Capital Regional Coordination Center, whatever that is. The FAA

air coordinator apparently did not notify this center. I am on the

Aviation Subcommittee and they are looking at it. I am on Homeland Security and we are looking at it, so I know kind of where

those folks fit in and maybe you shouldn’t fit in but my question

is, when something like that happens, are you even in the loop? If

so, what is your role and what do you do, and what did you do on

that day when that happened?

Mr. LOCKWOOD. On that day after that happened, that evening

we went through the initial lessons learned to understand what the

events were.

Ms. NORTON. You misunderstand my question. First, are you in

the loop? Did you know about it? Did you have any role to play or

is there no role? I am prepared to accept the notion that if it is an

airplane or something, maybe you have some role or maybe no role

but my question is, does the coordinator for this region have any

role when the highly unexpected happens and no one knows—by

the way, that was one of the days of the Reagan funeral, I might

add, when you were all supposed to be on very special alert. My

question is, what was your role, when were you notified, and what

did you do at that time, not what was your debriefing role, what

did you do at that time?

Mr. LOCKWOOD. During the events of the Reagan funeral, there

were various operations centers around the region that were up

and operating. One of the roles I had that day was walking

through each of the operations center to have an understanding of

how they work and how they interact with each other. I was there

through the discussion of what occurred.

Am I a part of the discussion? Yes, I was present as this was unfolding. Yes, I was present at the debriefing and yes, I have been

present within the lessons learned and the integration processes to

not only understand the root cause of the problem but to correct

that root cause and other related issues. I understand TSA is the

lead for that effort right now.

Mr. FORESMAN. Ms. Norton, would you allow me to offer a perspective as well?

Ms. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. FORESMAN. First, I wouldn’t note that the evacuation of the

Capitol was in fact a failure. The fact that the notification process

75

worked, that there was an unidentified aircraft taken into account,

that there were some problems on the front end in terms of it.

Ms. NORTON. The cops up here did what they were supposed to

do. We are quite aware of that.

Mr. FORESMAN. Absolutely, but I would point out, I think what

is important to understand for all of us is to recognize there are

existing structures and processes and the Office of National Capital

Region Coordination is designed to be a facilitator of programmatic

coordination activities on a day to day basis but when operational

events occur, those crisis operational structures are there and are

in place, they have been there prior to the establishment of this office and it is really about not creating new structures but making

sure the other ones work.

Tom serves a critical role in making sure that all of the apparatus that are in that decisionmaking, operational structure, if there

is a problem to help deconflict it, particularly on the Federal side

and has been extremely valuable both he and his predecessor and

when Ken Maul was the acting director.

The one thing I would offer is this is bigger than one person in

one office. Part of what we are doing is making sure we work with

our local officials, our State agencies and our Federal agencies not

to create new structures that people need to learn about but to go

through the existing structure.

I would just offer from a Virginia perspective, we don’t see Tom

as being the belly button for an operational activity, but if there

is a problem, he is my first call.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up but that is

an important intervention and we fully understand he is not operational. That is why my question was, is he in the loop and let me

tell you why that is my question. Precisely because he has a view,

or should have, a view of this region that nobody else has precisely

because of his coordination role, not that he has an operational

role, it is that among the people who should be ‘‘in the loop,’’ he

ought to be one of them because he may know something. What in

the world does the FAA know about us in particular, what do they

know about interoperability, for example, here in particular? So if

the Coordinator has knowledge that others don’t have, at least if

they need to know that, he should be in the loop so that he is available to tell them what they don’t know.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SCHROCK [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Norton.

Thank you all for being here. Your testimony is interesting and

I am really listening carefully to this. I guess I never realized the

Commonwealth of Virginia thought Mr. Lockwood was a bellybutton but that is a new one for the books.

The chairman commented on ‘‘Tractor Man’’ here a year ago

March and the havoc he created and I just wonder at what point

do we put a stop to that stuff and 1 hour after Tractor Man II

comes along, we go in there and take him out. My military mind

tells me we have to do that because if you have 10 tractor mans

all around this area, you could literally paralyze this area for days

and days. My solution to that would have been to send five members of a special operations force in there and you get rid of the

guy, get him out of there. We cannot allow this to happen but the

76

problem is, if they do that and the police shoot him, it is police brutality. I am really getting kind of tired of that. I think that is what

we have police and law enforcement officials for, to do that, and the

media be damned when it comes to that kind of stuff. We have to

take stronger action.

Of all the things that were said, Ms. Childs-Pair, one of the last

things you said was will funding continue to be there. I worry

about that too because as far as I am concerned, the first responders not only in the Capital Region but around America are doing

a magnificent job working together. They are in the Hampton

Roads area I represent and when bad things don’t happen, Americans think, OK, we are safe again. We are real impatient. We think

5 minutes after something is supposedly corrected, we go on to the

next issue and do we start cutting funding.

I will use two examples. When everybody thought the world was

at peace, defense spending was cut. Nothing could have been further from the truth. We had a lively debate on the floor yesterday

about intelligence spending. Everybody thought after the cold war

was over, we didn’t need to put money into intelligence and we cut

it. Are we going to do the same thing here? I don’t think we can

afford to do that and frankly, the people who sit on this side of the

room have to make sure that never happens again. That was a

very good question and I think that is something we need to address.

I hate to say it but in the Hampton Roads area, gridlock is starting to get real nasty down there as well, so I am watching what

happens up here to see what is going to hit us in about 5 years.

We are all too familiar with gridlock on the roads even in the best

times during twice daily rush hours. In the event of an attack, in

which case we can add chaos and panic to the evacuation equation,

would any of you state we are any better off today than we were

on September 11 and if so, please support that answer and if not,

why not and what then do we have to show for the money we have

spent and how soon if we are not getting results, can we expect results?

Mr. FORESMAN. I would like to start because I was here on September 11. Actually, I was in Montana but got back here on September 12. Yes, we are much better, we are phenomenally better.

I want to point to September 11. The men and women, local, State,

Federal, who responded to the Pentagon from all across this region

did their jobs with exceptional coordination and diligence. In fact,

it was a very effective response. The perception we have across this

region that it was an ineffective response was because we did have

gridlock and that is a reality. We had well intentioned decisions

made within the Federal family for release of the Federal work

force that were not appropriately coordinated with State and local

authorities.

Just 30 days ago, when we talked about the whole issue of the

Reagan funeral, when we talked abut the World War II dedication

and all those Federal decisionmakers were on the phone with the

State decisionmakers, and the local chief administrative official

saying do we open or close State government, do we open or close

the Federal Government, what are we going to do with local govVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:52 Sep 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95626.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
77

ernment? So from that standpoint if it were to happen today, I

think we are phenomenally better prepared.

Second, I would like to point out you talked about ‘‘Tractor Man’’

and I think that is a phenomenally great example. There are two

types of decisions. There are tactical decisions and there are strategic decisions. In our public safety community, we have great experience with making tactical decisions. We have done it for years, you

understand it with your military background, but we have engaged

in an error where chief administrative officials, chief elected officials at the local and State level have to make strategic decisions

on top of tactical decisions and balance the economic and societal

consequences of decisions about whether you do or don’t go in and

subdue a suspect, and balance those against all of that.

Mr. Lockwood mentioned the fact that we did a senior leaders exercise and the effort is designed to make sure that at the tactical

level, fire, EMS, law enforcement, and emergency management can

make those tactical decisions but at a strategic level, those governance issues that the chief appointed or chief elected officials at the

various levels of government are engaged in that process. I think

we are doing a phenomenally better job around the region.

The discussion we had last week was not about where do we

place the command post, it was about what is the societal implication of closing or not closing government in the aftermath of attack.

Mr. SCHROCK. George, the problem is the poor law enforcement

people are damned if they do and they can’t win. If they had gone

in and taken out ‘‘Tractor Man’’ and 1 day, oh, that is a horrible

thing but look what he did. He was perfectly harmless, we understand that, but at some point we have to say enough is enough, we

won’t do that anymore and let the chips fall where they may. I

think the bulk of the American public would respect that. The

media can harp on the thing as much as they want but at some

point, we have to put a stop to this kind of stuff because as I said,

a dozen tractor mans in this area, Virginia, Maryland and D.C. and

we would be shut down completely.

Mr. FORESMAN. Congressman, if I might briefly follow on to that,

I think that is a prime example where if a tactical decision is made

not to do something or to do something, then we need to make sure

at the strategic level, at chief executive levels, that they concur or

don’t concur with it because it is not only an operational decision,

it is a political decision when you are talking about national security.

Mr. SCHROCK. Thank you.

Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and

thank all of you for your testimony.

I was just reviewing some of the testimony from the previous

hearing we had on this issue of defending the capital region and

I understand there has been a great spirit of team work and desire

and intention to collaborate. I think the question the GAO report

raises is a gap between good intentions and implementation and

follow through.

In that regard, Mr. Jenkins, I understand from your report that

you looked at the moneys that have been channeled toward the

Capital Region over the last 2 years. As I read your conclusions,

78

you say the Coordination Office, the Department of Homeland Security has spent most of their efforts in determining how to use the

$60.5 million for the urban area security initiative funds, is that

right?

Mr. JENKINS. That is correct.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I saw your breakdown of how those have been

spent. Have you had any opportunity to analyze the effectiveness

of the allocation of those moneys? Do you think those moneys are

being well spent for the purposes?

Mr. JENKINS. We didn’t really have an opportunity. We got some

basic summary of what those moneys were for and why in the form

of a table. One of the things we wanted to get that we didn’t get

that would have been helpful to us was the feedback they gave to

local jurisdictions about their plans because the $65 million, decisions on that was based on analysis of the plans that local governments sent to the Office of Domestic Preparedness but we never

saw what those assessments were, so that made it very difficult for

us to determine how this process worked.

It certainly is true, and I think it is laudable that what they

tried to do was look at it on a regionwide basis and tried to look

at both private sector, public and State but we didn’t have the information to really assess whether this was a good plan or a soso plan.

Mr. SCHROCK. Did you ask for that information?

Mr. JENKINS. We did ask for that information.

Mr. SCHROCK. We can followup on that.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Have you had any opportunity to analyze the

effectiveness of the allocation of those moneys? Do you think those

moneys are being well spent for the purposes?

Mr. JENKINS. We didn’t really have an opportunity. We got some

basic summary of what those moneys were for and why they were

for in the form of a table. One of the things we wanted to get that

we didn’t get that would have been helpful to us was the feedback

they gave to local jurisdictions about their plans because the $65

million decision was based on an analysis of the plans that local

governments had sent to the Office of Domestic Preparedness but

we never saw what those assessments were so that made it very

difficult for us to determine how this process worked.

It certainly is true and I think what they tried to do is laudable

in looking at it for a regionwide basis and tried to look at both private sector, public and State but we didn’t have the information to

really assess whether this was a good plan or a so-so plan.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Did you ask for that information?

Mr. JENKINS. We did ask for that information.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We can followup on that later.

That $60.5 million, who has control of that money?

Mr. JENKINS. The District is actually the administrative officer

for that money, the District of Columbia, but actually is money

that has been appropriated to the region and it is the senior policy

group that has been determining how to do that. They made a decision, Mike Byrne and the Senior Policy Group, made a specific decision to use that money solely for purposes that had regionwide benefit, not specific local jurisdiction benefit.

79

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. So for example, now Mr. Lockwood would have

direct influence over where those moneys were spent?

Mr. JENKINS. Right.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Can they be released without your approval,

Mr. Lockwood?

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Part of the structure that we have changed is it

is not just a State only process anymore. This is in collaboration

with the county administrative officers, with the city administrative officer working through the CAOs. The CAOs fundamentally

define those things that need to be done. My role is to make sure

that we solicit, facilitate, coordinate between the region for the resources. What we decided was it was more efficient to commit all

these resources to the region than to break it up and divide it three

ways. That doesn’t enhance the safety.

What we then said was, instead of breaking up the management

of this, the District of Columbia stood up and said we are willing

to take on this additional responsibility, not necessarily for additional resources or additional glory because they definitely take the

burden of trying to do the administrative execution of this money.

We are actively walking through the execution of these dollars at

this point. Roughly 37 percent of those dollars are going for personal protective equipment. Those purchase requests are now moving at this point.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Can that money be released without your OK?

Mr. LOCKWOOD. I believe it can be released without my OK. I believe this is coordinated through the State administrative agent.

Mr. FORESMAN. The way Congress designed the program, it flows

through the State administrative agent, in this case, the District

of Columbia, but it is really dependent on the representatives, the

Mayor and the two Governors and the chief administrative officials

to determine it but we seek to achieve unanimous consensus on

these decisions. We will not always achieve unanimous consensus

on these decisions. We will not always achieve unanimous consensus but Tom is not the bellybutton for turning the dollars on or off.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. All right. Let me get to the other part of the

question.

We talked about the $60.5 million, that leaves about $280 million

according to the GAO report that has been allocated in the last

couple years. Your first recommendation is to work with NCR jurisdictions to develop a coordinated strategic plan to establish goals

and priorities for enhancing first responder capacities that can be

used to guide the use of Federal emergency preparedness funds

which is what I thought was being done.

I see my time is running out but if you could tell me, have you

seen a document that shows of those $280 million, where they are

being spent, where they are in the pipeline with respect to all the

jurisdictions because that would be very helpful just to get at least

a rough handle on where these moneys are going and whether they

are being coordinated. Have you seen such a document and if you

haven’t, do you know whether one is being prepared?

Mr. JENKINS. Let me put it this way, we never were able to identify one. We put humpty dumpty together from a variety of sources

and it wasn’t easy to get that information.

80

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. At least going forward, it seems to me that

should be the job of Mr. Lockwood’s office. GAO shouldn’t be having to pull this all together, it should be there. Would you agree?

Mr. LOCKWOOD. That is one of the initiatives of DHS in general

and will be executed in the region.

Mr. HOLLEN. We look forward to getting something like that.

Thank you very much.

Mr. SCHROCK. Ambassador Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to dovetail on those questions that were addressed

to you previously. Is there an evaluation component? Do you see a

trial run of the coordination of emergency services so that you

could report back as to how effective they were or what is needed?

Is there anything like that being developed?

Mr. JENKINS. Are you asking me?

Ms. WATSON. Yes.

Mr. JENKINS. That is one of the principal purposes of the exercises, to be able to test what you think you can do, what your capabilities are, so in that sense they are useful. We haven’t seen any

analysis of exercises.

Ms. WATSON. Is that something you will require? How do we

know if what we have developed is really going to work if there

isn’t some feedback to the coordinated effort. We can’t require anything.

Mr. JENKINS. Ask Mr. Foresman or Mr. Lockwood. We can require nothing.

Mr. FORESMAN. Congresswoman, one of the things we are required to do as a requirement of those grants is to conduct exercises. One of the base things you do when you conduct the exercise

is evaluate the exercise. We have a regional exercise scheduled that

goes out I believe 12 or 18 months at this point.

Ms. WATSON. That is my question.

Mr. FORESMAN. We will be testing and exercising ourselves on a

regular basis. I would be happy to say that come the fall, it would

probably be good to come back here and tell you how the exercises

are going and we will have a spreadsheet for you that shows you

where all the dollars are in the pipeline.

Ms. WATSON. That is what I am asking, that we do get some

feedback so we can monitor and can see where we need to make

recommendations for adequate funding so the system does work.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would hold another hearing

in the fall so that we could gather this information and be on top

of how effective and if we are supplying you with enough resources.

Chairman TOM DAVIS [presiding]. I hope it is under those circumstances and not other circumstances.

Ms. WATSON. I do also.

Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Moran.

Mr. MORAN OF VIRGINIA. First of all, some basic questions I want

to ask Mr. Lockwood. It is my understanding that the Office of the

National Capital Region has yet to spend its fiscal year 2003 grant

money, has yet to obligate its fiscal 2004 money and has not even

begun planning for how it intends to allocate funds for fiscal year

2005 even though the House has determined the amount of money

81

that will be available for 2005, so basically 3 years in arrears in

terms of expenditure planning.

I would like to get a fuller explanation of why the hold up and

if we can get a timetable for the expenditure of that money?

Mr. LOCKWOOD. As we started this program of urban area security initiative which the majority of the report focused on, to develop a collaborative process, to get the region as a whole to start

defining what their priorities were for the spending of that money

did take some time. After we have come to agreement with those,

those task orders right now, those contract orders are being placed

through the District of Columbia. So the money for fiscal year 2003

is being allocated as we speak. That is being allocated to the plan

that was agreed to, prioritized by the region.

In the opening weeks of July, the county administrative officer,

the city administrative officer, and the SPG will be getting together

to talk about their fiscal year 2004 planning efforts and overall

strategic planning and priorities for the area. Part of the feedback

that I intend to provide that group is some of the real life exercise

experience that we have had through the last two events as well

as the senior leadership seminar that we had last week so that

they might better prioritize investments for fiscal year 2004 and

the recommendations for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. MORAN OF VIRGINIA. I don’t think if you were up here you

would find that response satisfactory but I am not going to take

issue with you. It just seems to me that this is not a perfunctory

kind of process. We are talking about the likelihood, according to

Secretary Ridge, of a terrorist attack occurring. The resources are

there and it seems to me that we ought to be putting things in

place as fast as possible. There needs to be a sense of urgency.

In your answer, and I am sure it is not intended, but particularly

in the results of what has happened over the last 3 years, there

really doesn’t seem to be a sense of urgency on the part of DHS

with regard to the National Capital Region which we know is going

to be target No. 1 in any attack. That is my concern. I am not going

to ask you to take another crack in answering it but I think it is

still a legitimate concern.

I would like to ask, what are the top five priorities for the Office

of the National Capital Region Coordination?

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Some of the key priorities right now are public

awareness.

Mr. MORAN OF VIRGINIA. So education and information?

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Public education, public awareness campaign.

We are actively working to develop a campaign that we can leverage the Federal resources, the content that is already available.

Communications, and one of the priorities we have talked about is

interoperability and interoperability within the National Capital

Region and integration of capabilities and intelligence and information sharing. We have been actively working with the JTTS and

through the JTTS and the antiterrorism task forces. So those are

some near term priorities we are working on.

Another key priority is to get the money out. Going back to your

concern with regard to putting a priority on moving the money, one

of the pieces we have been very concerned about is getting this

money released into the procurement to buy what we need so we

82

can field that. Additionally, we have exercises. Those exercises are

to confirm how we are going to use this equipment when it is received, to make sure people can adequately use this as well as provide feedback to future investment priorities and recommendations.

Mr. MORAN OF VIRGINIA. Let me ask one last question, if I could.

We have a potential situation that is a real threat to our security

in the National Capital Area and that is the rail line that runs

right through the capital, right by the congressional office buildings

and then across the river and through very dense residential areas.

We know that rail line often carries very dangerous materials,

large volumes of chlorine gas, molten sulfur, hydrogen chloride and

it runs adjacent or within less than a mile of some of the most critical installations and facilities. We had the NFL promotion event

on the Mall and yet the rail cars continued to run.

We haven’t gotten a recommendation, nor do I see that there has

really been much thought given to rerouting it out of the most critical, dangerous areas or having some limitation on what those railcars can carry. I had a bill that I thought might at least alert us

to the potential threat. We sell these .50 caliber sniper rifles legally, you can buy them over the Internet and one of the things

they advertise is that they will penetrate the fuselage of a commercial jet aircraft or the side of a rail car. I trust the advertising is

accurate but it wouldn’t take much to perch along the banks of that

rail line and shoot through the hull of one of these freight cars carrying chlorine gas or sulfur or whatever and hundreds of thousands

of people would be immediately affected, most of them in a lethal

manner. Have we given any thought to this? It seems relevant to

the homeland security priorities.

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Yes, sir. With regard to passenger first and then

freight, we have been actively working on a prototype at the New

Carrollton Station with the Metro and there has been active coordination with WMATA, both WMATA, Marc and VRE.

Mr. MORAN OF VIRGINIA. It is not the passengers inside the rail

cars I am worried about, it is a terrorist outside shooting through,

puncturing the walls of a freight train that might carry lethal materials.

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Yes, sir. Moving from the passenger side to the

heavy rail side, to the hazardous materials side, there are actions

and activities within the Department of Homeland Security. I know

some of that has been briefed and the local level back over to D.C.

Council members with regard to legislation they have had, I know

there is a prototype in place with regard to monitoring the rail corridor, a sensing network that has been discussed for the rail corridor to provide additional protective measures but I am not prepared to talk in details at this time.

Ms. CHILDS-PAIR. Mr. Moran, I can add to that. The D.C. City

Council in concert with the Mayor has been looking at that and actually came up with legislation to try to reroute the train system

when they have the chlorine or to stop it altogether, realizing that

it is within the densely populated areas. One of the things they

made clear to us, and probably what we need your help on, is that

they could federally pre-empt any law that we would put into legislation so that they would make it null and void. That is one of the

areas we have been working on.

83

Mr. MORAN OF VIRGINIA. I am glad the D.C. Council is looking

at it. It runs right under the Capitol, as you know, the Capitol

grounds. I don’t want to give any ideas to terrorists but when you

think about some of the things that could happen and we look back

and think, my God, why didn’t we think of that. That seems to be

one of those possibilities, one of those threats.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I want to get to the issue of grants. We are

talking about giving resources and we have talked about a lot of

different issues today but bottom line, our local governments need

the money to be able to move forward.

I want to refer you to a situation that really happened in the

State of Maryland, the central part of Maryland and the Eastern

Shore where you have two jurisdictions attempting to work regionally on an interoperability type program. I think Mr. Schrader you

are aware of that situation where the good news was the grants

were received, they were OK’ed, the Department of Justice but

then you have two different requirements of instructions once the

grants are given. One had to do with the Cops Program and the

other had to do with I believe FEMA. So one program said that you

had to do one thing and one said you had to do another, so all of

a sudden we are promoting regionalism, we are trying to do the

best we can to pull it together and when we put forth a system or

a plan, then our Federal instructions, our grants have mixed messages. This happened to be within the Department of Justice or

whether it could be within Homeland Security or together.

I would like you to comment, first, maybe Mr. Schrader and then

maybe Mr. Lockwood or anyone else on the panel, about what you

think we need to do because as Congress there are certain things

we can do, we can pass laws, at least we can try, and I would think

we have to fix the grant process so that it goes directly.

As a former local elected official, I believe the money needs to go

directly to the locals. I am sure Mr. Schrader, representing the

State, you may disagree, but I have seen many times where grants

would come and if it came through the Federal/State process have

the money is gone before it even gets to where it needs to be versus

the Cops Program that goes directly as long as you can justify it.

Could you please comment on what you would recommend we

need to do to fix this grant situation to get the resources and the

money, especially when you are dealing with regional jurisdictions

that don’t have a lot of money to begin with.

Mr. SCHRADER. Yes, Congressman. It is a pleasure to be here

with you.

In this particular case, the State has been working actively to coordinate these grants regionally in collaboration. We met as recently as yesterday morning with the city of Baltimore in working

on this particular problem with the Cops grant. This CMARC

project is what it is called for central Maryland. It does have the

Cops Grant Program.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Why don’t you explain what that is.

Mr. SCHRADER. There are two major grants that were issued last

year for about $5 million plus each, one on the Eastern Shore of

84

Maryland and the other in the Central Maryland region focused on

Baltimore and the surrounding counties. Both projects are focused

on using what are called, and I apologize for the acronym,

NIPSPACS channels. There are five channels that can be used for

communicating emergency messages. Those two pilot projects are

being developed.

The good news is that we have been coordinating both these regions at the State level and recently through the Urban Area Work

Group, which is a group that has each of the executives and central

Maryland has appointed two people and working through that

group, they have been coordinating this particular grant.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Let me get to the bottom line which is because of the fact there were mixed messages and instructions on

the grants, we were not able to get the matching funds from the

different jurisdictions, correct?

Mr. SCHRADER. We are actually meeting with DOJ on July 7th.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I know our Baltimore delegation sent a letter to Secretary Ridge to try to deal with it.

I want to ask this question and anybody can answer because I

don’t have a lot of time. Based on the issue of the mixed message

with grants, different instructions, the problem we have is we get

the grant and then we don’t know how to fulfill it. What can the

Federal Government and Congress do to help States and regional

groups so this flexibility is built in through legislation?

Mr. FORESMAN. Three quick answers, Congressman. First, we

need to manage the expectations. The vast majority of Federal

grants are reimbursement programs. There is no such thing as the

money being missing when it gets down to them because it is based

on local or State government submitting to Federal agencies requests for reimbursement. So we have to manage the expectations

and make sure all of us understand the vast majority of Federal

grants are reimbursement grants.

Second, we have to be careful to not look at 1 year’s worth of

grant activity and go in and make major changes. My brother is

a fire chief in a small rural department in western Virginia. I love

him to death but his ability to adjust to multiple grant programs

is minimal sometimes and if we change it every year, it causes him

even more angst. The issue is we have to stay the course in terms

of the mechanics for the grants processes but clearly the one thing

this Congress could do is to work to make sure the Federal agencies come up with a standardized grants management process.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. That is the answer I would hope I would

hear, to standardize. It seems to me you need to recommend to us

what those standards need to be. We have a lot of bills in the hopper right now about standards but from your perspective, from

local moving up to Federal, we need to know that.

Mr. FORESMAN. Congressman, I would just echo that it is going

to require a disciplined approach on the part of Congress that as

people change they don’t like changes. It is going to require us to

go through two or three grant cycles to see whatever a disciplined

approach is, whatever a standardized approach is, whether it is

going to work over the longer term.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

85

Let me thank this panel. This has been very illuminating for the

Members. I will dismiss you with our deep thanks and we will take

a 2-minute recess before we call our next panel.

[Recess.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We have a great panel. We have Anthony

Griffin, county executive, Fairfax County, who I have had the

pleasure to work with for many, many years, about 20 years; we

have Mary Beth Michos, the fire chief for Prince William County

and the last year’s Fire Chief Magazine career chief of the year;

James Schwartz, director of emergency management, Arlington

County and the new Fire Chief for the county effective this coming

Monday. Congratulations, I am a veteran of the Cherrydale Fire

House where I did my Cub scout meetings as a kid. We have also

have Dr. Jacqueline F. Brown, chief administrative officer, Prince

George’s County. I want to thank her for being here as well.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We swear everyone here because we are

the major investigative committee in the Congress. That is just

what we do. Once we had the opportunity to have Wes Unseld, the

general manager of the Washington Bullets, now the Wizards, in

front of me and I got to ask him under oath if the Bullets would

have a winning season. He said, I can just promise you exciting

basketball. I think they won 13 games the next year. We almost

hauled him up here on perjury but we figured he was giving his

best effort.

Tony, we will start with you. Thank you very much for your leadership in the region and for being with us today. I would note for

Mr. Schrock that Mr. Griffin when he leaves has to go down to a

regional meeting in Virginia Beach in your district, so you don’t

want to keep him too long.

Mr. SCHROCK. If he has room, I will go with you.

STATEMENTS OF ANTHONY H. GRIFFIN, COUNTY EXECUTIVE,

FAIRFAX COUNTY; MARY BETH MICHOS, FIRE CHIEF,

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY; JAMES SCHWARTZ, DIRECTOR OF

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, ARLINGTON COUNTY; AND JACQUELINE F. BROWN, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Chairman Davis, for the opportunity to

testify before the Committee on Government Reform on the subject

of grant management and coordination for emergency management

from the perspective of Fairfax County.

I am Anthony H. Griffin, county executive for Fairfax County, an

appointed position.

Grants for homeland security have been allocated to Fairfax

County in three ways: direct allocation by the Federal Government;

allocation through the State of Virginia; and indirect allocation

through funding to the National Capital Region for enhancing the

region’s response to potential terrorism.

The county has used the money to supplement its emergency preparedness efforts to include strengthening emergency planning programs, conducting training and exercises and purchasing equipment directly related to emergency management and response. The

Fairfax County Office of Emergency Management, a newly created

86

agency, is the agency responsible for managing homeland security

grants. An interagency committee assists OEM in identifying

unmet needs and matching them to grant funding opportunities.

The following is illustrative but not limited to in how grants

funds have been used. Equipment has been purchased for an alternate emergency operations center located in the county’s government center to be operational by the beginning of August of this

year. A new fire department mobile command post has been purchased, screening devices and security cameras have been purchased, protective gear for first responders has been or is in the

process of being acquired. A fully operational Citizens Corps program is being established with several hundred citizens having

completed community emergency response team training. A data

base has been established to track and notify these volunteers.

A Medical Reserve Corps has been developed with 5,200 volunteers. In October of last year, the MRC participated in a full scale

dispensing site exercise at a local high school. A new terrorism

annex has been written for the county’s emergency operations plan.

The annex is more detailed and outlines roles and responsibilities

for county agencies in the event of a nuclear, chemical or biological

event. In 2003, the county conducted a tabletop exercise with a

dirty bomb scenario with more than 100 participants from a cross

section of agencies and volunteer groups.

The list of accomplishments is a beginning in the county’s efforts

to be responsive in case there is a significant terrorism event.

Training and a shift in readiness is underway but emergency preparedness will require sustained attention over the next several

years. The grant funding must continue if these efforts of preparedness are to succeed. The Federal Government should review the

criteria for the expenditure of grant funds because in some instances, the preparedness needs of a community are not supported

by current regulations. For example, the county’s largest expenditure by far is for a new emergency operations center to include an

emergency communications center. The prohibition against bricks

and mortar makes this facility a major funding challenge for the

county.

Finally, while this is not a grant issue, one area of emergency

preparedness that needs continuous focus in the NCR is the coordination and communication of Federal agencies with State and local

governments. Federal agencies need to be continually encouraged

to work with State and local governments on the timely sharing of

information and the integration of Federal agency planning with

State and local plans. The implementation of the new National Response Plan and the National Incident Management System is a

good beginning but it is only that.

In closing, significant progress has been made but significant

work on readiness remains and a partnership between the three

levels of government is necessary to enhance our success. In particular, I want to thank the chairman for his support of the county

and its efforts to enhance security and emergency response.

If I may, listening to the earlier testimony, wearing my hat as

chairman of the Chief Administrative Officers for the Washington

Metropolitan Area, I did want to note for the record that of the $60

million that has been allocated in fiscal year 2003, those funds

87

have been distributed and are in the pipeline for the acquisition of

appropriate training and equipment and approximately 80 percent

of the $29 million available, the 2004 money, has similarly been allocated. On July 7, the CAOs, working with the senior policy group,

will continue the discussion about the remaining allocation of the

2004 money and will begin discussion about our priorities in anticipation of appropriations of 2005 money.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffin follows:]

88

89

90

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Tony, thank you very much.

Chief, thanks for being with us.

Ms. MICHOS. Thank you for this opportunity to testify before

your committee today. My name is Mary Beth Michos and I am the

chief of fire and rescue and also an assistant emergency services

coordinator in Prince William County, VA. I am here today to provide testimony on Prince William County’s experience with emergency preparedness coordination, being part of the National Capital

Region with the emphasis on our grants management and coordination.

We are a rapidly growing community and we are challenged on

a daily basis from this growth to provide our basic services of police, fire and emergency medical services, but in addition to this,

now we are also being challenged by the emerging issue of keeping

our community safe in the event of terrorism. As you know, this

is very costly and we are very grateful that the Congress has allocated homeland security funds for States and local jurisdictions.

We are also very grateful that you have recognized our vulnerability here in the National Capital Region and have provided us

with the Office of National Capital Regional Coordination.

Over the past 21⁄2 years, Prince William County has been fortu- nate in that we have received $5.3 million in Federal funds for

emergency preparedness. Right now we have staff sequestered and

they are working on finalizing a grant request for another $905,000

which has to be submitted tomorrow.

The first $4.3 million for the county was a direct earmark in a

supplemental appropriation bill passed shortly after the September

11 terrorist acts. These funds have been expended on equipment

and needed training to strengthen our ability to be first responder

in the event of weapons of mass destruction incidents. Additional

resources are being allocated to Prince William County through the

Urban Security Initiative administered by the Department of

Homeland Security.

Our Chief Administrative Officers have been very involved in

working with this and this has allowed for range of emergency

service functions within the region to collaborate to identify regional solutions that are beyond the scope of what we could do on

an individual basis as a local jurisdiction.

We do appreciate all the resources that Congress has provided to

local governments and first responders. However, it is important

that you know that performing the processes to assess our capabilities, identify our vulnerabilities, develop plans and needs assessments for our homeland security preparedness is both highly staff

and time intensive. The efforts to conduct this work in my department have taken over a year and despite the intense work and

high quality of the strategies that resulted, we still find that when

we get information on grants that we have to complete, there is

still additional information that is wanted and often times the

timeframes are inadequate.

It may appear that the timetables the Federal and State governments place on grant deadlines are sufficient for local governments.

However, by the time these grant processes go through the Federal

Government, come down through the State, we generally only have

91

a few weeks to do our work to submit the grants. During these few

weeks, we have a lot of coordination with other agencies throughout our county government, agencies funded both by State and

local governments. In our case, we have four incorporated towns we

have to coordinate with, volunteer agencies such as our volunteer

fire and rescue companies and then we have to assess our local

ability to manage the ongoing and operational and replacement

costs of what we are requesting in these grants because that money

is not available from the State or the Federal Government. Last,

we have to obtain authorization from our Board of County Supervisors. While we have developed a priority list of needs to guide us

in developing our requests, the workload associated with these requests has increased as our staff is required to attend numerous

planning and coordination meetings, locally, regionally and within

our State. To give you an example, in the last 18 months my meeting schedule alone has more than doubled and I am just one member of our department who attends these meetings. I am just one

agency head within the county government attending these meetings.

Recognizing the increased workload and short turn around times,

in Prince William we have hired an emergency services coordinator

and some assistants to coordinate all these processes. We are fortunate that Prince William County has the resources to staff these

positions because that funding isn’t available from other sources.

As far as gaps in emergency preparedness in the National Capital Area, we feel that the State and Federal Governments don’t

have the same degree of coordination and cooperation that we are

seeing on the local level. This sometimes hinders our local and regional efforts. A serious obstruction does exist to effective mutual

aid assistance between Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Congress must act to address the liability and indemnification issues which arise when emergency aid is provided across

boundaries. The need for legislation for homeland security has been

specifically addressed by the Governors of Maryland, Virginia and

the Mayor in their eight commitments to action with the Department of Homeland Security.

We are very appreciative of the efforts made by ONCRC of the

Department of Homeland Security, there is still a lot of work to do.

We can’t lose sight that, while we are doing this work we still have

our normal daily incidents to respond to and normal daily workloads to handle. Whatever the Federal Government has local jurisdictions do with regard to vulnerability assessments, grant applications, reimbursement requests or other bureaucratic processes, it

ought to be done to fill a clear need and with our input to make

sure that what is being done is going to be of help to us. We don’t

mind doing the work at the local level if we know it is going to improve the situation.

Prince William County participated in the required vulnerability

assessment that took away 10 staff members for a 2-week period

last year. This effort has given back very little to our community

and although we know that our fiscal year 2004 and 2005 security

grants will be evaluated against this, we are able to articulate our

vulnerabilities with a higher degree of confidence than this document is giving us.

92

In summary, Prince William County is in a much stronger position to respond to any manmade event, whether chemical or biological than we were before September 11. There is also better coordination and cooperation at the local and regional levels. Our

predominant focus has been to keep pace with the requirements of

the grants as well as to make sure that we are doing the right

things to be as prepared as we possibly can.

Our senior officers and administrative staff have justifiably been

inundated with homeland security duties. I believe it is essential

for all levels of government to find new and better ways to work

with each other so that we can optimize the limited time and staff

that we have to get the results you want. I will be satisfied when

we reach a point where all of our firefighters, our police officers,

and our EMTs express their confidence that they feel they are capable to respond effectively to any WMD contingency.

In closing, I want to thank you again for giving me this opportunity and I will be glad to answer any questions later.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Michos follows:]

93

94

95

96

97

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Chief Schwartz, welcome.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. My name is Jim Schwartz. I am the director of

emergency management for Arlington County and as the Chair so

graciously acknowledged at the beginning, I will assume the position of fire chief for Arlington County next week. I also served as

the incident commander for the September 11 response to the Pentagon.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on the issue of

homeland security in our National Capital Region today, and I am

grateful, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in trying to ensure as

effective and efficient a process as possible to provide resources to

the level of government with the greatest responsibility to respond

to an act of terrorism, not just to protect that Government’s citizens and resources, but in this region, to also protect Federal employees and Federal resources. Our county is not only home to the

Pentagon, but also provides approximately 60 percent of its commercial office space to Federal agencies. Our county bears significant responsibilities for protection and response to critical parts of

the Nation’s national defense and anti-terrorism capacity.

The successful response of Arlington and its regional partners in

the wake of the attack on the Pentagon on September 11 underscores the fact that the National Capital Region has a strong foundation upon which to build. While the incident at the Pentagon

paled in comparison to the attacks in New York, it was, nonetheless, an indication of the years of work of regional leaders. We

knew we had the capacity to coordinate responses, and, indeed,

based upon those experiences, we think we have made significant

improvements since then.

It is clear that continued progress is needed, and, therefore, we

regard this hearing as a positive opportunity. This morning I would

like to focus my testimony on the priority setting process, the undermining uncertainty of the Federal funding process, the lack of

coordination of the plethora of Federal funding streams, the inadequacy of current assistance, the significant administrative burden

imposed on local government recipients, and mutual aid indemnification.

Former Utah Governor and current EPA Administrator Michael

Leavitt made the point after his State hosted the Winter Olympics

that we really need a new paradigm in our intergovernmental antiterrorism process. As he said, it can no longer be a top-down process; rather it must be some combination of bottom-up, horizontal,

and top-down. It must more closely resemble emerging global corporate trends of governance.

Ironically, it was our National Capital Region that brought the

issue of interregional coordination with Federal support to the Federal Government’s attention after the 1995 incident in the Tokyo

subway system.

Our efforts led to the first locally staffed terrorism response team

in the Nation. That team, the Metropolitan Medical Strike Team,

was the predecessor of the Metropolitan Medical Response System

[MMRS], which remains the only federally funded program to require a systematic and integrated regional approach to planning

98

and response to acts of terrorism. It is a model that should be expanded, not scrapped.

The Federal Government should ensure a meaningful role for the

level of government most affected by terrorist threats and should

shift to a threat-based formula that more appropriately recognizes

greater responsibilities for those local governments that will be

first to arrive, render aid to casualties, and manage the incident.

Local governments should not be junior partners.

We appreciate that there have been adjustments made in the

NCR to ensure a more meaningful process for local input for the

establishment of homeland security priorities in the National Capital Region. We encourage the direction of the change and a longer

term commitment to our regional governments’ critical role in the

provision of homeland security.

As said by other witnesses, there is a significant uncertainty in

the Federal funding process. Federal funding shifts from year-toyear, even after grant programs are decided; decisions are made to

retroactively cut funds and transfer them to other uses. It is difficult to discern whether the war on terrorism is a year-to-year effort, or a long-term commitment.

The Federal process makes it difficult to develop a longer term

plan and meaningful first responder infrastructure. We would respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, consideration of consolidating

the many and varied Federal grant streams in the NCR into a 5-

year block grant program. Such a change would significantly increase our regional capacity to put together the infrastructure necessary to make real and sustainable changes.

There remain too many funding streams, often not coordinated at

the Federal and State levels. They reflect competing purposes at

the Federal level, but immense administrative demands at the local

and regional level. It means we devote too much time to trying to

determine what Federal or State officials want, instead of focusing

on the most critical needs in the region.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created the Office for National Capital Region Coordination within the Department of

Homeland Security in recognition of the vulnerability of the region,

its high risk of terrorism, and the unique and dominant Federal

presence. Despite that recognition, the region receives less in Federal per capita assistance than Wyoming.

We appreciate that there are serious debates in the House about

modifying the formula, but we think any discussion of how terrorism funds are allocated should reflect the unique characteristics of

this region. We believe it would be constructive to ask DHS to establish baselines—basic requirements for local governments based

upon tiers of risk assessment—so that Federal grant funds meet

fundamental needs and build capacity from there.

Because of the many different grants and funding streams, Arlington devotes enormous administrative and management resources to emergency preparation and prevention which are ineligible for reimbursement. This diverts resources from priority needs,

again, so that we are forced to devote resources to a plethora of

grants and grant management requirements that detract from the

job at hand.

99

As the House and Senate work to reauthorize a 6-year surface

transportation program, we believe the concept has merit for emergency preparedness. To the extent that Federal funding beyond

next September 30th, on an annual basis, remains uncertain, it directly affects local budget decisions about whether to make longer

term investments in human and capital infrastructure to prepare

and respond, or whether to make short-term purchases. This uncertainty is increased by reprogramming requests made by the Department of Homeland Security in the last 2 months of funds already appropriated by Congress. Can you imagine the construction

of the mixing bowl project or the new Wilson Bridge in such circumstances?

I am going to leave the rest of my testimony for the record. I am

obviously over my time but I appreciate the opportunity and would

look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwartz follows:]

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Chief, thank you very much.

Dr. Brown, thanks for being with us.

Ms. BROWN. Good morning, Chairman Davis and committee

members. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you

today to testify on emergency preparedness in the National Capital

Region with an emphasis on first responder grant management.

This subject is very critical to Prince George’s County where over

835,000 residents live and over 100 different languages and dialects are spoken.

During fiscal years 2002 and 2003, Prince George’s County re- ceived approximately $10.4 million dollars in grant funding for

items such as: Hazardous materials truck, decontamination supplies, decontamination vehicle, breathing air units, incident command training, incident command vehicles, radios, radiological detection unit, tanker unit, keycard control system, salaries, personal

protective equipment (level A,B,C,D), CAD upgrades, emergency

management salaries, disease surveillance system, epidemiologic

response plan, high speed Internet connection, critical information

network, training of key public health officials and citizen volunteer training.

There are several challenges in obtaining Federal funding for

emergency preparedness. Timeliness is a major one. There are

delays in receiving money from the State. Once the Federal Government decides how much each State is to receive, the State must

then determine the recipient amount to be awarded. The assessment phase should be a clearly defined process. For instance, in

2003, a State assessment input session was held at Dulles Airport.

There were problems and it could not be completed at that time.

There were limited resources available to assist the county in preparing for the completion of this process. However, that assessment

has been and continues to be the qualifying factor for funding over

the last 2 years without any opportunity for adjustments.

There is also a need for the clarification of processes in areas

where there is State and regional funding sources. At times there

appear to be overlaps in the accomplishments of the two funding

sources, and that has been referred to before.

Advance notice of grants is going to be very important for us. We

recently learned that at least $2 million had been allocated to our

county via a reimbursable grant. Funds for this amount were unavailable; therefore, we were forced to go into unfunded and unplanned forward funding. So the timeliness of things makes a lot

or sense. Additionally a lack of consistent awards causes a deficiency in the algorithm of the budget process. Understanding the

reimbursement basis of grant funding especially as it relates to jurisdictions within the State and the county would be a tremendous

benefit.

The National Incident Management System is the most recent

criteria that must be adhered to regarding upcoming funding. We

are looking forward to the training coming up on the 28th. We really need to make sure everybody understands this.

We also have challenges in terms of organizing and implementing efficient and effective regional preparedness programs. While

most events in this area would become a regional issue, there is no

regional emergency operations center, or no regional emergency coVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:52 Sep 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95626.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
107

ordination center from which to command activities presents a

problem. We are fortunate to have a regional emergency coordination plan and this area could be better served with a regional emergency operations center with regional emergency response teams.

with so many jurisdictions in the NCR, collaboration is a real challenge.

There are several gaps which remain in the emergency preparedness of the NCR Interoperability issues still exist and are at the

top of the list. This issue is extremely expensive and we are still

experiencing inter and intra communication deficiencies within this

county. There is an inability for us to speak with each other except

through patching. There is also an inability to speak with our

neighbors, our regional partners via 800 MHz.

There should be regional coordination of emergency plans. All

plans in the region should be shared among the various jurisdictions. Discussions are needed concerning mass evacuations that

would include naming evacuation destinationsites throughout various counties. There is also a need for clear and concise intelligence

information. The Office of the National Capital Region Coordination has been effective in setting priorities but standards have not

been set in many areas including standards for an Emergency Operations Centers.

The type of guidance that we would like to see from the Department of Homeland Security may take time to accomplish. There

should be a regional emergency operations center to include the development of a regional response team. Would like more formal

training regarding the National Incident Management System. It

appears that the only training that is being offered is paid training

conferences and seminars—other than Incident Command System.

Formal training for the National Incident Management System so

that the jurisdictions will be prepared to comply. The development

of standards for distribution, management and oversight of the

grants; a clearer direction on the States role as we are a member

of a State and a regional partner; the provision of increased assistance in the development of planning concerning cybersecurity and;

the enhancement of grant training and technical assistance will all

improve the guidance needed in the National Capital Region.

There really should be a regional coordination of emergency

plans. All plans in the region should be shared among the various

jurisdictions and I think we are moving toward that in a manner

that is worthwhile applauding.

In the end, I think what I would like to say is that there are

three questions that guide our work locally in Prince George’s

County. Those questions are, what is it that we wish to achieve regionally and locally in terms of emergency preparedness and by

when. That is the standards and the priorities issue. How will we

achieve this, task time, talent, costs, both fiscal and human? That

is the multiyear strategy piece. The final question is how will we

know when we have done it well? What are your performance

measures? What are your performance measures processwise,

productwise, perceptionally and politically because that is the reality that we live in.

We will continue to work with our regional partners to develop

a management framework that truly reflects continued improveVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:52 Sep 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95626.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
108

ment and accountability for our citizens. We would hope that these

three questions that guide us locally will in fact begin to guide us

in our framework as we move forward. We also need to address the

fact that we do not have regional standards yet for emergency preparedness. That is critical.

Thank you, so much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]

109

110

111

112

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you all very much. I will start the

questioning with Mr. Schrock.

Mr. SCHROCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you all very

much for being here.

I want to note for the record that Tom Lockwood from the first

panel is here and I think that is a very good thing because he cares

enough to hear what these folks have to say. These folks are at the

tip of the spear as we say in the military and when the balloon

goes up, they are going to be the first ones on the scene as they

were at the Pentagon that day because I saw them.

Chief Schwartz, you said the death toll was not as great at the

Pentagon as it was in New York and you are right, but had that

wedge at the Pentagon been fully occupied as it was about to be

because of the reconstruction, I believe the death toll there would

have been far worse than it was in New York City. It is just a

blessing that they weren’t.

You are absolutely right, junior partners no. You have to be full

partners in this effort because you are the ones we are going to expect to be on the scene from the very first moment and we need

to make sure we here do everything we can to help you.

Dr. Brown, you talked about reimbursable grant. That is kind of

a contradiction in terms, isn’t it? I thought a grant was something

you gave to people.

Ms. BROWN. What happens is you get the awards and then we

forward fund it and pay for it and then we can get reimbursed.

That is the nature of some of the awards that are coming.

Mr. SCHROCK. I see. I don’t know how many of you really listened

carefully to what my friend, Mr. Moran, was saying during the last

round. He was talking about the rail and concerns he has. I have

the same concerns and the same concern I expressed to you all

when I go through the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel every week,

as you will today, Mr. Griffin, I have with the trains because the

trains run right under my office. I am not going to mention the

name of the building to give anybody any ideas but that is a real

concern. I think if we are not careful, something is going to happen

and I am genuinely concerned about that.

Mr. Lockwood in the last panel advised that they are working

with the Joint Terrorism Training Task Force and I am wondering

how the Federal Government is managing to share intelligence

with uncleared, non-Federal employees such as the local responders

as you and your staff and are procedures working adequately to get

non-Federal employees cleared to receive this information? Do we

in Congress need to address this specifically to make sure you do

get the information you need so that somebody doesn’t sit on it

which could be the piece of the puzzle to help solve the problem?

Ms. BROWN. The intelligence piece becomes very important, if I

am understanding your question correctly and the clearance of the

people to receive it. That was an issue in our written testimony

that the triggers for intelligence that tend to be general and kind

of nebulous still trigger things locally for us to do. As Chief Michos

was saying, it does bring a labor and a personnel and resource intensity to our budgets and to our jurisdictions. The clearance would

be good.

113

Overall, what we need is if this is a Federal piece, what are some

of the standards? Those are the standards that perhaps the States

can adhere to. If the States are the ones that are going to set the

standards for emergency preparedness including security levels

needed for personnel to receive certain intelligence, that is the kind

of guidance we need. This is an important piece but I believe that

kind of guidance really must come from either the Federal Government and/or the States in conjunction with the Federal Government. This is not something localities are set up to do in terms of

high level security clearance for national things. They are geared

to do it for police departments, to do it for certain first responders

but if you are in a jurisdiction like mine where we have tried to

mirror the Federal structure and set up an Office of Homeland Security with a separate director and merged some first responder offices, then those security clearances that we need, we are making

our best guess about what you need and hiring accordingly but we

certainly need that kind of guidance. It would be most welcome.

Mr. SCHROCK. Chief.

Ms. MICHOS. At the local level, traditionally the fire service has

been kept out of the intelligence loop.

Mr. SCHROCK. Kept out of?

Ms. MICHOS. Traditionally that is what has happened. Several

years ago, the FBI did appoint a liaison in this region to the fire

service and it has been invaluable and I think Jim found this to

be an important asset for him at the Pentagon. The liaisons have

been very active in coming to our meetings and planning with us

and providing us with a regular line of information that we could

share with our folks so that we have increased awareness of things

that are going on when the intelligence is available.

Mr. SCHROCK. So they are starting to include you?

Ms. MICHOS. Oh, yes, and that has been very valuable to us over

the last few years.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. The local jurisdictions that do pony up representatives to the Joint Terrorism Task Force do that without reimbursement. We do that at local cost, so the fact we are getting intelligence information and relationships that do exist are still on

the backs of the locals to finance.

I can tell you at a street level some of the difficulties we have

even though we get good intelligence from the relationships that

exist. Last year, the Federal Government decided to make available

to local jurisdictions the bioassays that are used to test for biological agents, something the military has, a very good system for developing and they rely on those extremely well. It was decided that

those bioassays would be available for local jurisdictions so hazmat

technicians could use them in the street to assess the proverbial

white powder calls and that sort of thing. What they would not

give us, however, are what amount to the evaluation instruments

so that once you use the assay and get an indication on it, you cannot read it, you have no way to evaluate what the ticket says because they kept that information classified. That is not shared with

us. You can actually get it outside this country but you cannot get

it inside this country.

I use that as an example to say really our system of intelligence

sharing is based on a cold war mentality. It is based on the nuclear

114

threat of 50 years ago and somehow we have to come up with a

system of what we commonly refer to as trusted agents, something

that will recognize that there is another level of information sharing that can assist locals in those kinds of instances.

Mr. SCHROCK. Kind of like buying a car without wheels?

Mr. GRIFFIN. If I may, after September 11, Fairfax County established an intelligence unit in our police department. We had disbanded it for budget reasons in the 1990’s but that unit was so successful, the FBI asked to join it. Again, I would underscore Chief

Schwartz’s point that is on our nickel. We have since, as a county,

taken the lead in terms of forming an intelligence unit on a regional basis in northern Virginia. Again, that is on our nickel.

One of the hats I wear is as director of emergency management

but the only access I have to intelligence is through my police chief

who has top secret clearance but that individual needs to be very

circumspect in terms of what they tell me. I think that kind of

sharing of information can be improved. I don’t necessarily have

any answers but it can be better.

Mr. SCHROCK. So the chief of police who reports to you has a top

secret clearance and you don’t?

Mr. GRIFFIN. That is correct. The initiative to get the police

chief’s top secret clearance only occurred after September 11 and

it took almost 2 years to happen.

Mr. SCHROCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. The 911 Commission cited a lack of communication between Federal, State and local agencies as one of the

biggest failures of the Government on September 11. If a catastrophic event were to occur in the capital region today, is there

any standard protocol for different agencies communicating together? Also, is there a way that local law enforcement can communicate with the military?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I will start that if I may. One of the chief failures,

as you noted, after September 11 particularly in the Washington

region as related to communication is we did not have good regional communication. I believe in terms of the incident itself there

was good communication because most of the agencies transitioned

to the 800 MHz radio system that allowed interoperability between

organizations.

I was Chair of the Chief Administrative Officers at that time and

I did convene a conference call of all the chief administrative officers but it occurred approximately 8 hours after the initiation of

the events on September 11. To address that, we have created what

we call the RICCS system, the Regional Incident Communication

and Coordination System which takes advantage of the current

technology. That system is in place and is practiced on a regular

basis. It now enables myself or others depending on where the

event occurs to convene a conference call in less than 30 minutes.

The RICCS system is set up such that it is not just for the chief

administrative officers, there are groups of individuals by discipline

that have been created who also have access to that system, be it

fire chiefs, police chiefs, transportation officials, health directors.

We are even getting the hospital system integrated to that system.

115

Not all events that occur in the region need to be elevated to the

chief administrative officers but we are encouraging the various

disciplines to use the system because it really does enhance the

communication.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Any other comments?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I would like to add that when we talk about the

communications problem as it relates to interoperability, there are

different layers. Mr. Griffin identifies a layer that the chief administrative officers would use. Communications on the incident at

September 11 at the Pentagon were largely good for the response.

We are never going to solve the problem of getting everybody on

a common frequency. In fact, obviously for the Pentagon response,

we had representatives from DOD that were a part of the unified

command.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. You had representatives from Maryland,

from Virginia and from Washington all together, correct, at the

Pentagon?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. No, sir, we do it by discipline. We do it so that

we have fire and EMS representatives, we have law enforcement

representatives. There were Federal representatives because they

have the lead agency responsibilities for acts of terrorism, namely

the FBI, and we had DOD because it was their property and they

brought a significant amount of resources to the incident.

My point is that it is a unified command under a recognized incident management system that will do more for the communications

interoperability problem than getting everybody on the same frequency and push to talk.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Is that opinion shared throughout your industry?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I believe it is. That is not to suggest that we

don’t need to continue to make advances across this country so that

the kinds of situations that we have in the National Capital Region

which is that almost all of the jurisdictions operate on common frequencies but if you start trying to put the FBI on our frequencies,

the Department of Defense on our frequencies and every other Federal agency that would come in support of a local jurisdiction, we

are going to have too many people operating on frequencies and

they will be completely unusable. The incident management system

has to be utilized to effect good communications.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Let me ask you this broad question. If we

could give you one thing here today to help you as relates to the

whole communications, what would you want us to do?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I would like Dr. Brown to answer that question

because I think part of her remarks add another layer of communication which is the coordination among the Government entities

that are overseeing a response.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Dr. Brown.

Ms. BROWN. I am really grateful for this opportunity. One of the

things that happens is when September 11 came in, people were

growing. If you could see the localities, we were growing at our own

rates. We had a regional awareness there but September 11 really

brought it together in terms of looking at it regionally. Therefore,

the issues of comparability and standardization of levels of ability

and capability to respond all of a sudden became glaringly clear

116

that we hadn’t done it. Some of us don’t have 800 MHZ, some of

us are working out of an EOC that is an abandoned school building

as a way to handle a jurisdiction with 835,000 people in the home

of Air Force 1 and over 300 vulnerable places within the jurisdiction. So the larger picture for us in the Maryland region and in the

region of the National Capital Region is if our people from the different areas had to go to different peoples’ EOCs, could they even

work the equipment, would they even be there, even if they were

jointly trained and part of that equipment is communication. It is

also communication at a level of being able to receive intelligence,

be able to see the strategic big picture regionally and to deal with

it.

Until we bring everybody up to a minimum competency standard

to receive the information, then we have a big hole of vulnerability

and we need to address that. I understand that the removal of

being able to do things with brick and mortar is kind of going

against what it is we need to do but we need to look across the region.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Who should determine what that standard

should be?

Ms. BROWN. I think the National Capital Region. We would look

for them along with input from, building input from the CAOs,

from the Federal Government, from the military players, from all

of the other ones that have the capability and the expertise.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. But who should that be, in your opinion,

based on what you know?

Ms. BROWN. Who should be the one to set the standards?

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Yes.

Ms. BROWN. I would expect that it should come from the National Capital Region.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Who do you think?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I should say Congressman that there is a proposal in to the National Capital Region Office under the URASI

grants to look at the issues of EOC interoperability so that we figure out exactly what those standards are and then how to apply

future grant funds to each of the local EOCs so that they are interconnected, so that they can interoperate.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Let me ask just a couple questions.

As the Office of the National Capital Region Coordination communicated to you the areas you are lacking in terms of being able

to fulfill your duties and be able to respond to regional emergencies? They did, as I understand, an assessment last year. Have

they communicated with any of you the shortcomings? Tony.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Initially, I think through the assessment there was

an effort to identify what the deficiencies were in each jurisdiction

and the Capital Region participated in that. Some of the difficulty

and some of the friction early on occurred because having participated in that assessment, we didn’t see the results of it and the

Senior Policy Group made the initial allocations for the $60 million

allocated to the National Capital Region based on that assessment.

Not having seen it and not being sure what it was about and conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:52 Sep 21, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95626.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
117

cern about the local jurisdictions being the local responders, the

first responders, there was some friction there.

I think that friction has been mitigated to a large extent because

there was a recognition that the Senior Policy Group and the CAOs

and the other players really needed to come together and participate together. I think by December we had reached that common

ground and we have been working together I think pretty well over

the last 6 months at better identifying what our gaps are and getting better participation from all the players in identifying what

those gaps are. I think the Chiefs may have a perspective on that.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Yes, let me ask you. Ms. Brown.

Ms. BROWN. Taking off on what he said about the assessment,

we have gotten some feedback and I guess our feelings on a local

level are that it really wasn’t truly reflective and we questioned at

the time, the value of the tool that was being used but we did it

like everyone else. So right now we are in a period where they are

allowing us to look at the results of the assessment to do some

tweaking since the future grant allocations will be based on the results of that but that was one thing I said, we put so much time

and effort into it, didn’t have any input when the tool was being

designed or what were the things that should be looked at, so we

are trying to make best with what we can right now based on the

time and energy we have put into that.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Chief Schwartz.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Just a couple of things. As has been said, the instrument was rather poor. One of the poorest parts of it was the

threat assessment component, how we developed information on

the threats that were germane to our area was extremely difficult.

The other thing I would add is that since we are supposed to be

operating as a region, it would have been beneficial if we had completed the instrument together as a region. Instead, we were

stovepiped by jurisdiction, so we couldn’t even learn from each

other how we were inputting the data, what kind of elements, so

that we could sort of shortcut the whole process and get to a point

that we could all agree on what was going into the instrument.

Largely it was an inventory of our capabilities.

Ms. BROWN. Right now we are very personality dependent. We

have a group of people regionally and locally who want to work together who are determined to move forward with this from a regional standpoint to do the things that Tony is saying in terms of

working together with the Senior Policy Group and all of this. I am

very nervous about the fact that if any of us leave and a different

headset comes in, where are the standards that say I don’t care

who you are, what are the standards of baseline competency necessary, not only in terms of personnel, things like communications,

things like intelligence methods, things like equipment that is

needed regardless of who you are and who sits in these seats,

whether you have goodwill or not, these are the rules of play as it

relates to emergency preparedness in the National Capital Region.

Again, I believe those standards should come from the National

Capital Region. We don’t even have a National Capital Region

EOC.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Moran.

118

Mr. MORAN OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad and appreciative that Mr. Lockwood stayed.

I was reading the legislation that the Congress passed describing

the responsibilities of the Office of National Capital Regional Coordination that was in the Homeland Security Act. They are to assess and advocate for the resources needed by State, local and regional governments. It is to provide State, local and regional authorities in the National Capital Region with timely information

and technical support. It is to develop a process for receiving meaningful input from State, local and regional authorities in the development of homeland security plans and activities. It is for coordinating Federal, State, local and regional agencies and to ensure

adequate planning information, sharing, training and execution

and to serve as a liaison between the Federal Government and

State, local and regional authorities to facilitate access to Federal

grants and other programs. That is the function. That is why it exists and yet I have talked to each of the jurisdictions in my congressional district, Arlington, Alexandria and Fairfax County and

all of them say that the lack of planning, preparation, orderly expectations of resources and what the requirements of those resources are going to be, the lack of that at the Federal level is seriously hamstringing if not crippling the ability of local governments

to do their own planning and resource allocation. In other words,

you can’t plan and allocate your resources unless you know what

resources are coming into the locality so you can match them, so

that you can pull the personnel, the equipment, the facilities together so that you can fulfill your responsibilities.

I suppose I should say when because that is what we are told by

Secretary Ridge but I will say if we have a terrorist attack, we are

going to turn to the local responders and look for what went wrong

because nothing is going to go perfectly and the first thing we are

going to be told is that even though Congress provided the resources, they weren’t made available and we weren’t even told

when they were going to be made available for what purposes. So

this is the problem. This is the reason for the hearing. This is the

reason why Chairman Davis got on top of this, to say, look, I don’t

know what more we in the Congress can do but to provide the

money and provide the legislative authority and the mandate but

while the money is provided, the mandate is there, it is not being

implemented.

My question is a pretty basic one that I am going to ask each

of you who are responsible for your jurisdictions, how has this

backlog in distributing resources that were made available in 2003

and 2004 by the Congress to the Department of Homeland Security, you haven’t received them and you haven’t been given a plan

for when you are going to receive them and what you are supposed

to do with them, so I think you need to put on the record what impact this has had, what you have not been able to do because that

money has not gotten to where it was intended to go. Let me start

with Jim Schwartz.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Well, Congressman, as we said in the earlier testimony, there were a lot of difficulties in the front end of this because the locals were not as involved as they could have been, as

they should have been with the process. It came from the top down.

119

The Senior Policy Group took information from our homeland security assessment and developed a strategy and then developed a

funding scheme, carved up that original $60 million and it was

only late in the process that I think we had enough representation

come to the table to give the local perspective. I would defer to Mr.

Griffin or Dr. Brown on this because they both operated as chief

administrative officials.

The process has improved now, I believe, but I would say that

I think we are asking an enormous amount of time for people at

their level, of their stature to be in long meetings deciding how we

are going to be spending some of this money. The structure, the

foundation for this out of the National Capital Region Office to support the decisionmaking process doesn’t seem to be there. Again, I

think it is calling on the locals to commit an awful lot of senior

time to make what seemed to me to be lower level decisions.

Mr. MORAN OF VIRGINIA. I want to turn to Tony next but what

role has COG had because we do subsidize the Council of Governments and they do have a committee that pulls together police

chiefs, the public safety people, fire and so on. Has COG been a

part of this regional coordination effort?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, if I may, Congressman. COG has played a significant role as convenor and as a support agency for the convening

of the regional jurisdictions. It has been handled essentially on two

levels. One, it has been handled at the level of the board of directors and their authorization of the original task force which created

the regional template for emergency response and their subsequent

creation of the Emergency Preparedness Council.

The other committee structure of COG has been doing the grunt

work if you will in terms of regional preparedness under the direction of the Chief Administrative Officers. The Fire Chiefs Committee, the Police Chiefs Committee, the Health Directors Committee,

the Emergency Managers Committee, we have even created a Public Information Officer Committee, recognizing that there are many

players involved in this and they are all convening on a regular

basis, at least monthly. In many instances the CAOs have either

had all day meetings or have scheduled extra meetings where the

subject matter has only been homeland security. In fact, to some

extent, we have been setting aside other critical regional issues to

address the homeland security.

One of the challenges for us and I think we are getting better

at it but partly the friction that occurred between the levels of government and the locals feeling because we are first responders and

because we have had some practical experience, that we ought to

have more of a role, those roles have been substantially worked out

and the Senior Policy Group which includes Mr. Lockwood and included Michael Byrne, his predecessor, and Ken Wahl, the interim

as well as the State representatives have been meeting on a regular basis to get a handle on what our issues and our priorities are.

From a county perspective, I have to tell you the way I have approached it has not been one which is dependent on the Federal

funding or to some extent, even, the State funding that comes because of the Federal funding. We have worked hard in the county

to try to identify what we thought our priorities were and what the

120

gaps were in our capability to respond and then have identified

how we are going to address that.

In my testimony I made reference to our emergency operations

center. Our situation is similar to that of Prince George’s in that

our current emergency operations center is in a 50 year old elementary school with two elementary school classrooms designated for

purposes of emergency management. That works fine when we

were dealing with a hurricane once every 30 years. It does not

work in this environment.

Likewise, our emergency communications center is in that same

facility. We have outgrown it. The technology cannot be supported

by the facility and therefore, we are building a new facility which

we expect to open in the fall of 2007. The price tag for that facility

is $98 million. It takes a lot of effort on our part to figure out how

to do that. That is going to be county funded. We are looking to

the Federal Government in the context that they can give us some

assistance in terms of the equipment but we have made the decisions on the basis of our local capacity to fund these programs and

we prioritize them on the basis of what is most critical and we will

fund those whether we get any Federal money or not. If we get

Federal money or if we get State money, then we start applying

that to those other priorities that we consider critical but are less

critical than what we can move ourselves through our own financial processes.

Mr. MORAN OF VIRGINIA. I guess that is about as good an answer

as we could get but I think we have sent the message to Mr.

Lockwood pretty loud and clear.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I think he heard that.

Mr. MORAN OF VIRGINIA. The red light has been on for some

time, so thanks for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for

the hearing.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Jim, thank you very much.

Mr. Schrock, you have a couple of followups?

Mr. SCHROCK. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I share the

exact same frustrations as Mr. Moran does and obviously you all

do too.

It seems there are so many layers of communications in there.

When the balloon goes up, who in God’s name knows who to report

to whom. It seems to me that the folks in Arlington County may

not be using the same sort of symbology or equipment as the folks

in Prince William County. In the military now, we are talking

about interoperability where the Army can talk to the Air Force

and Air Force can talk to the Marine Corps and the Marine Corps

can talk to everybody. When one symbol pops up, they all know

what it means. The same thing might work with you all if you have

the same kind of equipment so everybody is talking off the same

sheet of music should we have these problems again.

I agree with what I have heard that maybe the Federal Government needs a set of standards but whenever I hear the Federal

Government getting involved in anything I just cringe because the

localities know it is probably going to mean unfunded mandates for

them. We might need to pass legislation to give a framework to the

localities and let the localities build it based on their territory and

the way they see things if something should happen and if we are

121

doing mandates, then we need to fund them. For you all to have

to pay $98 million, obviously that is just for the building, not for

the insides, not the equipment, there is something really wrong

there.

Let me ask would it be possible for the Federal Government to

consider assigning what we could call staff counterintelligence officers to prioritize States’ own homeland security programs? They

could act as a designated liaison between the State DHS and the

intelligence community, in other words an NCIS agent could be assigned to Annapolis to work with Dennis Schrader, one could be assigned to Richmond to work with George Foresman on two or three

rotational tours as an intelligence link between the Federal Government and the States? Is something like that possible or is that

just adding another layer of bureaucracy that I can’t stand, frankly, putting in another layer of bureaucracy that you don’t need.

Would that be something that would give you the link to the intelligence community here that you need or is that just overreaching,

you want us to stay out of your hair?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I would have to say I would rather see funding

come to support our JTTF representation and if I could make the

observation that in and of itself coming from a fire chief is a pretty

good indication of the extent of our collaborative efforts here in the

region.

I think if you funded the JTTF positions, we would get the same

thing. The homeland security contacts in the State already get the

intelligence information from the Federal Government through

DHS, so I think they are pretty well satisfied. You will end up with

a situation that Mr. Griffin described earlier in that his police chief

has to be rather circumspect in giving him any information of

value. I think we would have another layer that would be relatively

useless.

Mr. SCHROCK. I was just thinking out loud. The last thing we

need, the last thing people who sit on this level need to do is continue creating more layers of burden for you all. We need to make

it as simple as possible and let you all work together to make sure

you can talk from the same sheet of music. I share your frustration

and I certainly share Mr. Moran’s frustration as well.

Again, thank you all for what you do. It is not easy. It is tough.

Mr. GRIFFIN. If I could add a quick point on the intelligence part

and that is just like being first responders in terms of intelligence,

our people know our communities better than the Federal Government knows our communities. I think if they can give us additional

assistance, I don’t normally fund that sort of thing but I recognize

the importance to the region and there is an obligation as the largest jurisdiction in the metropolitan area to take a lead on something like that, so we have done that. We have stepped up to the

plate but I think as Chief Schwartz indicated, if we could get some

assistance in that area, that would be very helpful.

Mr. SCHROCK. Thank you all very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very, very much. It has been

a very helpful hearing for us and the record.

The hearing is adjourned.

122

[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[The prepared statements of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay and Hon.

Danny K. Davis follow:]

123

124

125

126

127

Æ