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

93–974PDF 2004

THE FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR FIRST

RESPONDERS ACT OF 2004

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 3266

MAYY 11, 2004

Serial No. 108–102

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi, Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

Ranking Member

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

LOIS CAPPS, California

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana

TOM ALLEN, Maine

JIM DAVIS, Florida

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

FRED UPTON, Michigan

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

Vice Chairman

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

JOE BARTON, Texas,

(Ex Officio)

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

Ranking Member

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

BART GORDON, Tennessee

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

GENE GREEN, Texas

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

LOIS CAPPS, California

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Cox, Hon. Christopher, Chairman, House Select Committee on Homeland

Security .......................................................................................................... 4

Mitchell, Andrew T., Deputy Director, Office of Domestic Preparedness,

U.S. Department of Homeland Security ..................................................... 13

Raub, William F., Acting Assistant Secretary, Planning and Evaluation,

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ...................................... 22

Additional material submitted for the record:

Cox, Hon. Christopher, Chairman, House Select Committee on Homeland

Security, response for the record ................................................................. 37

Pickering, Hon. Charles ‘‘Chip’’, a Representative in Congress from the

State of Mississippi, response for the record from DHS and HHS witness ................................................................................................................ 38

(III)

(1)

THE FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR

FIRST RESPONDERS ACT OF 2004

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Bilirakis

(chairman) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Bilirakis, Norwood, and

Shimkus.

Staff present: Nandan Kenkeremath, majority counsel; Jeremy

Allen, health policy coordinator; Eugenia Edwards, legislative

clerk; Chuck Clapton, majority counsel; John Ford, minority counsel; and Jeff Donofrio, minority staff assistant.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. This hearing will come to order. Today’s hearing

will focus on an important piece of legislation that is currently before this committee, and it is important in spite of the fact that we

don’t have much of an audience out there and certainly none at all

up here. But it is a Tuesday afternoon, and I think we all know

that many Members of Congress are still traveling.

I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us this afternoon.

I can think of very few topics as timely or important as ensuring

that we are prepared to respond to any future terrorist attacks. I

am sure you all agree with me.

I would like to begin by recognizing our friend and colleague, Mr.

Cox, for appearing before the subcommittee. I know he has worked

diligently on homeland security issues since assuming the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and we

certainly look forward to his insight as we discuss H.R. 3266.

The Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders Act of

2003 was favorable reported by the Select Committee on Homeland

Security earlier this year. The bill would reform the manner in

which the Department of Homeland Security issues grants to State

and local governments to enhance the ability of first responders to

prevent, prepare for and respond to acts of terrorism. The primary

revision to the current law would be to change the criteria used to

distribute funding for two existing first responder grant programs:

The State Homeland Security and the Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Programs.

As the Energy and Commerce Committee prepares to consider

this legislation, I think it is important that members understand

how this bill interacts—very significant—how this bill interacts

2

with existing programs under this committee’s jurisdiction. For example, one of this committee’s most important achievements over

the past several years was the Public Health, Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. This bipartisan legislation significantly enhanced our Nation’s ability to respond to an

attack using biological or chemical weapons.

Included in this act are new grant programs designed to improve

state, local, and hospital preparedness for bioterrorism and other

public health emergencies. Such grants can include funding for

emergency medical service providers and other first responders,

similar to what is included in H.R. 3266. I am therefore interested

in exploring further how we can maximize the effectiveness of both

of these grant programs.

I am also interested in hearing more about Homeland Security

Presidential Directive 8, which President Bush signed December

17, 2003. Through HSPD-8, the President tasked Secretary Ridge,

in coordination with other Federal departments and State and local

jurisdictions, to develop national preparedness goals, improve delivery of Federal preparedness assistance to State and local jurisdictions, and strengthen the preparedness capabilities of Federal,

State, territorial, tribal and local governments. The interaction between executive branch actions and acts of Congress is important

and one I intend to explore further this afternoon.

In addition to Mr. Cox, we have two additional witnesses that

will be able to provide the subcommittee with important perspective on this issue. The second panel will consist of Andrew T.

Mitchell, Deputy Director of the Office of Domestic Preparedness at

the Department of Homeland Security, and William Raub, Acting

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services. Thank you both for joining

us today.

I am interested in being updated on the progress being made to

implement provisions of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act with respect to first responders, the rationale behind HSPD-8 and any potential changes

in allocations of responsibility and expertise between HHS and

DHS under either H.R. 3266 or HSPD-8.

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

AND COMMERCE

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I commend you for holding this hearing on H.R. 3266, the Faster and Smarter

Funding for First Responders Act. I also commend Chairman Cox and Ranking

Member Turner for their leadership and bipartisan work in the Select Committee

on Homeland Security. Today we will further review the vitally important work

being done to upgrade our Homeland Security, preparedness, and response capabilities.

We want to ensure that state and local governments have the essential capabilities to allow them to respond to terrorist attacks and other potential public emergencies. We also want to ensure that Federal grants are used to acquire the right

equipment, training, and interoperable communications systems for first responders.

Both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of

Homeland Security have important roles and expertise in these areas. Last Congress the President signed the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. That Act set out a broad role for the Department

of Health and Human Services in coordinating preparedness and responses to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies.

3

This law also envisioned the need for coordination between states, local governments, hospitals, emergency service personnel and other first responders. Section

108 of the Act set out a specific interagency workgroups to address guidance on

many of the issues related to first responders.

In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress basically preserved this role for

the Department of Health and Human Services but provided the new Department

of Homeland Security with an overall management and coordination role for Federal

responses to terrorist attacks and other emergencies. Several existing Department

of Homeland Security grant programs provide for improving the capabilities of State

and local governments, including for provisions for first responders.

It is important that any new legislation be drafted carefully to maximize the expertise of each agency, to rationally utilize existing programs and working groups,

and to minimize inconsistencies and unnecessary overlaps.

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses on the operation of current law

and programs for first responders and the relation of these current laws and programs to H.R. 3266.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SHERROD BROWN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing.

Welcome Chairman Shays. I hope our two committees will continue to work together to address the safety of the country.

And welcome Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Raub. Thank you for sharing your expertise

this afternoon.

In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, this Congress reexamined how to better support our first responders—our first line of defense against bioterrorist attacks.

This committee worked tirelessly to address the needs of our first responders—

and the larger public health system—through development and passage of the bioterrorism bill.

And following that, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, another important step towards protecting the country against terrorism.

The principal goal of the bill we’re considering today, H.R. 3266, is to improve the

way funding flows to states and localities, giving priority to those localities with the

greatest level of threat.

While the bill will not alter grants distributed through HHS, this hearing offers

our committee the opportunity to learn more about the progress made under the bioterrorism bill, the relationship between HHS and the Department of Homeland Security, and where, if at all, there are duplicative efforts.

I look forward to the hearing the views of our expert panel and hope the committee will take these opinions into consideration and make any necessary changes

to the bill before it is brought to the House floor for a vote.

Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing, and Representative Cox, Mr.

Mitchell, and Mr. Raub, thank you for joining us today to discuss Homeland Security and HR 3266, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of

2004.

I am generally supportive of provisions in this bill that would help states, local

governments, and first responders better prepare for acts of terrorism by evaluating

and prioritizing those communities that are most threatened. And I am hopeful that

this hearing will provide insight on how changes to HR 3266 may better enable the

Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services first responder authorities to work together as efficiently as possible.

What still concerns me, however, is that Homeland Security funding is not trickling down to the locals on the ground where they need it most. Since September

11, 2001, many in this nation and this Congress have come to recognize the importance of the sacrifices made by our first responders. Every day these men and

women put their lives on the line in order to protect and serve our communities.

Unfortunately, when I am back in my District in Northern Michigan, what I’m

hearing from our first responders is that they are just not seeing the amount of

funding necessary to obtain the resources they need to protect their communities

and themselves.

4

This was corroborated by the Conference of Mayors on January 22nd of this year

when it released a homeland security evaluation which reported that an astonishing

76 percent of cities have still not received any funding from the largest homeland

security program designated to assist first responders.

Changes are obviously needed in the capital outlay process so Homeland Security

money can get out to our first responders in a more efficient and timely manner.

The state must have the ability to directly release funds to the locals instead of reimbursing them only after they have already spent their own money. As the Representative of Michigan’s most rural congressional district, it just doesn’t make

sense to me that small communities are required to shell out tens of thousands of

dollars up front to procure their homeland security needs and update their emergency services when Congress has already appropriated these funds. It is also essential that our first responders are educated about this process so they can receive

this crucial funding.

Not only do we need to get this money directly out to our first responders as soon

as possible, but we need to start fully funding these programs. The State Homeland

Security Grant program was funded at $1.7 billion in FY 04, but President Bush’s

budget request for 2005 slashes the program to $700 million. Overall, the President’s budget would reduce first-responder assistance by 14.5 percent from the $4.18

billion that Congress appropriated for FY 04 to $3.75 billion in FY 05. This kind

of budget cut is shocking to me considering the Bush Administration claims Homeland Security funding is a top priority.

We also need to provide assistance to help regional law enforcement and first responders communicate with each other in times of emergency. My bill, HR 3370,

The Public Safety Interoperability Act, would provide grants to local law enforcement agencies to modernize their communication systems and become interoperable,

allowing different public safety agencies in different jurisdictions to communicate in

times of crisis.

The tragic events of September 11th illustrated why it is imperative that our law

enforcement officers are fully interoperable. Police, Fire, and Emergency Medical

Services personnel from multiple jurisdictions were called to respond to the World

Trade Center attacks in New York City. First responders found themselves unable

to communicate with other emergency personnel because of the different communications systems and radio frequencies.

343 firefighters and 72 law enforcement officers lost their lives in the World Trade

Center on September 11th. 121 of those firefighters who died lost their lives because

they were unable to receive radio warnings that the second tower looked ready to

fall. When our first responders are confronted with an emergency situation, it is absolutely necessary that they are able to communicate with one another so they can

fully assess the situation and how best to handle it.

We must provide our first responders with adequate resources and the proper

funding they need to protect their communities and themselves from daily crime

and threats of terrorism.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to discuss the improvements that

must be made so our first responders can do their jobs in the best and most efficient

way possible.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. We now have before us, the gentleman from California. We look forward to your testimony today. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER COX, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. COX. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate

the opportunity to testify today. This bill, as you know, passed the

Select Committee on Homeland Security with the unanimous support on a roll call vote of all the Republicans and Democrats on the

committee. And, as you know, while I am here in my capacity as

chairman of that Select Committee, I am also a proud member of

this committee, and I recall how very recently the Energy and

Commerce Committee and the Select Committee on Homeland Security worked in close cooperation to produce the legislation that

gave us Project Bioshield. I look forward to doing the same on this

first responder bill and moving to the House floor as expeditiously

as possible.

5

It is especially fitting that we are focusing on the needs of first

responders today because this is National Police Week. This is a

time when we honor the sacrifices made by those who protect our

communities. It is also a day when television has been showing us

and telling us of the grisly beheading of an American civilian who

was trying to build telecommunications infrastructure for the people of Iraq. The execution, the beheading was performed by al

Qaida serving as yet another reminder, if one were needed, that today’s hearing is not a theoretical exercise. These people are out to

kill Americans.

We are asking law enforcement personnel to adapt, therefore, to

a new anti-terrorism mission, and we have got to give these people

the support that they need to carry out their crucial role in defending our country. The bill we are discussing today, the Faster and

Smarter Funding for First Responders Act, will do that.

By way of background, since September 11, 2001, the Congress, Mr. Chairman, has appropriated more than $23 billion to help

States, localities and first responders be prepared for acts of terrorism or other public emergencies. This money has been awarded

through multiple grant programs administered by several Federal

agencies, including not only the Department of Homeland Security

but also the Department of Justice, the Federal Emergency Management Agency now subsumed in DHS, the Department of Health

and Human Services, and so on.

Some of this money goes to support traditional, non-terrorism-related pre-September 11 priorities. Other monies go to activities

that our first responders have only undertaken in a serious way

since September 11. The latter pot of money accounts for the largest single grant awards over the past 2 years. DHS, and before it

the Department of Justice, has awarded roughly $6.3 billion to

States for the specific purpose of terrorism preparedness since September 11. The President’s budget for 2005 requests an additional

$2.6 billion. That is an increase over 2001 levels of over 2000 percent.

Despite this enormous increase in funding, our first responders

continue to report that they aren’t seeing the money. They haven’t

received most of the money, mostly due to what we have discovered

are administrative bottlenecks at various levels of government. We

have been able to ascertain that Congress really did appropriate it,

DHS really did make the grants, the Governors really did obligate

the funds, and yet the first responders aren’t receiving it.

An even bigger problem, in my view, is that our terrorism preparedness funding is being allocated at the Federal level in a manner that does not direct the money to where we need it the most.

This is a pattern often repeated at the State level where grants are

not made according to risk. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which contains some

vitally needed provisions, such as the elimination of the wall between law enforcement and intelligence that kept those two fields

separate, even in terrorism-related investigations.

But the Patriot Act also put in place a very arbitrary political

formula for the distribution of anti-terrorism grants to the States.

It guaranteed that every State, no matter how big or how small,

would receive the same fixed percentage of funding, 0.75 percent of

6

the total each year, which collectively accounts for 40 percent of all

the grants.

At the same time, the Patriot Act has applied this formula, which was $1 million at September 11 to a much larger pot of

money—$15 million last year. Now, I mentioned that 40 percent is

automatically sent to the States according to this fixed formula,

0.75 percent no matter what. The remaining 60 percent of the

grant funds are distributed to the States based solely on population, ensuring that even the smallest State receives an additional

amount of money, for a total of more than $17 million last year.

We can’t afford to keep dispensing money according to these political formulas without regard to the actual risks of terrorism.

So the Homeland Security Committee has worked now for over

a year on this problem of how to get the money to where it is intended and how to make that the money is granted on the basis

of actual vulnerabilities, actual threat risk to population and consequences of a terrorist attack, actual intelligence about terrorist

capabilities and terrorist intentions. We need to look at all of those

factors and prepare accordingly.

The legislation’s name is faster and smarter. It is faster now because by requiring and incentivizing States to pass through their

awarded funds to localities within tight timeframes and by penalizing States that fail to do so and by allowing regions to apply directly for funds and by substituting actual cash for the potential of

reimbursement, we are going to get the money to its intended destination right away.

It is smarter because we are allocating grant awards to States

and regions based on an assessment of terrorist threat, vulnerability and consequences; in other words, the actual risks that they

face. Terrorists are not arbitrary in their selection of targets, and

we shouldn’t be arbitrary in how we prepare to deal with them.

H.R. 3266 also ensures that terrorism grant funding is used to

achieve clear and measurable preparedness goals, which the legislation describes as essential capabilities. We want to be sure that

are building toward an objective—an objective standard for being

prepared against these known risks. Right now many States and

localities simply aren’t sure how to utilize the money most effectively, which is yet another reason for the delay in actual spending

at the local level. We know that not all communities are the same

or face the same types of risks. Accordingly, we need to help communities identify their unique terrorism preparedness needs. The

bill before you today will do this.

Let me emphasize just two points, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Norwood,

for your consideration. First, the bill you are considering covers

only those terrorism-specific preparedness grants administered by

the Department of Homeland Security. As I mentioned, there are

many other departments and agencies of the government that also

have other programs, most of which anti-date September 11. They

are not covered by this legislation. All aspects of the bill, including

risk-based allocation of grants, which I have just mentioned, including the State strategies, the creation of essential capabilities,

training and equipment standards and certain administrative procedures, all of these things apply only in the context of those DHS

grants. The bill expressly excludes all grant programs administered

7

by HHS and other Federal agencies. It is an amendment to the

Homeland Security Act, and it is tailored to a very specific purpose.

Second thing is that the definition of first responders in the legislation is exactly the same as the definition of emergency response

providers that is already in the Homeland Security Act. What that

means for this committee is that in addition to fire fighters and police officers, we also include emergency medical personnel and related agencies. That is consistent with the long-standing practice of

ODP even when it was in the Department of Justice. This broad

definition ensures that the emergency medical community is included as a key element in anti-terrorism planning, training and

equipment purchases. In this respect, the bill in no way alters current practices or policy.

Finally, let me say that with the creation of the Department of

Homeland Security came not only the opportunity to consolidate

what the Federal Government is doing but also new opportunities

for overlap and duplication. I am happy to say that both the Department of Homeland Security and HHS have worked diligently

to avoid any duplication in public health preparedness grants. They

have largely focused on different end users and on different priorities.

President Bush recently issued a Presidential Directive that you

referred to in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, that is the

basis for the ongoing construction of a fully coordinated and

streamlined Federal grant process for terrorism and other emergencies. That fully coordinated interagency process will be completed by the middle of next year, and it should eliminate any concerns about potential overlap in DHS and HHS programs.

So this bill is a nice complement to what already is going on. It

is a nice complement to what HHS is separately doing. There is,

for example, a First Responder Essential Capabilities Task Force

that this bill creates that is a complement to, and in no way an

overlap with, the Federal Working Group established under the authority of the HHS Secretary. That HHS Working Group was established several years ago to review matters relating to bioterrorism and public health emergencies.

The HHS Bioterrorism Working Group is focused on public

health emergencies, with particular concern for research on and

prioritization of pathogens and biomedical countermeasures. Its

participants are Federal agencies, and its goal is to make sure that

there is coordination among Federal partners in the fight against

bioterrorism. By contrast, the task force that is set up in this legislation, the Essential Capabilities Task Force, is made up not of

Federal agencies but of first responders, State and local officials.

Its focus is on creating clearly defined and measurable goals for

preparedness, and its aim is to tailor these to the needs of different

communities for all forms of terrorism.

This first responder task force is critical because of the importance of hearing from those on the front lines and in our local communities. We need to hear from them directly about what their

needs are and what their priorities should be. And, as I mentioned

earlier, the essential capabilities created under this bill would not

have any impact beyond the DHS grant programs covered by the

bill.

8

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you.

I urge this committee to report the bill quickly so that we can help

our Nation meet the urgent challenge of terrorism in our cities and

home towns. I want to thank you for your consideration, and tell

you that I look forward to working as a member of the Energy and

Commerce Committee on the consideration of the bill, and I would

be glad to answer any questions that you have. subject.

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

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER COX, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE SELECT

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you Chairman Bilirakis and Ranking Member Brown for the opportunity

to testify today on H.R. 3266, the ‘‘Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders

Act of 2004’’—a bill that recently passed the Select Committee on Homeland Security unanimously. As you know, I am the Chairman of the Select Committee, but

I am also honored to be a long-time Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I look forward to working with you and all the Members of this Committee

to move this first responder bill to the House floor as expeditiously as possible.

It is especially fitting that we are focusing on the needs of first responders today,

during National Police Week—a time when we honor the sacrifices made by those

who protect our communities and our freedom. Effective law enforcement is critical

to upholding our national traditions and maintaining our quality of life.

As law enforcement officers adapt to their new anti-terrorism missions, we must

give them the support necessary to carry out their crucial role in defending our

homeland. The bill we are discussing today, the Faster and Smarter Funding for

First Responders Act, would do just that.

By way of background, since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the Congress has appropriated more than $23 billion to help our States, localities, and first

responders improve preparedness for future acts of terrorism or other public emergencies. This money has been awarded through multiple grant programs administered by several Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Federal

Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS), and—since March 2003—the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Some of this money goes to support traditional, non-terrorism-related missions of

our first responders, such as the COPS program and the FIRE Act program. Some

of this money goes to support activities that help our first responders prepare for

public emergencies, whether terrorist-inflicted or naturally-occurring, such as the

HHS public health preparedness grants awarded to State and local public health departments and emergency medical centers. And some of this money—most notably,

from the DHS Office for Domestic Preparedness, or ODP—goes specifically to help

first responders prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism, particularly

those involving weapons of mass destruction.

This latter pot of money accounts for the largest single grant awards over the past

two years. DHS—and, before it, DOJ—has awarded roughly $6.3 billion to States

for this specific purpose since September 11th. The President’s Fiscal Year 2005

budget requests an additional $2.6 billion—an increase of more than 2,000 percent

over 2001 levels. Despite this enormous increase in funding, our first responders

continue to report that they have not yet received most of this money, due to administrative bottlenecks at various levels of government. A recent analysis by the

Homeland Security Committee found that roughly $5.2 billion of the $6.3 billion

awarded since 2001 remains stuck in the pipeline, unused.

An even bigger problem, in my opinion, is that this terrorism preparedness funding is being allocated at the Federal level in a manner that does not direct the

money to where we are most threatened by terrorism—a pattern often repeated at

the State level. In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, Congress passed the

PATRIOT Act, a vital piece of legislation that removed the ‘‘wall’’ that had kept law

enforcement and intelligence information separate even in terrorism-related investigations.

But the PATRIOT Act also put into statute arbitrary, political formulas for the

distribution of anti-terrorism grants to States. It guaranteed that every State—no

matter how small its population or actual risk—received .75 percent of the total

grant funding each year, resulting in roughly 40 percent of the grant funds being

distributed without regard to risk or need. At the time the PATRIOT Act passed,

this guaranteed minimum totaled less than $1 million per State. Last year, due to

the enormous increase in overall funding, the guaranteed minimum was more than

9

$15 million per State. The remaining 60 percent of these grant funds was distributed to States based solely on population, ensuring that even the smallest State received an additional $2 million last year—for a total of more than $17 million.

Frankly, we can’t afford to keep spending such sums without regard to actual risk.

I introduced H.R. 3266 to address both of these problems—to make this funding

both faster and smarter. Faster, by requiring and incentivizing States to pass

through their awarded funds to localities within tight timeframes, by penalizing

States that fail to do so, and by allowing regions to apply directly for funds in certain circumstances.

Smarter, by allocating grant awards to States and regions based on an assessment of terrorist threat, vulnerability and consequences—in other words, the actual

risks they face. Terrorists are not arbitrary in their selection of targets. We cannot

afford to be arbitrary in how we prepare to deal with them.

H.R. 3266 also ensures that this terrorism grant funding is used to achieve clear

and measurable preparedness goals, which we call ‘‘essential capabilities.’’ Right

now, many States and localities simply are not sure how to utilize this money most

effectively, which is yet another reason for the delay in actual spending at the local

level. We know that not all communities are the same, or face the same types of

risks. Accordingly, we need to help communities identify their unique terrorism preparedness needs. The bill before you today will do this, speeding actual use of grant

funds and ensuring that the money is wisely spent.

Let me emphasize several points for your consideration. First: The bill you are

considering covers only those terrorism-specific preparedness grants administered

by the Department of Homeland Security. All aspects of the bill—including riskbased allocation of grants; State strategies; creation of essential capabilities; training and equipment standards; and various administrative requirements—apply only

in the context of those DHS grants. The bill expressly excludes all grant programs

administered by HHS and other Federal agencies. It is an amendment to the Homeland Security Act, tailored to a very specific purpose.

Second: The definition of ‘‘first responders’’ in this legislation is exactly the same

as the definition of ‘‘emergency response providers’’ that is already in the Homeland

Security Act. In addition to firefighters and police officers, this definition includes

emergency medical personnel and related agencies. That’s consistent with the longstanding practice of ODP even when it was in the Justice Department. This broad

definition ensures that the emergency medical community—which works hand-inhand with the more traditional first responders—is included as a key element in

anti-terrorism planning, training, and equipment purchases. In this respect, our bill

in no way alters current practice or policy.

With the creation of DHS came the potential for overlap with other pre-existing

departments and agencies, including HHS. Both DHS and HHS have worked diligently to avoid any duplication in public health preparedness grants. They have

largely focused on different end users, and on different priorities. President Bush

recently issued a Presidential Directive that is the basis for the ongoing construction

of a fully coordinated and streamlined Federal grant process for terrorism and other

emergencies. That fully coordinated inter-agency process, which will be completely

in place by the middle of next year, should eliminate any concerns about potential

overlap in DHS and HHS programs.

Finally, the First Responder Essential Capabilities Task Force created by H.R.

3266 should not be confused with the Federal working group established under the

authority of the HHS Secretary several years ago to review matters relating to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies. First, the HHS bioterrorism working

group is focused on public health emergencies, with particular concern for research

on and prioritization of pathogens and biomedical countermeasures. Its participants

are Federal agencies, and its aim is to ensure coordination among Federal partners

in the fight against bioterrorism. By contrast, the Essential Capabilities Task Force

in H.R. 3266 is made up of first responders and Federal, state and local officials.

Its focus is on creating clearly defined and measurable goals for preparedness, tailored to different types of communities, for all forms of terrorism. This first responder task force is critical because of the importance of hearing from those on the

front lines and in our local communities directly about what their needs are and

what their priorities should be. And, as noted earlier, the essential capabilities created under H.R. 3266 would not have any impact beyond the DHS grant programs

covered by the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3266, the

Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2004. I urge this Committee to report the bill as quickly as possible to help our Nation meet the urgent

challenge of terrorism in our cities and home towns. Thank you for your considerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:56 Sep 30, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 93974.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
10

ation, and I would be glad to answer any questions Members of this Committee

might have on this subject.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Cox, and thank you for your great

work on this issue. I am not sure whether we have had past history, similar history where we have started a committee under the

circumstances under which Homeland Security was founded just a

couple of years ago.

Let me ask you very quickly, even though it is more of a tradition than anything else that we do not ask questions of fellow

Members of Congress when they appear before us. Do you feel that

the bill contains—the combination of the bill along with what already exists contains adequate accountability? We know that

grants and funds have gone to States, local governments and what

not but never did reach the first responders. It seems like there is

a lack of accountability there somewhere along the line. Do we

know where those funds are, in the first place?

Mr. COX. We do, and we are increasingly aware of the anomalies

that created this problem. The first responders obviously want the

money, they want to spend it. The Governors are trying to get it

to them. Congress wants them to have the money, and so how can

it be? And what we found is that there are a handful of reasons

this money is stuck in the pipeline.

First, many of the grant applicants aren’t prepared to spend the

money. Once the grant is made, they then begin the task of figuring out on what precisely what they should spend it. The grant

process does not automatically approve the spending as it should,

and so we can change that with this legislation. Second, we have

many localities unable to come up with the money on the front end,

so they can’t take advantage of a reimbursement program. They

are trying to put together the monies to go spend it so that then

they can apply for reimbursement, but they may not have the

money in the first place. Third is that there are patchwork of sometimes bizarre local requirements for additional approvals for spending the money locally even after you get the Federal and State approvals. So, for example, in New Hampshire, there has to be an approval at a town meeting, which takes place in March, and if you

miss the March meeting, then you wait until next year.

There are a number of things like this that should be very short

work to fix, and I think we have got a pretty good handle on it.

Everybody wants to fix the problem. This legislation can do that.

Last, Mr. Chairman, with respect to accountability, it is very

hard to hold people accountable when you haven’t set any standards. We need to make sure that we focus on spending this money

on the basis of risk rather than just doling it out sort of

arithmetically and seeing what happens. So the greatest leap forward in terms of accountability will be linking the billions of dollars that we are investing in intelligence and learning about what

the terrorists are up to and what they might do to us and the additional tens and even hundreds of millions that we are spending on

learning our own vulnerabilities and then mapping the threats

against the vulnerabilities and spending the money accordingly.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, thank you for that. It is amazing, the New

Hampshire example is a good one in some of the things that we are

really faced with in these types of cases.

11

Let us say there is a county sheriff’s department in whatever

State, not New Hampshire but any other State, and it qualifies as

a first responder and it needs radios in order to be able to do their

job adequately as a first responder. How many grants might be

available, different types of grants might be available for that sheriff to go to in order to be able to get the money that is needed?

Mr. COX. I don’t know, Mr. Chairman, and that is a very——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. There might be more than one, in other words.

Mr. COX. Of course. That is a very real-life example, and I would

dare say that you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Norwood and I have gotten

that question or something very much like it from our constituents

and our case workers and people in our office here in Washington

are all busy trying to figure out how this all works. It is quite a

maze for people to try and understand. What we are trying to do

in this legislation, at least with respect to one cabinet department,

the Department of Homeland Security, is create a single grant program for terrorism preparedness that will accommodate all of these

potential uses, so there is no question about where you go for the

money.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes. I would say so. Is it your intent to move legislation that the grant programs authorized by this legislation restrict themselves to first responder issues or can these grants be

used for other homeland security purposes beyond those of assisting first responders in their efforts?

Mr. COX. I will say, first, that the purpose of the legislation is

to make first responder grants, and it is meant to focus on the

post-September 11 counterterrorism, terrorism preparedness priority. That are what these grants will be for. But that, second, on

the grantee side, we have an all hazards approach, and we don’t

have a separate police department or a separate fire department

for terrorists, and so once they get the money this is going to complement their overarching mission and that is fine. But what the

bill does establish is a strict line of demarkation on the donor side

so that we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul, we are not stretching

the pre-September 11 programs on a Procrustean bed and making

them do double duty and pretending to be—giving, for example, the

Fire Act or COPS or some other pre-September 11 purpose and at

the same time giving for the post-September 11 counterterrorism

priorities and mixing it all up and nobody can quite tell how much

is going to which priority.

So I think it is possible for us in the Federal Government to say

this is for fighting terror, and we are going to focus you in these

areas and we want to use the money in these areas, and we are

going to favor applications for grants in these areas. But we recognize that back home you are also preparing for forest fires, buildings burning down, chemical spills, rape, murder, robbery, all of

the things that go on, and if this complements that in any way,

there is certainly nothing wrong with that.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I think that answers that question for the moment. All right. Thank you, Mr. Cox. Dr. Norwood, any questions?

Mr. NORWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cox, just a sort

of simple question, really. The funds that are being funneled now

you have said it numerous times, it appeared to me, that they are

not actually getting to the first responder, whether that be a policeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:56 Sep 30, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 93974.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
12

man, a fireman or a health care person, and you are saying to me

that this bill will help that. This bill will focus those funds into the

first line of defense.

The grants that you envision here is there monies in here—I am

concerned about the lack of training and standardization that is

going on. The radios that the chairman was talking about in one

town surely ought to function and be connected to or able to connect to the radios in a town 20 miles away in case a disaster occurs

there. And just a little bit of my observation out there that I don’t

know how standardized we have gotten, and I don’t know if HHS

has actually concerned itself with training, because a lot of times

they get this money—what I am hearing them say, they get these

dollars but they are not sure exactly how they need to spend these

dollars or, ‘‘Who do I call up to call up to come in and frame my

entire fire department?’’ Now, tell me how this bill can help with

that?

Mr. COX. The grant monies under this legislation can be used for

training. They can also be used for equipment purchases. They can

also be used to build in interoperable communications network.

The Department of Homeland Security has already established

baseline standards for interoperable communications for first responders, and I will say on that point that there is legislation that

our committee members have been very, very keen to look at and

mark up on the first responder interoperability question. We have

deferred to the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee on that point because, among other things, it involves spectrum. So there is work that we can do, and I say we as a member

of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to advance that solution

in a way that I can’t do it on the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. NORWOOD. Well, I am going to ask our next guest a little bit

about this in terms of what actually is going on in the country

about training people. Do we actually have a group of people who

we believe knows what to do in many situations that a first responder is called for? And if that is the case, are they then training

other people to be trainers? But I will get to the next panel with

that, and I thank you for your leadership in this area.

Mr. COX. Well, it is an excellent area of emphasis.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Shimkus to inquire.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chris——

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. [continuing] for taking time to be here and, again,

thanks for your great work.

The next panel consists of Mr. Andrew T. Mitchell, Deputy Director of the Office of Domestic Preparedness with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Mr. William Raub, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

I have already welcomed you, gentlemen, and I do so again. Your

written statement is a part of the record. We would hope that in

your statement here today you will complement it, supplement it,

whatever the case might be. Mr. Mitchell, why don’t we start with

you?

13

STATEMENTS OF ANDREW T. MITCHELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; AND WILLIAM F.

RAUB, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, PLANNING AND

EVALUATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Bilirakis

and members of the subcommittee, my name is Andy Mitchell, and

I am currently the Deputy Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness in the Department of Homeland Security. And on behalf

of Secretary Ridge and ODP Director Sue Mencer, it is my pleasure

to be here today to appear before you and to discuss things that

are going on in the Department, Office for Domestic Preparedness

and our efforts to enhance the capabilities of State and local governments to address the challenge of terrorism domestically.

ODP is the primary Federal Government agency responsible for

preparing the Nation against terrorism by assisting States, local

jurisdictions, regional and tribal governments in building their capacities to prevent, prepare for and respond to acts of terrorism domestically. Since its creation, ODP has provided assistance to all

the States, 50 States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico and the United States territories. We have trained

more than 325,000 emergency responders and more than 5,000 jurisdictions and conducted more than 300 exercises across this country. By the end of the fiscal year 2004, ODP will have provided

more than $8.1 billion in financial assistance and support to State

and local governments.

As of this week, 52 of the 56 States and territories have received

their 2004 fiscal year funding under the Homeland Security Grant

Program. This program includes funds to support statewide preparedness efforts under the State Homeland Security Program, the

Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program and the Citizens

Corps Program. These awards total over $1.9 billion and a total of

$2.2 billion will be provided under this initiative when we complete

the award of the 56 grants.

Further are the 50 urban areas designated under the fiscal year

2004 Urban Area Security Initiative, or the UASI Program. Fortyeight of those 50 jurisdictions have received their funding to date,

and that represents $644 million of a total of $670 million available

for the Urban Area Security Program this year. We have provided

funds to 30 of the Nation’s most used urban transit systems in

2004. All $49 million for that program to those 30 systems has already been awarded. And during this fiscal year at ODP, in cooperation with United States Fire Administration, we will make

nearly $750 million in direct assistance to fire departments across

the Nation under the Assistant to Fire Fighters Grant Program.

As we have heard today from Chairman Cox’s presentation,

much of how the States and territories distribute and utilize the

Homeland Security Grant Program funds are influenced by the results of the State assessments and the statewide strategies that

they have provided to our office. They were due in our office January 31 of this year. These strategies are important to both the

States and local governments as well as to our office and to the

Federal Government. They provide information regarding

14

vulnerabilities, capabilities, future requirements and define each

preparedness goals and objectives. In essence, it provides the

States a road map on how current and future funding can and

should be applied in the areas of equipment, exercises training and

other preparedness resources. And they provide the Federal Government with a better understanding of the first responders’ needs

and requirements. All 56 States’ strategies have been received and

reviewed, only 4 remain to be approved, and they should be approved very shortly.

DHS’ mission is critical, its responsibilities great, and we have

only been at this a year, so I have had to assume a lot in the last

12 months. But we do know that we can do better, and we want

to continue to identify ways that we can do better and improve.

Since the creation of DHS, the Department has worked very

closely with the Congress on how to better fulfill our common goal

of a more secure America and from OD’s unique position to assist

our State and local partners. And one such congressional effort is

H.R. 3266, the focus of this hearing today, the Faster and Smarter

Funding for First Responders Act.

As Chairman Cox discussed, this is a major attempt to improve

how the Department provides assistance, and since the bill’s introduction, the Department has worked with the staff of the Select

Committee and more recently has provided the Select Committee

a White Paper containing the Department’s observations and comments on the various provisions of that bill. And with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to share those views with this

subcommittee and provide a copy of that White Paper for inclusion

in the record.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Without objection, that will be the case.

[The following was received for the record:]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING H.R. 3266,

‘‘FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS ACT OF 2003’’

The Administration supports much of this legislation and, in particular, supports

the Committee’s intent, expressed in H.R. 3266, to further facilitate funding for our

first responders. The Administration also acknowledges the extensive work on the

part of the Committee to address some of the Administration’s concerns with particular elements of this legislation. The Administration further looks forward to discussing the following issues with the Committee.

1. Regional Applications for Grant Funding:

The Department recognizes that particular localities encompass more than one

state jurisdiction, and as a result has incorporated a regional feature in the Urban

Area Security Initiative. Regional funding may conflict with state assessments strategies, which states and localities have worked to complete recently. To the degree

regions do factor in a state’s overall response, these are factored in state plans. Direct funding to tens of thousands of municipalities would, however, bypass such essential planning, while at the same time require an exponential increase in the time

and cost to review such proposals and track funding.

2. Modification of the Homeland Security Alert System (HSAS):

The Department applauds the efforts of the Committee to examine the operation

of the HSAS as a means to more efficiently and precisely alert the nation. The Department is strongly concerned that the current language is too prescriptive as it

would mandate implementation of a warning scheme without consideration of sufficient supporting intelligence. Since intelligence and information requirements shift,

it is our experience that the Secretary should be able to maintain as much flexibility

as possible in providing critical information to states and localities. Furthermore,

the Department believes that the provision requiring the Secretary to report annually to Congress on the bases for geographic or economic sector specific HSAS warnVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:56 Sep 30, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 93974.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
15

ings is unnecessary due to the current active information sharing structure with

State and Local entities regarding threat warnings. While DHS continues to improve this structure, this appears to be the most appropriate means to assure adequate information sharing and we would be pleased to discuss this structure further

with the Committee.

3. Task Force and Essential Capabilities:

The Department appreciates the Committee’s efforts to enhance the security of

the homeland which underlie the proposed new task force. However, it is unclear

how such duplication of the current advisory mechanism, provided for under Section

871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, would enhance the Department’s mission.

The Department believes a more efficient approach could be attained through the

combination of these task force/essential capabilities provisions into the existing advisory structure, an approach that could be accomplished either by legislative or administrative means. The Department looks forward to working with the Committee

to explore these alternate avenues and, in addition, to determine if the Committee

sees specific needs not already met by these advisory groups.

4. Imposition of Penalties for Delayed Pass-Through to Localities:

In principle, the Department agrees with the Committee that imposition of penalties may be appropriate as part of a larger goal to move these funds rapidly to

the localities. The Department looks forward to discussing several practical implications, such as statutory time frames for disbursement of funds, scope of penalties,

effect on flexibility of the funding, and effective deadlines.

5. Prohibition on Use of Grant Funds for Construction:

The Department appreciates and shares the concerns of the Committee in ensuring that the grant funds will be put to their intended use. The Department is concerned, however, that the prohibition on using any grants to construct or modify facilities might unduly prevent the improvement of State and local command and control at emergency operation center facilities, as well as construction activities for

critical infrastructure protection projects. The Department would therefore appreciate the opportunity to work with the Committee to establish a balance between

blanket prohibitions and the unrestricted use of grant funds—perhaps the creation

of certain specific limited exceptions to general prohibition.

6. ‘‘Risk-Based’’ grant standards:

The Department is encouraged that the Committee bill is largely consistent with

the Administration’s focus on terrorism preparedness. Should this focus of H. R.

3266 be maintained, the legislation should ensure that guidelines for allocation of

homeland security-related federal assistance are fully consistent with the guidelines

set forth in Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 8. HSPD 8 establishes

that preparedness assistance is intended to build capacity to address major events,

especially terrorism, and not primarily to support existing capacity to address normal local first responder operations. The assistance will have a particular focus on

terrorism risks while also basing allocations on population concentrations, critical

infrastructure, and other significant risk factors, particularly terrorism threats. The

Department believes the focus of this bill on terrorism preparedness will ensure that

funds are allocated in a manner that best supports our efforts to prevent, mitigate,

and respond to threatened terrorist attacks.

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. Generally, Mr. Chairman, the Department supports much of what is contained in H.R.—proposed in

H.R. 3266 and in particular supports the bill’s intent to further facilitate funding for our first responders. And the Department also

acknowledges the Select Committee’s work to address many of the

Department’s concerns prior to the actual reporting of the bill on

April 2.

For example, the Department appreciates that, as reported, H.R.

3266 now requires that applications for regional funding, which is

a key element of the bill under Section 1804, requires that States

also receive those applications for review so that we can ensure

that the proposals for those regional plans are consistent with the

State’s overall homeland security plan. Close coordination between

the States, localities and regions is critical, and it also builds on

the existing processes that ODP has established through the develVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:56 Sep 30, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 93974.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
16

opment of both the State Homeland Security Grant Program and

the Urban Area Security Initiative.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, the Department believes that

many of the H.R. 3266 concerns have already been addressed

under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 or through departmental

initiatives, either undertaken or already underway at this time. An

example is we believe that the H.R. 3266, Section 1803 task force

requirements duplicate efforts and responsibilities already existing

under the Homeland Security Act, Section 871, Advisory Committee Provisions. Under this section, Secretary Ridge created the

Homeland Security Advisory Council in 2003 as a means of providing the Department with a continuing source of advice and comment. The Department believes that an additional—it would be

more appropriate and efficient to incorporate any additional roles

and responsibilities, as outlined in the proposed legislation, task

force provisions, to be integrated in the current system of this

Council rather than create new advisory councils.

Similarly, the Department has taken other acts to address many

of the other issues raised. Recently, the Department’s Inspector

General, DHS Inspector General, released a report titled, ‘‘An

Audit of Distributing and Spending First Responder Grant Funds.’’

The report examined how ODP processed and awarded funds. It

also examined how a number of the States, once they received the

awards, how they processed awards, obligated and distributed

those funds.

The Inspector General concluded that ODP has been successful

in developing a management program and that ODP reviewed and

processed and awarded its grants in a timely and effective manner,

and that was, again, in concert with deadlines and requirements,

as prescribed by the Congress. The Inspector General also concluded that there are ways in which we, ODP, the States and locals

can do better and do a better job of monitoring and tracking homeland security funds. Chairman Cox mentioned some of the confounding issues that are unique when we have 56 States and territories, and there are any number of combinations of things that affect how those funds are actually obligated or disbursed at the local

level. Most importantly, the Inspector General concluded, and we

agree, that it is desirable for States to distribute funds wisely and

prudently via the strategic plans than to distribute the funds

quickly.

Mr. Chairman, the Secretary believes that this whole funding

process is important, and on March 15 of this year, Secretary Ridge

announced the creation of the Homeland Security Funding Task

Force. This task force comprised of Governors, mayors, county executives and representatives of tribal governments and is working—is looking and examining the DHS funding process for the

State and local assistance programs to identify areas where there

may be problems or areas where things are working. Obviously,

there are some States and localities where the funds move in a

very expeditious and efficient manner, so one of the outcomes of

this assessment will be to identify best practices that we can then

share with other State and local governments to help pass along

innovative approaches to streamlining the grant process. The task

force, Mr. Chairman, will provide a report to the Secretary by the

17

end of June, and we will be glad to share that report with this committee and other Members of Congress.

We have also initiated a number of other improvements prior to

the release of the Inspector General’s report. We greatly increased

our communications to State and local officials. There is lots of information out there. Some of it—I think all well intentioned, but

some of it is not always as accurate as we would like it. So we have

expanded our outreach and engagement with State and local officials to ensure a better understanding of the requirements and activities that are their responsibilities under the grant program. Examples of that are our office along with the other Department components participates in biweekly conference calls with the State

homeland security advisors. We have specific times when we

present changes and challenges and have an opportunity to interact with those key State officials to answer questions that in many

cases that is all it takes is a good question and a good answer. So

that is one thing. We have done the same thing with the elected

officials in the Urban Area Security Initiative. We have conference

calls between our staff, the mayors, other State and local officials

within those Urban Area Security Initiative to ensure that the program requirements and activities are well understood, and if there

is any assistance necessary, our office is prepared to provide that.

Now, this past February, Secretary Ridge provided a comprehensive report on homeland security funds awarded, obligated and

spent to the Governors of the States and the territories and the

mayor of the District of Columbia, and we update these reports on

a regular basis to keep the chief elected officials informed. Helps

them better understand the unique challenges and processes underway in their States.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Can you summarize, please?

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. One of the challenges we have that was

mentioned today was the proliferation of programs, and the Secretary has established and notified the Congress the intention to

consolidate grant programs within the Department of Homeland

Security into the one-stop shop so the offices of ODP and the Office

of State and Local Government Coordination will be consolidated,

and we think that will also greatly improve our ability to link these

programs and enable the Department to evaluate programs more

accurately and exercise greater oversight.

And then, finally, HSPD-8 that you mentioned, Mr. Chairman,

Secretary Ridge has been tasked by the President to develop national preparedness goals, improve delivery of Federal preparedness assistance to State and local governments and strengthen the

preparedness capabilities of Federal, State and local governments.

Inherent to the successful implementation of HSPD-8 is the development of clear, measurable standards, and this ongoing effort will

address that and exceeds the Section 1802 essential capabilities

provision from H.R. 3266 with a target of July 31 of this year for

completion of a mission-essential task list for Homeland Security

responsibilities.

Appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I believe that

concludes my statements, and I will be more than happy to answer

questions.

[The prepared statement of Andrew T. Mitchell follows:]

18

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDREW T. MITCHELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR

DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Chairman Bilirakis, Congressman Brown, and Members of the Subcommittee, my

name is Andrew Mitchell, and I serve as the Deputy Director of the Department

of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). On behalf

of Secretary Ridge, it is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the current status of ODP and other issues of critical importance.

On behalf of all of us at DHS, I want to thank you Mr. Chairman, and all the

members of the Committee, for your ongoing support for the Department and for

ODP. You and your colleagues have entrusted us with a great responsibility, and

we are meeting that responsibility with the utmost diligence.

As you are all aware, ODP is responsible for preparing our Nation against terrorism by assisting States, local jurisdictions, regional authorities, and tribal governments with building their capacity to prepare for, prevent, and respond to acts

of terrorism. Through its programs and activities, ODP equips, trains, exercises, and

supports State and local homeland security personnel—our nation’s first responders—who may be called upon to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks.

Mr. Chairman, ODP has established an outstanding track record of capacity

building at the State, local, territorial, and tribal levels, by combining subject matter expertise, grant-making know-how, and establishing strong and long-standing

ties to the nation’s public safety community. Since its creation in 1998, ODP has

provided assistance to all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories. Through its programs and initiatives ODP

has trained 325,000 emergency responders from more than 5,000 jurisdictions and

conducted more than 300 exercises. And, by the end of Fiscal Year 2004, ODP will

have provided States and localities with more than $8.1 billion in assistance and

direct support.

Throughout its history ODP has strived to improve how it serves its State and

local constituents. For example, in Fiscal Year 2003, application materials for the

Department’s State Homeland Security Grant Program—under both the Fiscal Year

2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, and the Fiscal Year 2003 Supplemental Appropriations Bill—were made available to the States within two weeks of those bills

becoming law. Further, over 90 percent of the grants made under that program

were awarded within 14 days of ODP receiving the grant applications.

During Fiscal Year 2004, ODP’s record of service to the nation’s first responders

continues. As of this week, 52 of the 56 States and territories have received their

Fiscal Year 2004 funding under the Homeland Security Grant Program. This includes funds to support State-wide preparedness efforts under the State Homeland

Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and

the Citizen Corps Program. These awards represent over $ 2.1 Billion in direct assistance. In total, $2.2 Billion will be provided under this initiative.

Further, 48 of the 50 urban areas designated under the Fiscal Year 2004 Urban

Areas Security Initiative (UASI program) have been awarded funding so far; the remaining are still under review. This represents $631 Million in support to high-density population centers with identifiable threats and critical infrastructure. In total

over $670 Million will be provided to these areas. In addition, the Department has

identified 30 of the nation’s most used urban transit systems and will provide $49

Million to enhance the overall security of these systems. To date, all 30 of these

transit systems have received their Fiscal Year 2004 funds.

Much of how the States and territories will distribute and utilize Homeland Security Grant Program funds will be influenced by the results of the State Homeland

Security Assessments and Strategies. As you know, each State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories were required to submit their assessments and strategies by January 31, 2004.

These assessments and strategies, Mr. Chairman, are critically important to both

the States and the Federal Government. They provide a wealth of information regarding each State’s vulnerabilities, capabilities, and future requirements, as well

as each State’s preparedness goals and objectives. They provide each State with a

roadmap as to how current and future funding, exercise, training, and other preparedness resources should be directed and targeted, and they provide the Federal

Government with a better understanding of needs and capabilities. I am happy to

report that all assessments and strategies have been received and reviewed or currently are under review by an intra-DHS review board comprised of representatives

from major Department components. Of those 56 strategies, 52 have been approved

by the Department. The remaining four should be approved shortly.

During Fiscal Year 2005, ODP will continue to provide States and localities with

the resources they require to ensure the safety of the American public. The funds

19

requested by the President for Fiscal Year 2005 will allow ODP to continue to provide the training, equipment, exercises, technical assistance, and other support necessary to better prepare our communities.

DHS’s mission is critical, its responsibilities are great, and its programs and activities impact communities across the nation. We will strive to fulfill our mission

and meet our responsibilities in an effective and efficient manner. And we will, to

the best of our abilities, continue to identify where and how we can improve. Part

of our responsibility, part of the Department’s responsibility, Mr. Chairman, is the

recognition that we can always improve what we do and how we do it. And we can

never be too safe or too secure.

This critical mission was recognized by the Congress with the passage of the

Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the creation of the Department of Homeland

Security. And since the Department’s creation, we have worked continuously with

the Congress to determine how better to fulfill our common goal of a more secure

America. One such Congressional effort is H.R. 3266, the ‘‘Faster and Smarter

Funding for First Responders Act of 2003.’’

Introduced by Congressman Cox, H.R. 3266 is a major attempt to improve how

the Department provides assistance to State and local emergency responders. Since

the bill’s introduction, the Department has worked with staff of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and, more recently, has provided the Select Committee a ‘‘white paper’’ containing observations and comments on the bill’s provisions. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to share those views with

this Subcommittee by offering a copy of that ‘‘white paper’’ for inclusion in the

record.

Generally, Mr. Chairman, the Department supports much of H.R. 3266, and in

particular supports the bill’s intent to further facilitate funding for our first responders. The Department also acknowledges the Select Committee’s work to address many of the Department’s concerns prior to reporting the bill on April 2, 2004.

For example, the Department appreciates that, as reported, H.R. 3266 now requires

that applications for regional funding under the Section 1804 provisions be submitted to the state for review, and be consistent with the state’s overall homeland

security plan. Such close coordination between States, localities, and regions, is critical to an effective and rational distribution of homeland security resources, and is

consistent with currently existing ODP funding initiatives, such as the Urban Areas

Security Initiative or UASI Program.

At the same time Mr. Chairman, the Department believes that many of H.R.

3266’s concerns have already been addressed under the Homeland Security Act of

2002, or through Departmental initiatives already underway. For example we believe that H.R. 3266’s Section 1803 task force requirements duplicate efforts and responsibilities already existing under the Homeland Security Acts Section 871 advisory committee provisions. For example, under Section 871, Secretary Ridge created

the Homeland Security Advisory Council in 2003 as a means of providing the Department with a continuing source of advice and comment. The Department believes

that it would be more effective and efficient to incorporate additional roles and responsibilities as identified under H.R. 3266’s task force provisions, into the Department’s current system of task forces and advisory councils, rather than create new

advisory mechanisms.

Similarly, the department has taken other action to address other issues raised

and addressed by H.R. 3266. Recently the Department’s Inspector General released

a report titled ‘‘An Audit of Distributing and Spending ‘First Responder’ Grant

Funds.’’ That report examined how ODP processed and awarded first responder

grant funds during Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003. It also examined how several of the

States, once awards have been received, obligate and distribute those funds.

We at ODP welcomed the Inspector General’s scrutiny, and now that the report

is complete, we see this as an opportunity to validate those things we are doing

well, and to identify and act upon those things we need to do better. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a copy of the report for inclusion in

the record.

Overall Mr. Chairman, the Inspector General concluded that ODP has been successful in the development and management of its grant programs, and that ODP

has assessed, processed, and awarded its grants in a timely and effective manner.

At the same time the Inspector General concluded that there are several ways in

which ODP could better assist States and local communities in distributing and

dedicating homeland security funds, as well as monitoring and tracking these funds

once they have been awarded. The Inspector General concluded that various impediments to the timely distribution of funds at the State and local level should be addressed, and while some of these impediments may be unavoidable, others could be

reduced. Most important the Inspector General concluded, and we at ODP agree,

20

that it is more desirable for States to distribute funds wisely and prudently, than

to distribute funds in haste.

Among the report’s recommendations were:

• For ODP to institute more meaningful reporting by the States so that ODP can

track progress more accurately, both in their distribution of funds and in building their preparedness capabilities, and to better assist States when necessary.

• For ODP to improve its communications with State and local jurisdictions in order

to keep them better informed as to program requirements and opportunities for

assistance.

• For ODP to accelerate the development of federal guidelines for first responder

preparedness, including capability levels, equipment, training, and exercises, in

order to enhance the ability of States and local jurisdictions to develop preparedness strategies and target resources.

• For ODP to work with State and local jurisdictions to better identify impediments

at the State and local levels to the timely distribution of funds, identify ‘‘best

practices,’’ and make recommendations to overcome these impediments.

I am happy to report, Mr. Chairman, that ODP, in consultation with the Secretary and other Department components, is already addressing many of these recommendations. For instance, for Fiscal Year 2004, ODP is implementing new reporting and monitoring guidelines. These new procedures will enable ODP to better

track each State’s progress in allocating funds and meeting the objectives outlined

in their 2003 State Strategies and Assessments. Further, prior to the start of Fiscal

Year 2005, ODP will establish a Dedicated Audit Team in order to more closely

audit grant expenditures and better ensure compliance with program requirements.

Also during the past year, ODP has greatly improved its communications with

State and local officials to assist them to better understand program requirements

and better plan for the use and allocation of program funds. As an example, ODP,

along with other Department components, participates in bi-weekly conference calls

with the various State homeland security directors. These conference calls provide

direct access among Federal and State representatives to facilitate the quick flow

of information. Similarly, ODP, as part of its administration of the Fiscal Year 2003

UASI Program, instituted conference calls among ODP staff and mayors and other

State and local officials representing the various urban areas comprising the UASI

sites. Again the use of conference calls expedited and facilitated the exchange of information and ideas among the parties.

Further Mr. Chairman, this past February, Secretary Ridge provided each State’s

governor with a report on homeland security funds awarded, obligated, and spent

within the State. These reports are being updated on a regular basis. Keeping the

governors informed in this manner has enhanced their ability to maintain oversight

over these monies. These efforts are in addition to ODP’s continuing efforts to provide customer service, including the ODP Helpline, and technical assistance and

monitoring visits by ODP staff to State and local jurisdictions. Within the past six

months, staff from ODP’s State and Local Management Division, the ODP component responsible for the administration of the homeland security grant funds, have

made 22 monitoring trips and, in the last 12 months, have made 300 technical assistance trips to State and local jurisdictions.

ODP is also continuing its efforts to develop preparedness standards and to establish clear methods for assessing State and local preparedness levels and progress.

As you will recall Mr. Chairman, on December 17, 2003, the President issued

‘‘Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-8.’’ Through HSPD-8, the President tasked Secretary Ridge, in coordination with other Federal departments and

State and local jurisdictions, to develop national preparedness goals, improve delivery of federal preparedness assistance to State and local jurisdictions, and strengthen the preparedness capabilities of Federal, State, territorial, tribal, and local governments. HSPD-8 is consistent with the broader goals and objectives established

in the President’s National Strategy for Homeland Security issued in July, 2002,

which discussed the creation of a fully-integrated national emergency response capability. Inherent to the successful implementation of HSPD-8 is the development of

clear and measurable standards for State and local preparedness capabilities.

The standards that will result from HSPD-8 implementation build on an existing

body of standards and guidelines developed by ODP and other Federal agencies to

guide and inform State and local preparedness efforts. Since its inception ODP has

worked with Federal agencies and State and local jurisdictions to develop and disseminate information to State and local agencies to assist them in making more informed preparedness decisions, including capability assessments, preparedness planning and strategies, and choices relating to training, equipment, and exercises.

Again, with your permission Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for inclusion in

21

the record, a summary of standards and guidelines issued by ODP over the last several years.

Earlier this year, the Secretary delegated to ODP the responsibility for the implementation of HSPD-8. This designation by the Secretary is consistent with ODP’s

mission, as provided under the provisions of the Homeland Security Act, to be the

primary federal agency responsible for the preparedness of the United States for

acts of terrorism. And ODP, together with Secretary Ridge, other Department components, Federal agencies, and State and local governments, firmly believe that the

successful implementation of HSPD-8 is essential and critical to our Nation’s ability

to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism. In March, the Secretary

approved these key items: first, a strategy for a better prepared America based on

the requirements of HSPD-8; second, an integrated, intra- and inter- governmental

structure to implement HSPD-8; and third, an aggressive timeline for achieving

HSPD-8’s goals and objectives. Implementation of HSPD-8 involves the participation

of Federal, State, and local agencies, and, among other things, will result in the development and dissemination of clear, precise, and measurable preparedness standards and goals addressing State, local, and Federal prevention and response capabilities.

Further, I would like to reemphasize the importance of ODP’s State Homeland Security Assessments and Strategies that were submitted to ODP by the States and

territories this past January. And, it is important to note that this is not the first

time States have been tasked with providing assessments. The information contained in these reports provides critical data describing State and local capabilities

and requirements for use by both the States and the Federal Government. This data

provides a critical benchmark from which ODP can assess both past and future

progress in their development of preparedness capabilities. The current assessments

and strategies are being compared to the first group of assessments and strategies

submitted in Fiscal Year 2001. Then, the current group of assessments and strategies will provide a mark from which ODP can compare future assessments and

strategies. In addition, the current assessments and strategies will help guide ODP’s

decisions regarding State and local training, equipment, planning, and exercise requirements.

Also critical to the implementation of HSPD-8 is the improved delivery of homeland security assistance, including homeland security funding to State and local governments. This too was examined by the DHS Inspector General’s report, which concluded that although ODP has been able to distribute funds to States in a timely

manner, there were some impediments that slowed the further distribution of funds

from States to local jurisdiction. These impediments did not exist in every State or

in every jurisdiction, and, as the Inspector General noted, some impediments are

unavoidable, and some can be corrected. For example, some delays in the distribution of homeland security funds can be linked to State and local procurement laws

and requirements. Other delays resulted from the local planning process and the

need to form consensus across multiple jurisdictions. Some delays were the result

of deliberate decisions by State and local leaders who chose to spend more time

planning rather than to spend funds quickly. Yet, despite these difficulties, ODP

and the Department are committed to finding ways to further improve the distribution of homeland security funds.

To that end Mr. Chairman, on March 15, 2004, Secretary Ridge announced the

creation of the Homeland Security Funding Task Force. This task force—chaired by

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and co-chaired by Akron Mayor Donald

Plusquellic, and comprised of several governors, mayors, county executives, and a

representative of tribal governments—will examine DHS’ funding process for State

and local assistance to ensure that DHS funds to the Nation’s first responders move

quickly and efficiently. It will also identify ‘‘best practices’’ in an effort to offer solutions to both the Department and State and local jurisdictions. By directly involving

the States, territories, local communities, and tribal governments, this task force

will provide an ongoing source of information to assist DHS and States and localities to do a better job. And, the formation of this task force underscores the Secretary’s commitment to a partnership between the Federal Government and its

State and local counterparts, and his approach to homeland security as ‘‘One Mission, One Team.’’ This task force, Mr. Chairman, will provide a report to the Secretary by the end of June, which we will share with the Congress.

An additional and important step toward improving how homeland security assistance is provided to States and local jurisdictions is contained in the President’s

Fiscal Year 2005 budget request. As part of the effort to improve the distribution

of homeland security funds, the Administration has requested that the Secretary be

provided increased flexibility under the distribution formula for ODP’s Homeland

Security Grant Program as contained in Section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act.

22

This request is consistent with the Department’s long-standing position that the PATRIOT Act formula be changed.

Our request to change the formula is designed to ensure that we can target Federal dollars in a manner consistent with protecting the nation in the most efficient

and effective manner. It is designed to enable the Secretary to consider critical factors such as threats and vulnerabilities—factors this Committee has recognized as

important. This increased flexibility will allow the Secretary to move Federal resources to respond to changes in vulnerabilities and threats.

This more nuanced approach does not mean, however, that minimum or base

funding levels for the States and territories will be eliminated. As you are aware,

Secretary Ridge has consistently stated that a minimum amount of funds should be

provided to all States and territories, and that for the nation to be secure, all States

and territories must have the resources to address their particular and unique security needs.

Secretary Ridge is also taking steps to ensure that its staff and program offices

can more efficiently support States and localities. On January 26, 2004, the Secretary informed the Congress of his intention to consolidate ODP with the Office of

State and Local Government Coordination to form a new office—the Office for State

and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness.

This consolidation is in direct response to requests from the nation’s first responders to provide the emergency response community with a ‘‘one-stop-shop’’ that is a

central focal point for grants, assistance, and other interactions with the Department. Further, this consolidation places 25 varied State and local assistance programs and initiatives within one office to ensure simplified and coordinated administration of these programs. Finally, this consolidation also will eliminate the duplication across program lines and heighten the complementary and synergistic aspects

of these programs, and, by linking these programs to the State strategies and assessments, maximize their ultimate impact on States and localities.

At the same time, grouping these programs under one consolidated office ensures

that the grants administration staffs and a limited number of program subject matter experts who guide these programs will work together, share their expertise, and

achieve the Department’s goal of a better prepared America. The consolidation will

enable the Department to evaluate programs more accurately, exercise greater Federal oversight, and ensure the government-provided resources are dispersed quickly

and are used to maximum efficiency. This decision will benefit States and localities

by providing them with a unified and coordinated means of assistance and support.

It also provides a platform to ease coordination with other departments and agencies, as required in HSPD-8.

In closing Mr. Chairman, let me re-state Secretary Ridge’s commitment to support

the Nation’s State and local emergency response community, and to ensure that

America’s first responders receive the resources and support they require to do their

jobs. This concludes my statement. I am happy to respond to any questions that you

and the members of the Committee may have. Thank you.

[The OIG Audit, OIG-04-15, is available at the OIG web site, www.dhs.gov.]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, sir, and there will be questions.

Mr. Raub, you are on, sir.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. RAUB

Mr. RAUB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to share the Department’s

views on H.R. 3266, the proposed legislation for faster and smarter

funding for first responders. I will present a summary statement

now, and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, will submit my full

statement for the record.

H.R. 3266 seeks to foster strong, seamless coordination among

agencies of the Federal Government and between the Federal Government and our State and local partners. HHS shares this goal.

We place a high priority on strong, sustained collaboration with our

colleagues in DHS and other agencies and will continue to do so.

At the same time, we are concerned that H.R. 3266 neither inadvertently alter the authorities of the Department of Health and

Human Services nor impede its ability to perform its responsibilVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:56 Sep 30, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 93974.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
23

ities under law. H.R. 3266 contains several provisions that overlap

with mandates of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, which authorized most of the

bioterrorism, preparedness and response programs within HHS,

particularly those that address State and local readiness. In particular, I will address new Sections 1802, 1803 and 1806 of the

Homeland Security Act of 2002, as they would be added by H.R.

3266.

New Section 1802 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to

establish clearly defined, essential capabilities for State and local

government preparedness for terrorism. New Section 1803 specifies

the means to this end: The DHS Task Force on Essential Capabilities for First Responders. Further, H.R. 3266 defines first responders as emergency response providers, and the latter are defined in

the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to include emergency medical

personnel and hospital emergency personnel as well as State, Federal, local emergency public safety, law enforcement, emergency response and related personnel agencies and authorities.

These provisions cause concern as they are stated, because the

Public Health Security Act created the Working Group on Bioterrorism and other Public Health Emergencies and among other

things charged it to provide an, ‘‘assessment of the priorities for an

enhancement of the preparedness of public health institutions, providers of medical care and other emergency service personnel, including fire fighters to detect, to diagnose and respond, including

mental health response for a biological threat or attack.’’

Thus, without further clarification or delineation of functions,

H.R. 3266 may engender activities that duplicate statutorily mandated initiatives of HHS. As a potential remedy, HHS recommends

that the proposed legislation be revised to include language that

would identify the Secretary of Health and Human Services explicitly among those with whom the Secretary of Homeland Security

must consult when establishing essential capabilities.

New Section 1806 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to

support the development of, promulgate and update a series of national voluntary consensus standards for first responder equipment

that is to be supported by the Homeland Security grants envisioned

in the bill. Under the Public Health Security Act and other relevant statutes, HHS provides funds to States and other eligible entities for public health preparedness and hospital readiness, including the acquisition of certain equipment. Some of this equipment

appears to fall within H.R. 3266’s definition of first responder

equipment—for example, equipment for biological detection and

analysis, chemical detection and analysis, decontamination and

sterilization, personal protective equipment, respiratory protection,

interoperable communications and data networks. Further, the

HHS Working Group created by the Public Health Security Act is

tasked with development of shared standards for equipment to detect and protect against biological agents and toxins.

HHS suggests two candidate remedies. First, for the required

categories of equipment that the Secretary of Homeland Security is

directed to consider for the development of national voluntary consensus standards, we recommend modifying the language to circumscribe the type of equipment as first responder equipment inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:56 Sep 30, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 93974.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
24

tended for use in the field. This would eliminate coverage of equipment used in hospitals and other facilities, such as biological safety

cabinets in clinical laboratories and mass spectrometers in chemical laboratories.

Second, to increase the likelihood that DHS and HHS will develop a set of mutually consistent standards for essentially the

same equipment, we recommend that H.R. 3266 be revised to state

that the two departments shall develop standards jointly for equipment that will be used by both DHS-funded first responders and

HHS-supported State and local health departments, hospitals and

supporting health care entities.

New Section 1806 also calls upon the Secretary of Homeland Security to support the development of, promulgation of, and regularly update national voluntary consensus standards for first responder training. Under its existing authorities and appropriations,

HHS provides substantial funding for training and education efforts at the State and local levels. Without exception, every jurisdiction funded by HHS for bioterrorism preparedness and response

is planning and implementing education and training activities,

some of which are carried out jointly with traditional first responders.

Further, the statutorily mandated HHS Working Group also was

tasked with the development and enhancement of the quality of

joint planning and training programs that address the public

health and medical consequences of a biological threat or attack on

the civilian population between, No. 1—local fire fighters, ambulance personnel, police and public security officers or other emergency response personnel, including private response contractors,

and, No. 2—hospitals, primary care facilities and public health

agencies.

Preparedness for terrorism or other emergencies demands that

DHS and HHS provide guidance to our respective awardees that is

consistent and mutually reinforcing. To that end, we recommend

the insertion of language in H.R. 3266 requiring the Secretary of

Homeland Security to consult with the Secretary of HHS in requiring the Task Force on Essential Capabilities to coordinate with the

Working Group on Bioterrorism, to ensure that, to the extent possible, the development of national voluntary consensus standards

for both equipment and training is a collaborative and coordinated

process.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be pleased to respond as best

I can to your comments and questions.

[The prepared statement of William F. Raub follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. RAUB, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY

PREPAREDNESS, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee.

I am William F. Raub, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Health

Emergency Preparedness, at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

I welcome this opportunity to share the Department’s views on H.R. 3266, the proposed legislation for ‘‘Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders,’’ introduced

by Congressman Christopher Cox, Chairman of the House Select Committee on

Homeland Security, as reported by that Committee.

Before I provide the Department’s comments on the contents of the bill, I want

to take this opportunity to underscore the many collaborative and coordinated acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:56 Sep 30, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 93974.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
25

tivities that HHS has undertaken with the Department of Homeland Security over

the last year. Whether the issues deal with state and local emergency preparedness,

the planning for and deployment of the Strategic National Stockpile, the development of medical countermeasures under Project BioShield, or the development of

the National Response Plan and the National Incident Management System, our

two Departments have worked diligently to keep each other apprised and involved.

The relevant personnel in the two Departments (myself included) have strived on

an ongoing basis to coordinate our respective activities at both the policy and planning level as well as at the implementation and deployment level. This approach

lays the foundation not only for enhancing interagency coordination but also for creating a more robust and harmonized response capacity at the state and local levels.

H.R. 3266 contains several provisions that overlap with mandates of the Public

Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (referred

to hereafter as the Public Health Security Act), the legislation that authorizes most

of the bioterrorism preparedness and response programs within HHS, particularly

those that address state and local readiness. In particular, I will address new sections 1802, 1803 and 1806 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as would be added

by H.R. 3266.

In new section 1802, the Secretary of Homeland Security is directed to ‘‘establish

clearly defined essential capabilities for State and local government preparedness

for terrorism.’’ The bill language defines ‘‘essential capabilities’’ as ‘‘the levels, availability, and competence of emergency personnel, planning, training, and equipment

across a variety of disciplines needed to effectively and efficiently prevent, prepare for,

and respond to acts of terrorism consistent with established practices.’’

Further, HR 3266 defines ‘‘first responders’’ as ‘‘emergency response providers’’

and the latter are defined, in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, to include emergency medical personnel and hospital emergency personnel as well as Federal,

State, and local emergency public safety, law enforcement, emergency response and

related personnel, agencies, and authorities. Thus the cross-over of the definition of

‘‘first responders’’ to include what are traditional health care workers may create

a situation whereby the DHS Task Force on Essential Capabilities for First Responders (to be established under Section 1803) will be undertaking an activity, i.e.,

establishing ‘‘essential capabilities,’’ for a community of health providers that generally look to HHS to establish standards and priorities for public health emergency

preparedness.

Furthermore, there is currently a Working Group on Bioterrorism and Other Public Health Emergencies (referred to hereafter as the Working Group), authorized by

the Public Health Security Act, that is to provide an ‘‘assessment of the priorities

for and enhancement of the preparedness of public health institutions, providers of

medical care, and other emergency service personnel (including firefighters) to detect,

diagnose, and respond (including mental health response) to a biological threat or

attack’’ (see section 319F(a)(1)(F), as added by section108 of the Public Health Security Act). It is clear that, without further clarification and delineation of functions

in H.R. 3266, the bill may engender activities that duplicate statutorily mandated

initiatives of HHS.

To advise the Secretary of Homeland Security on establishing essential capabilities for terrorism preparedness at the state and local level, the Task Force on Essential Capabilities is expected to produce a draft report of recommendations ‘‘for the

essential capabilities all State and local first responders should possess, or to which

they should have access, to enhance terrorism preparedness.’’

Although the proposed legislation does not identify public health professionals and

health care providers as first responders, the bill does identify such individuals as

members of the Task Force. We assume that, as members of the Task Force, these

public health and medical professionals would contribute to the identification of ‘‘essential capabilities for state and local preparedness for terrorism.’’ We further assume that their contributions would most likely be in their areas of expertise and

experience.

At a time in which states and local jurisdictions are looking to the Federal Government to provide clear and explicit guidance in all areas of terrorism preparedness and response, I cannot overemphasize the importance of providing clear and

consistent federal recommendations and guidelines. We recommend, therefore, that

the proposed legislation be revised to include language that would explicitly identify

the Secretary of Health and Human Services among those with whom the Secretary

of Homeland Security must consult when establishing ‘‘essential capabilities.’’

New section 1806 as added by of H.R. 3266 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to ‘‘support the development of, promulgate and update’’ a series of ‘‘national

voluntary consensus standards’’ for first responder equipment that is to be supported by the homeland security grants envisioned in the bill.

26

Currently, funds awarded to the states by HHS for public health preparedness

and hospital readiness may be applied to the purchase and acquisition of certain

equipment. Some of this equipment appears to fall within H.R. 3266’s definition of

first responder equipment; for example, equipment for biological detection and analysis, chemical detection and analysis, decontamination and sterilization, personal

protective equipment, respiratory protection, interoperable communications, and

data networks. Furthermore, the HHS Working Group is currently tasked with ‘‘development of shared standards for equipment to detect and to protect against biological agents and toxins.’’

For the ‘‘required categories’’ of equipment that the Secretary of Homeland Security is directed to consider for the development of national voluntary consensus

standards, we recommend modifying the language to circumscribe the type of equipment as ‘‘first responder equipment intended for use in the field.’’ This would eliminate coverage of equipment used in hospitals and other facilities, e.g., biological

safety cabinets in clinical laboratories and mass spectrometers in chemical laboratories.

H.R. 3266 does not include a definition for ‘‘national voluntary consensus standards.’’ Consequently, it is not clear what is meant or covered by this phrase. Moreover, will these standards be truly voluntary, that is to say, are they to be adopted

at the discretion of the states or local jurisdictions? If so, this may create a number

of technical as well as compliance problems for the user communities.

To maximize the likelihood that DHS and HHS will develop a set of mutually consistent standards for essentially the same equipment, we recommend that this provision of the bill be revised to state that the two Departments shall collaborate in

jointly developing standards for equipment that will be used by both DHS funded

first responders and HHS-supported state and local health departments, hospitals

and supporting health care entities.

New section 1806 also calls upon the Secretary of Homeland Security to support

the development of, promulgate and regularly update national voluntary consensus

standards for first responder training. Within its own programs, HHS continues to

work towards ensuring the most effective application of funding to training and education efforts at the state and local levels. Without exception, every jurisdiction

funded by HHS for bioterrorism preparedness and response is planning and implementing education and training activities, some of which are carried out jointly with

traditional first responders.

In this arena, the HHS Working Group is also tasked with the ‘‘development and

enhancement of the quality of joint planning and training programs that address the

public health and medical consequences of a biological threat or attack on the civilian population between (i) local firefighters, ambulance personnel, police and public

security officers, or other emergency response personnel (including private response

contractors); and (ii) hospitals, primary care facilities, and public health agencies.’’

This area of overlap between DHS and HHS provides a clear opportunity for coordination and collaboration between the two Departments. Since a response to any

kind of terrorist attack will require a seamless response among all emergency responders, joint training and exercises involving public safety and law enforcement

personnel as well as public health and health care workers in a variety of scenarios

are both appropriate and feasible.

To ensure the effectiveness of such joint efforts, it is essential that the national

voluntary consensus standards reflect the appropriate roles of all response personnel. To this end, the development of these standards should involve not only

DHS and HHS but also relevant professional organizations (both those identified in

new section 1806 and the American Hospital Association, the Joint Commission on

Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and the American College of Emergency

Physicians), government agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and others.

It is critical that, in supporting the enhancement of state and local emergency response capabilities and capacities, DHS and HHS provide guidance to their respective awardees that is mutually consistent and reinforcing. To that end, we recommend the insertion of language in HR3266 requiring the Secretary of Homeland

Security to consult with the Secretary of HHS and requiring the Task Force on Essential Capabilities to coordinate with the Working Group on Bioterrorism to ensure

that, to the extent possible, the development of ‘‘national voluntary consensus standards’’ for both equipment and training is a collaborative and coordinated process.

This would minimize, if not eliminate, any duplication of effort and inconsistency

in recommendations.

Given the mission of the Department of Homeland Security and the goals of the

HHS bioterrorism preparedness and response programs, there are naturally a variety of opportunities for collaboration. We have taken advantage of many of these.

27

At the same time we are mindful of the mandates of our own authorizing legislation, the Public Health Security Act, which directs HHS to carry out a broad array

of tasks intended to prepare the nation to respond more effectively to bioterrorism,

other outbreaks of infectious diseases and other public health threats and emergencies. Thus language in H.R. 3266 should not alter, or impede the ability to carry

out, the authorities of the Department of Health and Human Services to perform

its responsibilities under law.

Thank you. I will be glad to respond to any questions that the Subcommittee may

have.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Raub—well, first, let me ask both of you, I

mean it is obvious that close contact, close coordination, a close relationship, if you will, among DHS and HHS is critical. Would you

both agree?

Mr. RAUB. Yes, sir.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Has that been—can we say that that has taken

place, that you all have gotten along well, you have coordinated?

Any problems there?

Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. None whatsoever.

Mr. MITCHELL. It has been very positive.

Mr. RAUB. And we work hard at it, sir.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. And you work hard at it. That is good to hear. Mr.

Mitchell, your participation in the Section 108 Working Group, has

that been extensive?

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, our office is not involved in that, but it is

my understanding that representatives from FEMA are the primary DHS representatives. There are DHS participants in that

process, sir.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, I just want to be sure that—and forgive me,

I don’t mean to slight either one of your groups, but one of the

problems with Capitol Hill, and I have been here for 22 years, is

everybody seems to be concerned about their turf, you know, the

damn turf battles that takes place here in Congress, in God knows,

so very much, and the stakes are awfully high when it comes to

homeland security, and I would hope that that is not a problem between you two.

Mr. Raub, have you had an opportunity or what kind of an opportunity has HHS had as far as input into the preparation of this

legislation is concerned?

Mr. RAUB. This was our first opportunity, sir, with respect——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Your first opportunity?

Mr. RAUB. This was the first I had seen it, and we are appreciative of the committee for giving us that opportunity.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. You have made many recommendations. I

don’t know whether that can be interpreted as finding many faults

with the legislation, but you have made plenty of recommendations.

Mr. RAUB. We didn’t believe we were finding fault as such, sir.

What we tried to recognize is where, on its face, there seemed to

be an overlap.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I think, generally speaking, overlap is bad in any

area, but is it bad in this area? I mean there are areas of overlap.

Mr. RAUB. It is not bad so long as we are each aware of the other’s activities and we can ensure that each is making the appropriate contribution to the other. We flagged the overlap to the exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:56 Sep 30, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 93974.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
28

tent that if one or the other of us were to proceed in ignorance of

the other’s authorities, we could very well be doing the same thing

twice or worse address the same issue and produce slightly different responses. Both might be valid, but they would be confusing,

at best, especially to our partners and State and local communities.

So we flag those things, not in any sense in opposition to the legislation, but rather, to get the kind of clarification to ensure that we

each know what our respective responsibilities are.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Mitchell, anything you want to add to that?

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I think there are—like I said, there are ongoing activities, particularly the HSPD-8 implementation where a

number of these issues are going to be resolved at the Secretary

level, at the Assistant Secretary level as well as the operational

level. We have a very aggressive schedule and plan for the implementation of HSPD-8, and I can assure you, sir, that HHS and all

the other key Federal partners will be involved in that probably

more than they would choose to be, but it is—I think it is indicative of the type of relationship we have. It is a massive challenge

we have on both sides, and we look forward to continuing that active partnership.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I sort of wish Mr. Cox had sort of hung around

here where he could maybe go into some of these areas with you,

and he hasn’t done that up to now, apparently. How about the

staffs? How much time have staffs worked together on this legislation?

Mr. MITCHELL. We have spent a fair amount, and we have

had——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Fair amount?

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir, that is with staff.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. How about with HHS, do you know?

Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir, not on this particular bill, no.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. Are we doing something here, the old doctor’s thing, do no harm? Are we doing something here that might

be harmful rather than helpful or might we be doing something

here that might be harmful?

Mr. MITCHELL. I think the intent of this legislation—I think we

agree that there are things we can do better. I think just the pace

of activities that as the proposed legislation has evolved and

reached the point where it is a lot of things have been occurring

simultaneously that, as we said earlier, a lot of the problems identified and some of the solutions there are already a number of activities underway in DHS that we think probably adequately address some of the concerns raised. But we certainly don’t—we have

no argument or concern about the purpose of the bill, which is to

make it more efficient. We must support that, the threat base,

changing the funding approach.

The Secretary has been on record for quite a long time saying we

need to revisit how we’re going to allocate these funds. Currently,

we have two grant programs, the Homeland Security Grant Program, which is distributed under the Patriot Act formula, as Chairman Cox described, but we also have the Urban Area Security Initiative, which is the Secretary has the discretion as Congress has

been kind enough to provide that where we look at threat presence

of critical infrastructure, population density to determine metroVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:56 Sep 30, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 93974.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
29

politan areas that are going to receive funding specifically based on

those three criteria.

So we think we have kind of the right balance in current programs that address that. This is addressing that maybe in a more

consolidated way, and for our office I will certainly commit to working with the Congress as we go through and refine these. I think

there are some things in here that we would support, and I think

the Department generally supports—like I said, supports the overall thrust.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Raub, honestly, I take all your recommendations in a positive vein, so please don’t think to the contrary. But

do you have a very brief response to my question about are we

doing harm or might we be doing harm?

Mr. RAUB. I don’t believe there is anything inherent in the bill

that would result in harm. The concern we raised is that to the extent we were duplicating activity unnecessarily, we are not getting

as much bang for the buck as we should. To the extent we address

essentially the same problem independent of each other without

being aware of what the other is doing, we could produce something that is inefficient or confusing to our State and local partners. And that is harmful, but easily avoided with the types of recommendations we have specified.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, I am going to yield to Dr. Norwood now, but

let me just say to you that we are planning to go forward with this

legislation because we have a piece in the overall picture here. So

any help that you can be, well, from both of you, obviously, but

HHS in particular since we have the direct jurisdiction over HHS.

So I can’t tell you when markup might take place. We have to complete our work by June 7 on this, so markup would be sometime

downstream here. But if there are areas here that bother you from

a constructive vein, we would welcome any comments from you and

what not. You have already made plenty but anyhow just inputs

would be very helpful.

Mr. RAUB. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be pleased

to assist the subcommittee in any way we can.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thanks, Mr. Raub. Dr. Norwood.

Mr. NORWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by saying, Mr. Raub, my tendency is to totally agree with most of what

you have said. I think there can be great harm here if we aren’t

very, very careful. There are three parts, Mr. Mitchell, you said to

this, and one is obviously to prevent a terrorist act, that is part of

your job, be prepared and, last, to respond. And I think probably

our committee is most interested in the respond part, because that

is where patients are, that is where the health part of this comes

in. And, frankly, I just don’t—I can’t imagine the mess it would

make if you, as Homeland Security, gets into this respond part,

this health part too very deeply without being on the same page

with HHS. If each of you come out with different sets of standards

and guidelines and equipment selection, it is going to be a worse

disaster out there than it already is in our effort as a Nation to

try to get ready for this.

Let me ask either one of you, we have something like 40,000

health care providers in my State, in Georgia. Where would I send

them for training to respond to a nuclear attack or a biochemical

30

attack? Where would they go today to get training so that—this reminds me a little bit—I want to come back, I still want an answer

to that question, but it reminds me a little bit of what happens

during a disaster, whether it be a damn breaking, whether it be

Chernobyl, whether it be a MASH unit in the middle of the war.

Everybody has to do a lot of things. Nobody gets to just do their

little specialty area because there are so many casualties.

My point is we may have the greatest pediatricians in the world

in Georgia, but they probably haven’t done trauma medicine lately.

They probably haven’t had to deal with a burned patient from radiation. Now, my question is where I would say to them today to go,

where could we get them up to speed should we have a disaster?

Mr. RAUB. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to provide you for the

record, a list of institutions that are funded by our Health Resources and Services Administration for two aspects of training of

health care providers in these areas. One is a set of institutions

providing training programs, the other is a set developing curricula

with a view to——

Mr. NORWOOD. Well, just tell me one or two of them.

Mr. RAUB. I don’t have the list memorized, sir, but there are a

number of major academic health centers.

Mr. NORWOOD. I am pretty well aware of it, because the Medical

College of Georgia is one of them, and that is why I am sort of interested in this training aspect. So is Eisenhower Army Hospital

involved in this. I am back to, though, there isn’t really anywhere

right now. You can get pieces and parts and it is not standardized

in any way. A doctor in South Carolina may go to a different institution than a doctor in Georgia, yet the disaster may be right on

the line. The equipment is not necessarily standardized in either

way, particularly equipment used to treat patients, which to me

that sort of falls in your bailiwick working with Homeland Security

so you guys don’t run us off in two different directions.

Mr. RAUB. Mr. Congressman, you are correct. The array of training programs offered are not yet comprehensive in the way they

should be.

Mr. NORWOOD. No. They are not accredited either.

Mr. RAUB. And we have not addressed the standards issue primarily because a year ago when this funding effort started, we

didn’t feel we had a sufficient knowledge base or a sufficient set of

materials upon which we could put a standard label. And that was

one of the reasons for directing a substantial fraction of the funds

to curricula development.

One of the most important elements that is developed is—as we

look to the training for health care professionals—it is necessary

that we provide them the relevant information about, let us say,

anthrax or smallpox or plague, the characteristics of the disease,

but we have also realized we need to provide them training about

incident management, their relationships with the fire department,

with the police department.

And, increasingly, the guidance we are sending out for the training says go beyond the medical subject matter into the procedural

and operational response material. Now, for many of our health departments and for many of our hospitals, that is totally new. It is

new terrain, we did not have off-the-shelf materials we could simVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:56 Sep 30, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 93974.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
31

ply plug in. Some of this curriculum development activity is designed to develop those in the direction that you are urging us to

go.

Mr. NORWOOD. And I want you to understand I am not finding

fault. I can see why in this short length of time we might not be

prepared. Part of the training needs to be for the policemen or the

firemen to treat a patient too. I mean they can learn emergency

things to keep people alive or to triage a unit. There is so much,

so many people out there who we all are calling first responders

that in a real disaster they are all going to be trying to keep people

alive. All I want to do is encourage you that training has got to be

put on the fast track. So you know how I envision this thing. You

can, as you pointed out, have university system and others who can

train 5,000 people a year who can go back home, wherever home

was, and they can train their police department, they can train

their—that is the only way we are going to get this spread out

across the country so these people we refer to as first responders

can actually—a fireman is going to have to do a lot more than put

a fire out, it is as simple as that, and I encourage you guys to get

together, one, and make sure that you are all saying the same

thing. The worst thing you can do is tell a university or a fire department that here are two different ways to go, ‘‘Which way do we

do, what kind of equipment do we buy, you said one, you said another.’’ That is disastrous. And, second, put this thing on a fast

track.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Congressman, we have an ongoing relationship with HHS, CDC and others. We have a pretty comprehensive

set of training courses. We have about 43 courses that we currently

provide.

Mr. NORWOOD. Pardon me for interrupting, but didn’t you tell me

you just saw this bill? Mr. Raub?

Mr. RAUB. Yes, sir.

Mr. NORWOOD. That isn’t exactly working with them, pal.

Mr. MITCHELL. Concerning this bill?

Mr. NORWOOD. Yes. This bill is going to very much affect the outcome of how these two departments do things. I mean it looks like

to me you guys would sit down and say, ‘‘Maybe we had better

check in with HHS, health is their bailiwick, and talk to them a

little bit before we start suggesting standards for emergency rooms

and hospitals and types of equipment.’’

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Let us ask the question, if you will yield a moment, Doctor, have you had that opportunity? I asked the question

earlier on, Mr. Raub, have you both had the opportunity to sit

down and to discuss what this bill is intended to do or to fill in

gaps, areas—I mean we are talking about a new concept here,

homeland security. Brand new, it is far from perfect, maybe it will

never get to be perfect, nothing ever is, I suppose. So we are learning as we go along. We are learning as we go along here, and there

are things we probably can fix that you have experienced that may

not even be in this legislation because you haven’t gotten, I think—

one of the reasons, one of the biggest reasons would be because you

haven’t gotten your heads together. And I don’t know whether fault

lies with you in that regard, but please proceed, Doctor.

32

Mr. NORWOOD. Well, if you need statutory authority, which somebody feels you do, and I suspect as you, in order to get this thing

working this right, I am just saying you guys have got to work together and you can’t—I don’t see how you walk in with a bill and

say, ‘‘Boy, we have worked this thing over really well and we have

solved all the problems,’’ without the Secretary of HHS ever having

had some input into this bill. And I know he would like to, because

I heard you give out a number of recommendations that you were

suggesting for this bill, of which many, first blush, please understand, I mean we are all learning here as we go, but first blush

some of the things, Mr. Raub, you said made sense to me.

And I just would like—at the end of the day, guys, not to speak

of the unbelievable loss of taxpayer dollars, but there will be a

great deal of confusion. This would not be the first time a Member

of Congress was complained to from constituents at home saying,

‘‘Two different agencies are telling me to do two different things,

and I don’t know what to do.’’ And all I am asking you—I know

how fast all this is hitting you, and I am not complaining, I am just

saying at the end of the day get together.

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I would like to leave you with the thought

that we collaborate on a regular basis, not just on one piece of proposed legislation. I mean our offices, our agencies work very closely.

Mr. NORWOOD. Well, I presume this isn’t very important. That is

why you didn’t call them, and you don’t necessarily need statutory

authority to do what you want to do anyway?

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, we have—like I said, we have provided our

perspectives on this legislation. I think there are some elements of

this, as I said, that the Department of Homeland Security, from

our perspective, and the majority of the components of this are addressing the programs in DHS. They are not addressing other Federal agencies’ grants. So we have had significant discussions with

the committee staff on this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. NORWOOD. But Dr. Raub has a big budget too and a lot of

tax dollars, and he understands the need for training and standardization out there. Let us don’t have two agencies—even if you

did the exact same thing to have it done by two agencies. Get together.

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I don’t want to give you the, I don’t want

to say false impression, but the impression that the HSPD-8 is

going to address a lot of these. But one of the components of HSPD8 is to look at the existing standards that are out there. We are

not talking about creating a whole new different suite of things. We

are talking about taking a look at what currently exists and reaching consensus on which ones are the rights ones and moving out.

We are not starting with a clean slate. There is an enormous

amount of information that——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Are you saying that there are areas that need to

be fixed as a result of your experiences and you feel that HSPD8 is going to take care of that. And for that reason it is not necessary to get them into this legislation?

Mr. MITCHELL. I think that there are a number of things that are

already underway. As I discussed, the task force that is proposed,

I agree with Dr. Raub, I think that duplicates existing structures.

33

We already have resources that are currently existing in the Department of Homeland Security that could play that role. The development of the preparedness measures that are called for under

the current plan for HSPD-8 we will have those developed by July

31 of this year. We don’t really need a task force to take a year

to develop those. We are aggressively moving, as we speak, to address a number of the requirements that are specified in this bill.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. So it is wrong to have a task force requirement

in this legislation.

Mr. MITCHELL. We think so; yes, sir.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, I want to go to Mr. Shimkus now, but I

think before we finish up here maybe we ought to sort of button

up a couple of things that are still up in the air. Mr. Shimkus,

please proceed.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this is an important hearing, and I think we want to be very efficient with not only

the dollars but with a clear plan for people who are applying. And

I think my colleague, Dr. Norwood, is expressing some of the frustrations that I think many of us here out on the hastings from folks

who have this confusion and then they hear that there are dollars

available and then it takes a long time for money to roll out, and

they fear that the big bureaucracy consumes it all and it doesn’t

get where it is most needed. And I think that is just part of the,

again, frustration, especially with the duplication that a lot of us

are looking at with respect to the bioterrorism bill that we passed

in 2002. And that is kind of where I am addressing some of my remarks to.

In one of my first—I am a fairly, not junior, but I guess mid-level

member. I don’t get on very many conferences, so when I get on

one it is a big deal for me, and that was the case with the bioterrorism bill. And it seems to me that many of these first responders

under H.R. 3266 are also covered under the Public Health Security

and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. HHS

must have preparedness goals for State and local governments that

are similar to the, quote, unquote, ‘‘essential capabilities,’’ that

H.R. 3266 is referring to. This seems to be the thrust of what Mr.

Raub’s been mentioning in his testimony, I am assuming. Has HHS

shared these goals and experiences with your, Mr. Mitchell, and

the Department of Homeland Security for the administration of

your grant programs?

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I am not convinced that there is overlap in

the two grant programs. I am quite confident we have complementary but different organizational focus. ODP’s focus historically has

been that first responders, police, fire, HazMat, EMS, that we don’t

train—our focus stops at the emergency room door, and we have

collaborated with HHS, well, since our office has been in existence

since 1998 on jointly reviewing training. Like I said, we have a

group of representatives from CDC as well as HHS that when we

are considering courses to be adopted, that the technical reviews on

things that have a medical responsibility or medical focus are done

by—it is better through those agencies.

It is not that the Department of Homeland Security or previously

in the Department of Justice we did not develop medical training

to train medical providers. It was a collaborative process, but they

34

did not overlap, and that was intentional, because the expertise in

the health care system with acute care physicians and emergency

room technicians and doctors and nurses is in HHS, and I think

we would continue to maintain that balance. Even under this proposal, under this bill we would focus predominantly on the grants

of DHS.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. It seems like we are going to have a lot of—

I saw Dr. Norwood go for the microphone and Mr. Raub, but let

me just, before you all jump in, in H.R. 3266, in the definition, you

do mention emergency medical including hospital emergency facilities. So it is just not stopping right at the door, it is actually going

inside by your own definition, at least that is what we are reading.

Is that true? And that is the confusion.

Mr. MITCHELL. Operationally, from ODP, that is true. This is not

DHS’ bill. This is a bill that we are commenting on just like anyone

else. So we did not define the——

Mr. SHIMKUS. But you worked with our colleague, Congressman

Cox——

Mr. MITCHELL. Sure.

Mr. SHIMKUS. [continuing] on drafting legislation. So you, in

essence——

Mr. MITCHELL. We worked with him on providing our comments.

No, we did not work to draft it. We reviewed it after it was——

Mr. SHIMKUS. So do you support the bill or don’t you support the

bill?

Mr. MITCHELL. We support certain elements of the bill, as I said

in my testimony and as we introduced—I mean there are components in there that we don’t support or we don’t support in the way

it is developed in the legislation. And, certainly, we would not support anything that would create duplication between what HHS

and DHS does collectively with grants to help State and local governments. But, historically, we have not provided resources, training, equipment for hospital providers. That has been handled under

the Bio Preparedness Program and the HRSA Program.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague, Dr. Norwood,

would like some time, and I would like to yield some time to him.

Mr. NORWOOD. If you would yield just a second. Let me follow

right into that subject right there. Under Section 1806 of the bill,

volunteer equipment standards and training standards would,

DHS, end up doing standards on hospital emergency facility equipment for emergency medical personnel training. Would you do that

under this bill?

Mr. MITCHELL. Under HSPD-8, those are the types of things—we

have the lead on that and DHS know that would not be—the lead

on that would be——

Mr. NORWOOD. So you will not do that, because you said you will

stop at the emergency room door.

Mr. MITCHELL. No, I didn’t say—if we are looking at preparedness of the Nation under HSPD-8, we are looking across the Federal Government, so, yes, those may be issues that are addressed,

but they would be addressed as directed by HHS. It would not be

our office or someone in DHS arbitrarily developing standards for

those types of equipment.

35

Mr. NORWOOD. Well, what if there is not an emergency room?

What is it is blown up? What if we are talking about equipment

out in the field, which is likely to be a situation for a serious disaster?

Mr. MITCHELL. Like a field hospital or some other triage capability?

Mr. NORWOOD. Actually, under a tree. I mean it can get just that

way in a real disaster. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude with this. All

I am telling you is, yes, you didn’t write the bill because you can’t,

but you collaborated on it, and I am concerned that the two agencies—now, I am talking about not all of it, I am talking about just

the response, the two agencies should be talking and you should

dare not come out with two sets of who is in charge and two sets

of standards. That is all I am saying.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. They did not both collaborate in it, though. HHS

did not collaborate in any way, apparently, from what I understand, and I am not sure to what degree DHS collaborated because

you say there are some things in here that you like and some

things that you don’t like.

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, just like any number of bills we are asked

to comment on, we were asked to comment on this one, and I can

assure you there are a lot of them we are asked to comment on.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Were you asked to comment on it before today,

before this hearing?

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. Actually, we have testified on this bill

prior to today.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. How about HHS?

Mr. RAUB. To the best of my knowledge, sir, this is the first and

only opportunity we have had to testify on this bill.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. So you see where we are here.

Mr. NORWOOD. Yes, sir. That has got to be fixed.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes. I think so, and that is why I say I wish Mr.

Cox were here. Well, you have given us your testimony, we have

asked questions. I think we kind of went into this assuming it was

going to be sort of a relatively routine hearing, but I think it has

turned out not to be. Maybe it is a good thing that there aren’t

more Members of Congress here.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Raub was going to comment on the discussion

we had on just the medical aspect, and if you still would like to,

sir, I want to make sure you get a chance to.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. By all means, please do so.

Mr. RAUB. And, actually, I have accumulated a few more now, if

I may.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. A few million more?

Mr. RAUB. The comment I was going to make earlier is that our

staffs have had considerable interaction about our respective award

programs to the State and locals, particularly with the movement

of ODP to, the new Department of Homeland Security. We had

some staff interaction so we could each understand better what the

other was attempting to achieve, and I reinforce Mr. Mitchell’s

statement that we think we have a strong complementarity of the

way we award funds to public health departments and to hospitals

36

and the way DHS awards funds to what I will call the traditional

first responders.

We have some areas that we indeed must continue to work at,

with or without legislation. Emergency medical services is one example of that. Many EMS units are based in fire departments and

therefore would be included under the awards coming from DHS.

Other EMS units are free-standing and may not be picked up automatically. In any event, our program for hospital preparedness has

an EMS outreach component to it trying to address, in part, the

question that Mr. Norwood was raising of how do the people in

emergency rooms engage with the field forces that are dealing with

hazardous materials, activities, or other types of trauma, burn,

emergency medical situations. None of us believe we have all the

answers to that, but absent legislation I can—or with legislation

we can assure you that the two agencies and others will continue

to address that very strongly.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, if I may just add to that. One of

the grant programs that I have been very, very pleased with that

has not been part of this debate but when you talked about fire

services and EMS inside fire services is the Fire Act grant that actually comes through FEMA. But here is another example of another grant program that really can impact and impinge on homeland security and the ability to respond. It is easy, it is clear and

there doesn’t seem to be a lot of bureaucratic hurdles. And when

the folks that I have worked with have made application and they

have not been successful, they have had an easy way of looking at

their application to find out why it hasn’t been successful.

On the positive side, I am very, very pleased with it. I would like

to see it maybe expanded to EMS. But that is a FEMA agency—

I mean that is a grant program through FEMA, not through HHS

or not through Homeland Security, so now we have got three.

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, actually, Mr. Congressman, that program is

currently administered by ODP. It was transferred to ODP in fiscal

year 2004.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Oh, that is right, it changed. Right.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. How about my sheriff who needs some money for

his radios, first responder?

Mr. MITCHELL. They are eligible to receive equipment funding

under the Homeland Security Grant Program.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Could they also go to FEMA?

Mr. MITCHELL. FEMA had some funding I think in 2003 for

interoperable communications. It was kind of a demonstration program. I am not aware that they have funding in 2004, but that is

one of the principal funding categories in the Homeland Security

Grant Program and in the Law Enforcement Prevention Program

as well. The communications upgrades are addressing the communications needs of law enforcement who are eligible.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, we have got to finish this up some time. Go

ahead, Doctor.

Mr. NORWOOD. Just final words.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Final words coming from Dr. Norwood.

Mr. NORWOOD. The fun part, of course, is buying the equipment.

Everybody likes to do that. Everybody likes to have all the good,

shiny, new stuff. What I am afraid, though, and I am not positive

37

but just a little bit of work we have done on this, we are behind

the eight ball a little bit with training and most particularly standardized training. And I am talking about the type of training that

lets the EMS, the State patrol, the fire chief, everybody take care

of responding after the disaster has occurred. And I know you guys

are doing some of that, but we are not there, and maybe time

hasn’t been available to us, but I urge you to get very serious about

that, because it doesn’t do any good too have all that new equipment if people don’t know what orderly to do in a fire fight, because that is what it is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, my gratitude to you and to Mr. Shimkus for

taking the time to be here. You have contributed so very much.

And, gentlemen, you have worked so very hard. We owe you an

awful lot. But we want to do the right thing here, and we are—

I think we have all expressed a little disappointment that you

haven’t had more of an input in this legislation, because it involves

you. And, granted, it is DHS but at the same time it includes an

awful lot—well, there should have been better coordination.

So we give you the opportunity now. We are going to have a

markup on this, I suppose, somewhere downstream, and we are

giving you the opportunity for inputs. If you want to make a case

that it may do more harm than good, please feel free to make that

case. If you, as you have already done, made recommendations on

some changes should be made to what is in there, just maybe expand on that. If you want to come to the conclusion that the legislation is going to go forward anyhow, it may be your opportunity

as a vehicle to correct some areas that you see need to be corrected

legislatively in terms of this issue.

So as usual we have a series of questions which we will furnish

you with, and we would hope you respond in a timely fashion, but,

again, keep in mind June 7. So I don’t know whether this thing has

been scheduled for markup? No, it has not been scheduled for

markup. Again, on the premise it is going to go into markup within

the next few days, that is only a premise, I have no idea. I have

a meeting in a half hour. I may find out a little more about that.

Please furnish us whatever inputs you may have. You have an opportunity to do it here now. Thanks for all your help. Appreciate

it.

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RAUB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 28, 2004

The Honorable MICHAEL BILIRAKIS

Chairman, Subcommittee on Health

Committee on Energy and Commerce

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

DEAR CHAIRMAN BILIRAKIS: Enclosed please find the response to the question for

the record you submitted on behalf of Representative Pickering relating to my testimony at the May 11, 2004 hearing of the Subcommittee on Health on ‘‘H.R. 3266,

the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2004.’’

38

I appreciate the opportunity you provided to testify before the Subcommittee in

support of this important legislation to enhance the capabilities of America’s first

responders to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism.

Sincerely,

CHRISTOPHER COX

Chairman

Enclosure

QUESTION BY THE HONORABLE CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING

Question: H.R. 3266, as reported by the Select Committee on Homeland Security

on March 17 adopts the definition of ‘‘emergency response providers’’ from the

Homeland Security Act as the definition of ‘‘first responder’’ in the bill. In explaining its intent, the committee included report language addressing ‘‘related personnel’’ as part of that definition, which includes non-governmental organizations

with assigned responsibilities under domestic preparedness and response incident

management plans.Is it your understanding that such non-governmental organizations like the American Red Cross, who have mandated responsibilities under the

current Federal Response Plan, would qualify for that definition?

Answer: Yes. The Homeland Security Act’s definition of ‘‘emergency response providers’’ is not limited to Federal, State, and local government personnel and entities.

The Select Committee’s Report on H.R. 3266 (H. Rep. 108-460) notes that the Select

Committee believes, and for purposes of H.R. 3266 intends, that the ‘‘related personnel’’ element of that definition should be understood to include non-governmental

organizations that have mandated responsibilities under the Federal Response Plan.

The Select Committee understands that the American Red Cross is such an organization.

RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD TO QUESTIONS OF HON. CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING

QUESTION FOR DHS AND HHS WITNESS:

QUESTION: Public health preparedness and response is a critical component of

ensuring our nation’s homeland security.

What steps are your agencies taking to protect the blood supply from a bioterror

attack or cybersecurity breach and have you engaged the Red Cross for their expertise?

RESPONSE: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is currently

working with the entire blood community on blood supply protections, including the

American Red Cross (ARC) which collects and supports approximately 45 per cent

of the nation’s blood supply. The blood supply critical infrastructure protection (CIP)

is being addressed locally at blood centers. HHS is also addressing blood supply

safety through its work with the American Association of Blood Banks’ Interorganizational Task Force on Domestic Disasters and Acts of Terrorism (Task

Force). The Task Force presented a blood safety plan in January, 2004, that incorporates recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability. The goal of the plan is to store 10,000 units of blood, at key strategic locations throughout the U.S., for delivery within 4-6 hours. The first locations would

be at two military facilities so that the CIP could be sufficiently evaluated. Under

the plan, once the first two military sites are operational, HHS would identify eight

other sites throughout the U.S. The CIP model developed in the first phase, with

the military, would be used to evaluate and shore up the civilian sites. The figure

of 10,000 units was determined through HHS’s experience with the ‘‘Top-Off’’ bioterrorism exercise, as an amount needed to sustain two cities for three days.

With regard to cybersecurity, HHS notes that ARC has struggled with its computer system for well over ten years and this matter has been cited in its Consent

Decree. Nevertheless, the issue of cybersecurity will be evaluated as HHS identifies

the ten locations and data sharing to support the plan for a blood Reserve.

Æ