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

27–755 PDF 2006

S. Hrg. 109–567

THE WAR ON TERRORISM: HOW PREPARED IS

THE NATION’S CAPITAL?— PART II

HEARING

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT 

OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 29, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA D. TYRER, Chief Clerk 

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

ANDREW RICHARDSON, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Minority Staff Director 

NANCI E. LANGLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

EMILY MARTHALER, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 1

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 3

Senator Warner ................................................................................................ 17

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006

Thomas Lockwood, Director, Office of National Capital Region Coordination, 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security ............................................................. 5

Dennis R. Schrader, Director, Governor’s Office of Homeland Security, State 

of Maryland .......................................................................................................... 7

Edward D. Reiskin, Deputy Mayor, Public Safety and Justice, District of 

Columbia ............................................................................................................... 8

Robert P. Crouch, Jr., Assistant to the Governor for Commonwealth Preparedness, Office of Commonwealth Preparedness, Commonwealth of Virginia ..... 10

William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office .............................................................. 12

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Crouch, Robert P., Jr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 45

Jenkins, William O., Jr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 12

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62

Lockwood, Thomas: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 33

Reiskin, Edward D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 45

Schrader, Dennis R.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 45

APPENDIX 

‘‘FY 2003 Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy, National Capital Region,’’ 

October 22, 2003 ................................................................................................... 80

Responses to Questions submitted for the Record from Mr. Lockwood .............. 93

Joint Responses to Questions for the Record from Mr. Reiskin, Mr. Crouch, 

and Mr. Schrader ................................................................................................. 102

(1)

THE WAR ON TERRORISM: HOW PREPARED IS 

THE NATION’S CAPITAL?— PART II 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006

U.S. SENATE, OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL

WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SUBCOMMITTEE, OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V. Voinovich, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Voinovich, Warner, and Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. The hearing will please come to order. 

Gentleman, you don’t have to stand up for us. I thought maybe 

you were standing up to get sworn in. Since you are standing I will 

swear you in. [Laughter.] 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 

so help you, God? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. I do. 

Mr. REISKIN. I do. 

Mr. CROUCH. I do. 

Mr. SCHRADER. I do. 

Mr. JENKINS. I do. 

Senator VOINOVICH. One thing that many people are not aware 

of regarding this Subcommittee, is that we spend significant 

amount of time on issues dealing with the District. The issue before us today is one that is very important. 

Today we meet for the second time this Congress to examine the 

collective ability of the governments and responsible authorities of 

the National Capital Region (NCR) to respond to a catastrophic 

event, be it a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. As the seat of 

the Nation’s Government, the National Capital Region is a prime 

target for a terrorist attack. 

We must do all that we can to prevent another attack to this region and the Nation, but as Hurricane Katrina demonstrated, we 

must also be prepared to respond to all types of hazards. 

Since September 11, the NCR has received significant resources 

for equipment, training, planning, and other preparedness efforts. 

As the Senate Subcommittee that has authorizing jurisdiction over 

2

all matters relating to the District, it is our responsibility to provide effective oversight to ensure that this region, which houses the 

Federal Government and is the symbol of freedom to the world, is 

well prepared to respond. 

In addition, the full Committee and this Subcommittee have been 

involved in the development and refinement of the Department of 

Homeland Security and have worked closely with Secretary 

Chertoff in that regard. The Subcommittee has closely tracked the 

Secretary’s Second Stage Review, offering assistance wherever possible. Last year, I cosponsored S. 21, Senator Collins’ legislation, to 

help State and local governments and first responders receive 

Homeland Security resources in an efficient and timely manner 

and create a means of ensuring that essential capabilities required 

are met. We want to ensure the National Capital Region is a model 

of preparedness for the entire Nation. 

The National Capital Region faces many unique challenges in its 

preparedness efforts. Because the region consists of Federal, State, 

and local jurisdictions, there is no single person or office in charge 

with the authority to order preparedness activities across the region. As a former governor and mayor, I understand the difficulties 

in bringing together many different players with limited resources 

to accomplish a common goal. 

To address these challenges, the Office of National Capital Region Coordination with the Department of Homeland Security was 

established in the Act. The office was created to oversee and coordinate Federal programs and preparedness initiatives for State, local, 

and regional authorities. We need to ensure that this office and the 

other responsible governments of the region are effectively using 

their resources and adequately executing their responsibilities. 

In June 2004, the General Accounting Office, the Government 

Accountability Office released a report which recommended that 

the Office of National Capital Region Coordination work with local 

jurisdictions to develop a coordinated strategic plan to establish 

goals and priorities, monitor the plan’s implementation, and identify and address gaps in emergency preparedness. It also recommended a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of expenditures by conducting assessments based on established standards 

and guidelines. I look forward to learning how the NCR has responded to the GAO recommendations. 

I am pleased to hear that the Office of Homeland Security, within the District, has developed a web-based tracking system or program to manage and monitor the region’s Urban Area Security Initiative grants. However, I do have concerns with the lack of information of non-UASI funding in this database. 

In joint response by Virginia, Maryland, and the District to a 

question from the last hearing regarding the progress made on 

tracking Federal funds, the response was that the NCR is absolutely committed on coordination of all resources. I look forward to 

hearing how this program is working and if the region fully plans 

to implement the recommendations of GAO to track all grant funding. 

Furthermore, I look forward to learning of the progress made 

with regard to the National Capital Region’s strategic plan. In our 

first Subcommittee hearing in July 2005, Mr. Lockwood testified 

3

that a final draft of the strategic plan had been circulated to key 

stakeholders and that it would be released in September 2005. 

Eight months later, and 6 months since the proposed release date, 

the region has yet to release a final version of the strategic plan. 

This is unacceptable, and we would like to know why the delay. 

It is both urgent and critical that the National Capital Region 

develop an effective strategic plan to establish goals and priorities 

for the region. It is contrary to good management practices to proceed with large expenditures without a strategic plan. This delay 

has to be explained. Additionally, I strongly recommend that in the 

final development of the plan, the region officials take advantage 

of the assistance of GAO. The cooperation between the Office of 

Management and Budget and GAO on developing strategic plans to 

address high-risk programs can serve as a model in this regard. 

Finally, I would like you all to provide the Subcommittee with 

a date for the completion of this plan and stick to it. I assure you 

that I will continue to monitor your progress, as well as Senator 

Akaka. 

After the poor response to Hurricane Katrina, we saw the importance of establishing a clear chain of command before a catastrophic event occurs. Because the NCR has multiple entities involved with the security, it is imperative that we know who is in 

charge. I am interested in hearing how the NCR is addressing this 

issue as well as if you have assigned ownership of programs and 

response within your strategic plan. 

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to recognize the hard 

work and dedication of those individuals who are collaborating between all levels of government, the private sector, and the nonprofit community to improve the safety of this region. I do not want 

anything said here today to say that we do not appreciate the hard 

work that all of you are doing. 

As I stated in the last hearing, I offer whatever assistance I can 

to ensure you have the necessary resources to get the job done. If 

there is something standing in the way, something in terms of 

homeland security, we want to know about it. Don’t we, Senator 

Akaka? 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I now yield to my good friend, Senator 

Akaka, for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Chairman Voinovich. It 

is a pleasure to work with you on this Subcommittee. Today we follow up on the National Capital Region hearing that the Subcommittee held last July. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses back to the Subcommittee, 

and also looking at those who are attending this, I want to welcome 

all of you, too. And, Mr. Crouch, you are the only new face here 

today, and we are happy to have you representing the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

As you know, the security of the National Capital Region, which 

includes the District of Columbia and the surrounding counties in 

Maryland and Virginia, became a heightened priority after the attacks of September 11, 2001. To address this concern, Congress creVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 027755 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27755.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
4

ated an Office of National Capital Region Coordination in the Department of Homeland Security to oversee and coordinate Federal 

programs and domestic preparedness initiatives for State, local, 

and regional authorities within the National Capital Region. Coordinating so many jurisdictions and levels of government is an immense challenge, yet we must ensure the NCR is able to function 

as a cohesive body in times of crisis. 

Last July, I expressed my hope that the NCR will serve as a 

model for other urban areas as the country moves towards a more 

regionalized preparedness model. We saw during Hurricane 

Katrina the chaos and suffering that can result from insufficient 

coordination between different levels of government. Conversely, 

residents of Hawaii witnessed government coordination at its best 

over the past few weeks as Federal, State, and local officials 

worked together to mitigate flooding on the Island of Kauai. 

The NCR presents far greater intergovernmental coordination 

challenges than anywhere else in the country because of the strong 

Federal presence in the District. Who responds, how they respond, 

and who is in charge of the response are questions that should be 

answered long before disaster strikes. 

The lack of coordination between DHS and the D.C. Government 

was demonstrated by the handling of a breach of D.C. airspace by 

a small plane on May 11 of last year, and I think the Chairman 

alluded to that. Mayor Williams was not notified of the incident 

until it was almost over, approximately 40 minutes after DHS 

began tracking the plane. 

At our last hearing, Mr. Reiskin testified that DHS and the District were working on communication protocols for major security 

incidents in the District. I am eager to hear how these protocols 

have been implemented and whether coordination has improved. 

We should not forget that one of the reasons the DHS Office of 

National Capital Region Coordination was created in the first place 

was to facilitate Federal, State, and local communications in the 

NCR. Mr. Lockwood, you represent the Federal piece of the NCR, 

and it is your job to ensure Federal agencies work with the State 

and local authorities. I see this intergovernmental facilitation as 

one of the primary reasons DHS is part of the NCR. 

I understand that NCR has conducted numerous planning sessions and meetings as a region, and I commend you for that cooperation. However, this Subcommittee has been concerned over 

the lack of having a Homeland Security Strategic Plan for the 

NCR. 

Operational planning is good, but it needs to be guided by a strategic blueprint. I am disappointed that 41⁄2 years after September 

11 the NCR still does not have a strategic plan that all Members 

endorse. 

GAO first alerted the NCR to the importance of developing a 

strategic plan almost 2 years ago, and at our July 2005 hearing 

each of you testified that a draft strategic plan was complete and 

a final version would be ready by September 2005. Today, 6 

months after that deadline lapsed, a final strategic plan has yet to 

be completed. The people who live here, no question, deserve better 

than that. 

5

1The prepared statement of Mr. Lockwood with attachments appears in the Appendix on page 

33. 

I also would like to take this opportunity to discuss the NCR’s 

ability to track homeland security spending by its member governments. The NCR needs to know what investments have been made 

in its region—this includes Federal and State funding—so as not 

to be duplicative with its Urban Area Security Initiative funds. 

This is not simply a bookkeeping exercise. I believe the NCR has 

made progress towards this goal, but it is my understanding that 

this capability has not yet been achieved. 

I would like to thank each of you for your service. I recognize 

that your workload and responsibilities have increased significantly 

in recent years and your offices are all understaffed. However, I 

know you agree that ensuring the security of our Nation’s capital 

must be top priority. 

I look forward to your testimony and to continuing to work with 

all of you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to point out to the witnesses 

that Senator Akaka and I did not coordinate our opening statements. But the fact that they were so much alike underscores our 

mutual concern about the planning. 

We look forward to hearing what you have to say, and we are 

very fortunate today to have Thomas Lockwood, who is the Director 

of the Office of National Capital Region Coordination at the Department of Homeland Security; the Hon. Robert Crouch is the Assistant to the Governor for Commonwealth Preparedness for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia; the Hon. Dennis Schrader is the Director of the Maryland Governor’s Office of Homeland Security; Edward D. Reiskin is the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice 

for the District of Columbia; and, finally, William Jenkins is the 

Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues at the Government Accountability Office. 

Mr. Lockwood, we will start with your testimony. I would like 

you to understand that we would like you to complete your testimony within 5 minutes. Your entire statement will be inserted in 

the record, and we are glad to have you here. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS LOCKWOOD,1 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION COORDINATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Thank you all, and thank you for the opportunity to update you on the work that we have done since we 

talked to you in July. 

Since July, we have made great strides in strategic planning of 

where we are and where we are going. Several times today you are 

going to hear the phrase either ‘‘partners’’ or ‘‘teammates.’’ The region is diverse, and includes Maryland, Virginia, the District, the 

Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches, regional authorities, 

the private sector for profit and not-for-profit, and our international 

participants. We have made an active effort to integrate and bring 

these parties together. 

6

1The ‘‘2005 Update to the National Capital Region Homeland Security Strategic Plan’’ appears in the Appendix on page 40. 

Our plan, the 2005 National Capital Region Strategic Plan 1 addresses this challenge by defining the priorities and objectives for 

the entire region without regard to any specific funding mechanisms, provides strategic guidance to the application and allocation 

of all homeland security and preparedness grants throughout the 

region, and provides input to the future internal planning, programming, and budgeting processes of the NCR jurisdictions. 

The NCR homeland security partners have been absolutely dedicated to building a strategic plan. As a starting point, we have decided on and we have leveraged the foundational work from September 11 through today. This includes a 2002 Regional Emergency Coordination Plan; the Eight Commitments to Action in 2002 

through the Governor and Mayor, and Advisor Ridge; the 2003 

UASI Strategic Plan; the recommendations from the Chief Administrative Officers in 2004; and, again, working with the practitioners of the emergency support functions, even in 2005. 

Additionally, the Federal documents that were foundational to 

our strategic plan were: The National Strategy for Homeland Security, the Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan, Homeland Security Presidential Directives, the National Incident Management System, the National Response Plan, various templates, 

and various grant guidances. We have used these as an integrating 

framework between national and regional initiatives to build our 

framework. 

From August 2004 to June 2005, we went through a detailed consensus-building phase. Through this phase, we decided to take an 

all-hazards approach. This was an extensive discussion. The leadership at all levels agreed that this should be an all-hazards approach. 

One of the key foundational principles that we came to was 

strengthening regional coordination among all partners to gain synergy without weakening jurisdictional autonomy. That is a foundation for what we do in the NCR. How do we coordinate but recognize the organizational or jurisdictional distinctions between us; to 

prepare for all-hazards, to advance safety, to foster a culture of collaboration, respect, innovation, mutual aid amongst all of the partners, and to adopt best practices. These guiding principles help 

shape the vision, which is working together toward a safe and secure National Capital Region. Using these principles to guide planning within the context of the overall mission and vision, the leadership could then gain agreement on the high-level goals and objectives. 

That initial development took place between June and November. Once the overall framework was established and agreed to 

during the NCR-wide strategic planning in June, we continued to 

work together through multiple groups. There were four core goal 

groups. Participants in these groups included Federal, State, local 

representatives, regional representatives, representatives of core 

practitioner groups, not-for-profits, civic groups, and private sector 

representatives. 

7

1The joint prepared statement of Messrs. Schrader, Reiskin, and Crouch appears in the Appendix on page 45. 

We have continued to mature those goals through the Katrina 

time period and through the events that we had in the fall. These 

were framed out. In fact, having worked with these groups and targeting the November time frame so that the work was done prior 

to this grant cycle, we aligned priorities against the core capability 

task lists to define our priorities prior to this grant cycle. Those 

priorities align with both the national priorities and the regional 

priorities. Deputy Mayor Reiskin’s section will explain in detail, 

how these priorities and initiatives were foundational for the process now and moving forward. 

Our update, which has been available since, I believe, October on 

the Council of Governments web page, will contribute to the NCR’s 

success by providing numerous important related benefits such as 

a more efficient allocation of resources throughout the region, 

transportation and funding priorities, and increased communication and interaction with our coordinating stakeholders. 

This region has been actively engaged to develop out and to mature a strong framework across the multiple partners. 

Thank you, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Mr. Schrader. 

TESTIMONY OF DENNIS R. SCHRADER,1 DIRECTOR, GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY, STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, thank you 

for having us here today. I am going to focus on the strategic plan 

implementation and how we have gone about that. 

Strategic Goal No. 1 talks about a collaborative culture for planning, decisionmaking, and implementation across the NCR, and 

there are six objectives within that goal that focus on risk assessment, identification of priorities, and gaps in the enhancement of 

our project delivery process to ensure accountability. 

For the past 2 years, the NCR has focused on improving its execution of projects to create tangible outcomes, which you will hear 

from Mr. Crouch here in a minute. And the key to this is effective 

regional decisionmaking. There are probably 200 or 300 key stakeholders that we are coordinating with throughout the region, which 

at the meetings we held, there were probably 60 to 80 people at 

any one of these facilitated meetings. So effective regional decisionmaking and program management are keys to implementing this 

plan, which has multiple initiatives, programs, and objectives, of 

which 16—we have 45 initiatives that were identified—are key initiatives that are focused on as priorities in the grant process which 

Mr. Reiskin will talk about. 

The Senior Policy Group has the responsibility for oversight of 

homeland security grant funding for each of the individual States 

and the urban areas on a day-to-day basis, so myself and John 

Droneburg from Maryland, as is the same in the other jurisdictions, we have day-to-day responsibility, and we track the overall—

in Maryland, for example, we have $369 million in all categories, 

and then, of course, we have the $171 million from the NCR. 

8

In that vein, we have directed our State administrative agents to 

get together to start comparing information. That is happening. 

And then the States have to coordinate their programs together 

with the Federal Government and the local jurisdictions. And we 

do that working closely with the chief administrative officers and 

their practitioners through the Washington Council of Governments. But the other thing we have done since the last time we 

spoke to you which is very important, is we have created these regional program working groups, which are our people in the State 

enterprise who are doing this work on a day-to-day basis. So, for 

example, the key priorities, like critical infrastructure protection, 

intelligence, information sharing, interoperability, we have work 

groups that are organized that are accountable back to us so that 

we are getting integration between the State dollars that are being 

spent and the NCR dollars. 

Moving on to program management, we are continuously improving our process to implement the strategy through the program 

management function that has been established. As I said, we have 

got $188 million in UASI, which includes a $13 million regional 

transit grant. We are paying particular attention to the expenditure rate as a first priority. The last time we talked to you, we had 

a 17.6 percent expenditure rate on the total dollars. It is now 39.5 

percent, so we have put a lot of focus on driving that program process. 

We believe that improving the project management process is 

critical to the implementation of the plan, and we are very focused 

on that. 

I would like to also mention on these regional program working 

groups, that they have representatives from our States. So, for example, the individual who runs the critical infrastructure protection program in Maryland is the same person who is on the NCR 

group, so they are tied together. My colleagues in the District and 

Virginia have done the same thing, and it has led to things like, 

for example, WEBEOC, which is an incident management product 

that we piloted in Maryland. It is now being migrated into all the 

jurisdictions so we are able to talk to each other and integrate our 

operations centers. So there are very tangible outcomes. 

Finally, the Office of National Capital Region Coordination has 

facilitated a working relationship with Joint Forces Command here 

in the NCR, which has been very productive. The Joint Forces 

Command is helping to coordinate the DOD and NCR capabilities. 

We are trying to figure out how to exercise together, and there are 

monthly meetings now hosted by the Joint Forces Command with 

Federal, State, and local officials to create visibility and 

prioritization of all the exercises in the NCR, which is no small 

task. 

Finally, on the airspace incursion, I think Mr. Reiskin will talk 

about this, but since we have met last, the Domestic Events Network monitoring stations have been installed in the District in a 

couple of places, as well as the HSOC, and there has been significant improvement in that over the last year—or almost a year. 

So I will stop there, and I would just say that we believe that 

program management, which is a hallmark of DOD program management and strategy implementation, is our objective, and we are 

9

1The joint prepared statement of Messrs. Schrader, Reiskin, and Crouch appears in the Appendix on page 45. 

going to drive to continue improving that process to satisfactorily 

meet our expectations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I will now call on Mr. Reiskin. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD D. REISKIN,1 DEPUTY MAYOR, 

PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Mr. REISKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Akaka. 

You heard from Mr. Lockwood about the extensive strategic planning process that we went through both before and subsequent to 

the last hearing, and that did get us to a point by last fall where 

we had a consensus on a vision, mission, goals, objectives, and priority initiatives. 

You also heard from Mr. Schrader, who described how we matured our processes and relationships such that all stakeholders—

State, regional, local, Federal—leverage and complement each 

other to support the intensive program management structure 

needed to manage such a significant enterprise, which is what Mr. 

Schrader just referred to in his closing. 

So to pick up from where they left off, I want to bring you forward to the present to explain how our work in recent months follows from and supports our strategic plan. 

We met with members of your staff last December shortly after 

having received the fiscal year 2006 homeland security grant program guidance. Although the guidance was developed for a specific 

set of grant programs, it did contain an element designed to look 

more broadly beyond the grant program. The enhancement plan, 

which was a part of the application process, as I understood it 

when we met with your staff, would provide for enhancing our capabilities, not limited to single grant funding sources or a grant 

performance period. While it did take that broader perspective, as 

we went through the process, it did not get us to the level that 

GAO recommends, and that we are striving for in terms of specific 

outcomes, milestones, and performance measures for each of the 

program areas. 

That process, the enhancement of the planning process, started 

with the identification of priority capabilities for the region that we 

added to national priorities that were designated by the Department of Homeland Security. Using our recently completed strategic 

plan as a guide, the State and local leadership of the region identified six capabilities that represented the region’s priorities, so those 

came directly from the strategic plan. 

We then tasked regional working groups with undertaking capability reviews of each priority capability, which led to the completion of the enhancement plan. That plan, while rich in depth with 

regard to our capabilities, is not an implementation document. In 

other words, again, it does not specify outcomes, milestones, and 

performance measures, nor does it identify the implementing parties, specifically. It did, however, serve its purpose as a basis, that 

10

1The joint prepared statement of Messrs. Schrader, Reiskin, and Crouch appears in the Appendix on page 45. 

was framed by the strategic plan for the leadership, allowing them 

to develop its proposal for the 2006 grant applications. 

As Mr. Crouch will discuss, we are now refining work in each of 

those priority capability areas—we have 14 of them—which we will 

fold back into the implementation aspect of the strategic plan. So 

the enhancement plan work will support the broader need, in other 

words, beyond the current UASI grant, and will help flesh out 

many, though not all, aspects of the strategic plan. 

Our written testimony provides a lot of detail on the process, and 

we have provided the outcomes of that process to your staff. But 

before turning it over to Mr. Crouch, I do want to summarize 

where we were and where we are. 

We had been undertaking our strategic planning process with all 

the key regional stakeholders for some time when the Department 

of Homeland Security issued strategy guidance last summer. We 

then endeavored to adjust our process to come in line with that 

guidance. 

Then in December, just 2 weeks after we had completed the first 

major phase of our strategic planning process, the Department 

issued its grant guidance, which, while not completely unexpected, 

represented a significant departure from previous guidance and the 

processes needed to support them. 

The new guidance was firmly grounded in the National Preparedness Goal, which is a good thing and something that we in 

the region very much support. It did, however, cause us to reorient, 

because although our strategic plan was developed fully mindful of 

the National Preparedness Goal, it did not use that goal as its 

framework. 

So using our strategic plan to provide the strategic direction, we 

then had to begin a completely different process in order to execute 

the grant application in order to align with the priority capabilities, 

which then led to the development of the enhancement plan that 

I referenced. That plan did flow from our strategic plan and was 

worked essentially by the same people, those folks in the room that 

Mr. Schrader referred to. More or less the same people who worked 

on the strategic plan are the ones who then worked on the enhancement plan. The enhancement plan, however, is a very different orientation than the four goals of our strategic plan. 

But with the enhancement plan now, we have gone a level deeper and with a different orientation that we will now fold back into 

the maturation of our strategic plan into an implementation document, as Mr. Crouch will now describe. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Mr. Crouch. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT P. CROUCH, JR.,1 ASSISTANT TO THE 

GOVERNOR FOR COMMONWEALTH PREPAREDNESS, OFFICE 

OF COMMONWEALTH PREPAREDNESS, COMMONWEALTH OF 

VIRGINIA 

Mr. CROUCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Akaka. 

11

Mr. Reiskin spoke to where we have been and where we are now, 

and as the newest member of this panel, it is my pleasure to speak 

of the direction in which we are going. I think it is significant, as 

the Chairman noted, that both the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member made reference to the National Capital Region serving as 

a model for the Nation. It has impressed me in the 21⁄2 months 

that I have been in my current position that commitment strongly 

exists among all of the participants at the local, State, and Federal 

level involved in the National Capital Region efforts. 

Certainly critical to that is our finalization of a strategic plan. I 

have been asked by my colleagues to share with the Chairman and 

the Ranking Member that it is our intention to have that final 

strategic plan completed no later than August of this year. Incorporated into that final strategic plan, which we will use as our 

guide for the coming years in working with our local, State, and 

Federal partners, will be several efforts that are ongoing currently. 

One is a detailed, rigorous assessment of preparedness levels by 

our local partners and State partners entitled the ‘‘Emergency 

Management Accreditation Program.’’ This reviews emergency operations at all levels. It is a nationally accredited plan, one in 

which only eight States have actually received accreditation, and 

we will be applying the results of that exercise in the final strategic 

plan, which we will have complete by August. 

Additionally, we will also fold into the final strategic plan the results of the President’s and Congress’ direction for a nationwide 

plan review. That effort will be completed in time to be rolled into 

the strategic plan as well. 

We would like to share with you some of the tangible accomplishments that have occurred within the National Capital Region since 

this group met with you last in July 2005. We have begun building 

an interoperable communications platform, which will provide secure, non-commercial, restricted access to critical region communications networks for both high-speed fiber optics and wireless 

broadband mobile communications. This platform will ensure that 

the infrastructure is in place for facilitating real-time, any-time 

data communications within the National Capital Region. The first 

stage of this effort, which will incorporate all the jurisdictions out 

to the Beltway, will be completed by January 2007. 

We have developed an electronic surveillance system called ESSENCE for the early notification of community-based epidemics. 

ESSENCE uses both traditional and non-traditional data such as 

a hospital emergency room chief complaints, military outpatient encounters, physician office visit claims, and over-the-counter medication sales to display potential epidemiological anomalies. 

We have completed the National Capital Region Surge Capacity 

Concept of Operations Plan to determine the available hospital 

beds throughout the Maryland, Virginia, and District of Columbia 

hospitals that would be available in the event of a critical event, 

again, applying our all-hazards approach to these issues. 

We are currently linking, as Mr. Schrader indicated earlier, all 

emergency operation centers within the National Capital Region 

and installing a common communication/emergency operation software—WEBEOC. 

12

1The prepared statement of Mr. Jenkins appears in the Appendix on page 62. 

Each jurisdiction within the National Capital Region has been 

supplied with an electronic citizen notification system, and we have 

purchased a second round of turn-out gear for all firefighters within the National Capital Region, thus allowing the individual firefighter to continue to function, even if the first round of gear is contaminated during an incident. 

As we move forward with our completed strategic plan seeking 

to be the model of the Nation, our goal is to demonstrate that in 

the complicated layering of government—local, State, and Federal—across jurisdictional lines in the National Capital Region, 

perhaps unparalleled elsewhere in the Nation, that if we can get 

it right here, our comrades throughout the country can also use 

this as a template to approach their efforts and cooperation. 

We also, as we move forward, appreciate the resources that this 

Committee and others have extended to us and would like to reiterate the continuing need particularly for Emergency Management 

Preparedness Grant funds to supply the resources we need to do 

this work. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Mr. Jenkins. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM O. JENKINS, JR.,1 DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. JENKINS. Chairman Voinovich and Ranking Member Akaka, 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the status 

of strategic planning for emergency preparedness in the National 

Capital Region. Effective strategic planning is essential for setting 

clear goals and priorities, guiding the effective use of resources, 

and measuring success and achieving targeted levels of preparedness for all types of major emergencies, including catastrophic 

events, whether the result of nature, accident, or deliberate action. 

A well-defined, comprehensive strategic planning for the NCR is 

an essential part of assuring that the region is prepared for the 

risks it faces. The Office of National Capital Region Coordination 

has worked closely with NCR member States, local jurisdictions, 

and nongovernmental entities to establish collaborative working relationships and processes for assessing emergency preparedness 

needs and developing a strategic plan for the region. Such collaboration and stakeholder input and buy-in is important. However, 

there is still not a completed strategic plan for the region, and according to the NCR, completion of the plan will require integrating 

information and analyses from other documents, which the other 

witnesses have described, that are completed or nearly complete. 

A November 18, 2005, NCR presentation describes the NCR’s vision, mission, goals, objectives, and priority initiatives. This document contains some elements of a good strategic plan, including 

some performance measures, some target dates, and some cost estimates. 

On March 14, the NCR provided us with copies of additional documents that officials said were to be incorporated into the strategic 

plan. Not yet available was the completed assessment of the NCR 

13

and its individual jurisdictions using the Emergency Management 

Assessment Program criteria. 

The majority of the documents provided to us were developed in 

response to DHS requirements such as the National Preparedness 

Goal and in support of the NCR’s fiscal year 2006 homeland security grant application. NCR’s investment justification in support of 

its fiscal year 2006 grant application includes 12 of the NCR priority initiatives as identified in the November 18 core planning document. These investment justifications include such initiatives as 

mass care and citizen preparedness and participation. However, 

not all of the 12 individual investments in the grant application 

were among the region’s priorities. 

For example, strengthening interoperable communications is a 

national priority, and a regional priority, but it was not included 

in the 16 priority initiatives that the NCR identified in November 

2005. It is important and necessary, of course, that the NCR address national priorities and goals in its strategic plan, but it is 

equally important and necessary that a final strategic plan clearly 

integrate national goals, priorities, and requirements with regional 

goals, priorities, and requirements. 

The plan should be based on an assessment of the risks the region faces and the capabilities needed to reduce those risks. The 

documents we received have no discussion of those two elements. 

A completed strategic plan that builds on the November 18 presentation should review, strengthen, and clarify the following core 

elements of a strategic plan: It should clearly identify initiatives 

that will accomplish the objectives of each strategic goal; include 

performance measures and targets that indicate how the initiatives 

will accomplish the objectives; include milestones and target dates 

for accomplishing individual initiatives; include specific information 

on the resources and investment for each initiative; and it should 

also clearly identify organizational roles and responsibilities for coordination, integration, and implementation of the plan, including 

clear assignment of accountability for implementing specific initiatives. 

It is also important that the NCR plan identify how it relates to, 

and leverages, the efforts and resources of the District, Maryland, 

Virginia, and individual local member jurisdictions. We appreciate 

that a regional approach to emergency preparedness has not been 

the historic norm in the NCR or elsewhere. Emergency preparedness has largely been approached as the responsibility of individual 

local jurisdictions supplemented with mutual aid agreements. 

We also recognize that a strategic plan, once initially completed, 

is a living document that requires continual reassessment as risks, 

capabilities, and resources change. But before the plan can be fully 

assessed, it must first be completed. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Reiskin, you are the deputy mayor in charge of preparedness, correct? You are appointed by the mayor? 

Mr. REISKIN. That is correct. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The District is going to have an election in 

November. 

Mr. REISKIN. That is correct. 

14

Senator VOINOVICH. You are knowledgeable about the NCR. I 

think all of you should recognize that if there is a change in leadership, Mr. Reiskin may not have his job. It is important that you 

take advantage of the fact that we have got some time, but not a 

whole lot. I just bring that up. 

Mr. Crouch, you have been in your job for 21⁄2 months? 

Mr. CROUCH. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Your predecessor is now working for the Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. CROUCH. Yes, sir. My predecessor, George Foresman, is now 

Under Secretary for Preparedness for the Department of Homeland 

Security, yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Obviously recognized for his background. We 

welcome you to the team. 

Mr. Jenkins, a very simple question is: Do you think that it is 

possible for the NCR to effectively manage Federal homeland security funds and be adequately prepared for a catastrophic event 

without a collaboratively written final strategic plan? 

Mr. JENKINS. In a word, no. 

Senator VOINOVICH. If we had a natural disaster or terrorist attack today, the NCR would be at a disadvantage because the strategic plan is not in place? 

Mr. JENKINS. Well, I think it is hard to say how disadvantaged. 

In a sense, I think it is a question knowing in what way they 

would be disadvantaged. As I said, the real issue is identifying the 

risks that you face and the capabilities that you need to be able 

to address those risks. And in the documents that we have got, 

there is very little discussion of the risks that are faced or the capabilities that are needed. There is a lot of discussion of particular 

initiatives, of particular activities, of particular projects, but it is 

not easy with the documents we have to figure out what they add 

up to. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So it is risks and capabilities. Those of you 

that are charged with the responsibility of coordinating the NCR, 

do you understand those things that GAO says are missing? And 

are you responding to them? In other words, Mr. Jenkins, have you 

communicated to the NCR what GAO thinks should be in the plan? 

I encourage the NCR to use GAO as a valuable resource in developing their plan. 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Mr. Chairman, if I may? 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. The working group here between Maryland, Virginia, the District, and DHS has worked collaborately—we have 

worked together as a matter of course, just building out the documents, but we have also opened up the process to GAO to share 

all of the documents we have. It is not as though we are providing 

finished, copied, or camera-ready documents to GAO. We have 

opened up our internal working process and our internal working 

documents to GAO, which show exactly what we are doing. 

GAO has been very open with the things that they expect to see 

in a strategic plan to help us shape our requirements and our 

phases as well. We have asked GAO to provide recommendations 

of what they see or what they want to see in strong, guiding strategic plans. 

15

Senator VOINOVICH. Can you give us a date as to when you believe that you will be able to announce that the plan is completed? 

Mr. REISKIN. In our testimony, Mr. Chairman, we reference August of this year, August 2006, as when we believe that we will 

have the strategic plan done to the level that both we—and we do 

agree with the GAO, that we are comfortable with in terms of having adequate specificity in terms of milestones, performance measures, accountable parties. Of our strategic plan, we have identified 

16 priority initiatives, and all of those by August will be developed 

with all of those elements as prescribed by the GAO. And as we 

have discussed with GAO, we welcome their input as we continue 

to develop this. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I should point out that you did not give GAO 

the documents until March 14. 

Mr. Jenkins, do you think that this August date is reasonable? 

Mr. JENKINS. It is a little bit difficult for us to say. They do have 

these other documents that they need to meld into it. I think they 

do need an overarching statement of risks and capabilities that 

they are aiming for, and at least in the documents that we got, that 

seems to be missing. And I think that is an important component 

of the plan that is not in there now. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you understand that, that he wants risks 

and capabilities? That is a big area. 

Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to note that I am directing my questions on the strategic plan to Mr. Lockwood because his testimony focused on the 

plan. However, I would like to invite any of the NCR representatives to answer the following questions as well. 

Mr. Lockwood, I want to clarify a few things in your testimony. 

First, you mentioned that you are working on an update to the 

NCR-HLS strategic plan. To me, this implies that a strategic plan 

exists. I want to make sure we are clear. The document entitled 

‘‘NCR Plenary Session,’’ dated November 17, 2005, is this the document that you are referring to as the strategic plan? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. On the website in September, we published the 

visions, the goals, and the guidelines. The document that you see, 

the November document, is a much more detailed level, including 

the accountability, the goals, and the measures. 

One of the things that the region felt very strongly about was 

their strategic plans, even though they did not meet the GAO criteria, they continued to build upon and leverage the previous 

agreements that they came to. The region agreed that this should 

be an update of the regional strategic plan. 

Three core pieces need to be folded in and we made the decision 

to hold off until these three pieces were done: 

One, the national review following Katrina, the review of the catastrophic planning indexes needed to be done by the State, territories, District of Columbia, and all 75 major urban areas. That is 

taking place now. Two, the enhancement review that you saw 

through the Urban Area-Security Initiative and SHSGP money, is 

also taking place. 

16

1The ‘‘FY 2003 Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy, National Capital Region,’’ October 

22, 2003 appears in the Appendix on page 80. 

Last, the EMAP assessments, as we look at those core major 

foundational projects, they will have much more detailed level that 

need to be shaped and integrated into the strategic plan itself. 

Senator AKAKA. One question about the document previously 

mentioned, Mr. Lockwood. Is there a reason the document is not 

labeled ‘‘Draft NCR-HLS Strategic Plan’’? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. The document that you have in front of you is 

actually from the plenary session, where we had a host of Federal, 

State, and locals, to review work that the individual groups worked 

on from July through November and to agree on the framework 

points for the UASI section, the next session. That document will 

continually be updated. That document was also a core reference 

point for driving the priorities for this year’s grant process.1

Senator AKAKA. When you appeared before the Subcommittee in 

July 2005, you testified that the NCR had completed a draft strategic plan. Can you tell me how that document differed from the 

NCR Plenary Session document? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. The vision, mission, goals, objectives, the guiding 

principles have been consistent. The framework that we had hoped 

to publicly announce and we had released on the websites back in 

September, in fact, was done. The detailed levels to guide the 

spending, the performance levels, the roles, the responsibilities, 

target milestones, the key content that GAO is looking for in a 

strategic plan, was not matured enough, and it took us several 

weeks and several comprehensive meetings just to break out the 

pieces that you see in that November plenary session. 

Senator AKAKA. As I looked through your testimony, I found your 

timeline for the strategic plan development confusing. You said 

that the consensus-building phase lasted from August 2004 

through June 2005, and the initiative development phase lasted 

from June 2005 to November 2005. Yet when you testified before 

the Subcommittee in July 2005, you said that you had completed 

a draft strategic plan and that the final plan would be done in September 2005. When did your timeline change? And why? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. There are a couple of key pieces in this. Again, 

the vision, mission, goals, objectives, principles have been fairly 

consistent as we were boiling these down and driving consensus 

across those. By summer, those were pretty well completed. The 

core problems that we have is at the detailed level and detailed 

agreement on who has which responsibilities, who are the supporting organizations, what are the resources required to deliver 

those. 

The consensus process around the details takes much longer to 

do. The other complicating fact is that the people that are executing the programs are also doing the strategic planning. Thus if 

there is a major event or if there is a major break in the workload 

to do an event, we stop the strategic planning. 

Senator AKAKA. Yes, well, my time is up, Mr. Chairman, but let 

me ask one question of the rest of you, and you can give me a oneword answer. Will you commit to keep the Subcommittee updated 

on the status of the plan? 

17

Mr. REISKIN. Yes. 

Mr. CROUCH. Absolutely. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Yes. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to have you submit for the 

record how you are going about keeping the Subcommittee up-todate on the plans so we have something in writing. 

I am very happy to have Senator Warner here. Senator Warner 

is the senior Senator from Virginia. This NCR plan has enormous 

impact on your constituents. Senator Warner, do you have a statement? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask unanimous consent to put my prepared statement in the record. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today to look at the preparedness of the Nation’s Capital. I, unfortunately, was not able to attend your first hearing on this topic last summer and very much appreciate your continued efforts in 

this arena as it is of the highest importance. 

After the September 11 attacks, the National Capital region’s congressional delegation worked together to create the Office of National Capital Region Coordination 

(ONCRC). In the legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security we inserted a provision that created the office we have represented today. The ONCRC 

has the mission to ‘‘oversee and coordinate Federal programs for, and relationships 

with Federal, State, local, and regional authorities in the NCR.’’ While that doesn’t 

sound terribly clear, the intent of the Members of Congress who created this office 

is unified—we expect this office to help the region identify, plan, and prepare for, 

and respond to potential homeland security incidents and to provide a coordinating 

entity within DHS for that effort. To date much has been done but there is still 

much more to do. 

The NCR Office was intended to be a model of regional cooperation and I believe 

that the Senior Policy Group (SPG) has fostered a strong relationship among the 

local and state governments. However, the lack of a strategic plan guiding the dayto-day efforts and long-term planning of the ONCRC is a glaring shortcoming. As 

I have told the Office since 2003, the first step is for you to ‘‘define where you are 

going so you know what the next step will be.’’

I feel the lack of a plan and inadequate funding from the Department and the 

Congress have left the Office with inadequate staffing levels or authority within the 

Department. Each year I work to increase the staffing of the Office but we have 

not been successful. Fortunately this year the President’s budget request includes 

funds to hire one additional person and I hope this can be a sign of things to come. 

We, in the Congress, have to help the ONCRC gain the resources necessary to get 

the job done and I pledge to you to continue in that effort. 

It is imperative not only for this region’s security but also as a model to the rest 

of the Nation. The NCR has been pointed to by the Department as the type of entity 

that should be mirrored in administering the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) 

grants in 2006. Essentially, we are the only UASI area that has followed the regional model in the past and others must now learn from our experience. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the progress of the Office and 

also to working with the Members of this Committee to continue to improve the region’s and the nation’s homeland security.

Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman, I had a chance when the DHS 

bill was on the floor to put in the provisions establishing the Office 

of the National Capital Region, and I would like to first inquire of 

Mr. Lockwood. I see there is a $1 million increase for the staff. 

That is on top of what is the base sum today in last year’s budget. 

18

Mr. LOCKWOOD. The current budget calls for five people in the office, and the total budget to pay for staff is $892,000. 

Senator WARNER. So the million then is practically a doubling? 

You got another million? Is that it? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. That would be correct, sir. 

Senator WARNER. That is pretty good. Now, how did you lobby 

that through? [Laughter.] 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. By working a strategic planning process that 

showed the value. 

Senator WARNER. Well, then, I am not trying to be critical. I am 

very pleased, because having had a hand in establishing this office, 

I just want each of the witnesses to describe how effective it is 

going and whether or not we here in Congress could give you assistance. The budget is getting more satisfactory. How many people 

do you have working now on the current budget you have? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Currently, we have three onboard. We have a 

few detailees, and with the half-year funding, we will be hiring two 

more. 

Senator WARNER. I see. Well, that is very helpful. 

Then I would ask Mr. Crouch, from the Commonwealth of Virginia, how effective do you feel this arrangement has been thus 

far? And does it need any improvements, statutorily or otherwise? 

Mr. CROUCH. Your last question first, Senator Warner, I am not 

aware of any statutory change that is needed at the present time. 

My impression, as you are aware, Senator, I joined Governor 

Kaine’s administration in this capacity following George Foresman. 

Senator WARNER. George Foresman served with great distinction, 

and we know that, all of us. 

Mr. CROUCH. Yes, sir. My view from my observations over the 

past 21⁄2 months in this regard is that it is working very effectively. 

There is a great deal of communication between the two States and 

the District, with Mr. Lockwood’s office. Mr. Lockwood’s office has 

been extremely responsive to—speaking for Virginia. I cannot 

speak for Maryland or the District, but to a variety of activities and 

events that we have been participating in regarding preparedness 

and, again, in the all-hazards approach, and I would say in that 

regard that the office has not limited its focus on the National Capital Region alone, but also viewed the rest of Virginia as an extension of that, participating in our recent pandemic summit in Richmond as well as working with us as we continue to develop our Intelligence Fusion Center at Virginia State Police Headquarters in 

Richmond. So I am looking forward to our continued relationship 

and believe that the concept is a sound one. 

As we discussed earlier in testimony, the National Capital Region presents challenges that may well be unique in the Nation in 

terms of, one, we are the seat of the Nation’s Government, but also 

we have two State jurisdictions as well as the District of Columbia, 

multiple local jurisdictions in Northern Virginia and in the Maryland suburbs. And if we can get it right here—and we have a duty 

and obligation to get it right here—then certainly folks elsewhere 

in the Nation can get it right as well. 

Senator WARNER. Well, it is imperative. This is the Nation’s capital. Putting aside all politics and everything else, our three constituencies—Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia—

19

have to frequently act as a greater metropolitan area serving the 

Nation’s capital. So this is why we put this together, and I judge 

your report to be satisfactory. 

I would like to have the Maryland perspective, Mr. Schrader. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Yes, Senator. We are very pleased with the working relationship. I know Tom very well. He was actually on Governor Ehrlich’s staff when he was still in the Congress, and I had 

the privilege of Tom being my deputy in Governor Ehrlich’s office 

before he came to the National Capital Region. So he is very well 

aware of the imperatives at the State level. His leadership on driving the development of the strategy was very important. He basically decided well over a year and a half ago that we were going 

to get this done, and it was his dogged determinedness that we 

were going to get it done. And we are continuing to work in a collaborative manner with him. 

Clearly, the States and the District of Columbia have a responsibility with driving the preparedness efforts within our jurisdictions 

in collaboration with the NCR, and so we have a major responsibility for facilitating and making sure that effort is successful. And 

Tom, with very limited staff, we believe has—or I believe has done 

an excellent job of facilitation. 

Senator WARNER. He has achieved something that many would 

be envious of, doubling his budget. [Laughter.] 

However, we are aware that there is still work on that front to 

sustain it. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Yes, sir. 

Senator WARNER. Mr. Reiskin. 

Mr. REISKIN. Thank you, Senator Warner. I would echo the sentiments of my colleagues. I would add also that here in the District 

in particular, but in the region, because of the significant Federal 

presence, what’s the most challenging thing for us to deal with is 

coordination with the Federal Government. It is not coordination 

across State lines. It is coordination with the various Federal agencies. 

What we look to from Mr. Lockwood’s office is coordination across 

the Department of Homeland Security, across the Executive 

Branch, and then across the entire Federal Government. And that 

is something that is a pretty awesome task for five people to do. 

So I think that increased staffing is probably well warranted. The 

examples that the Chairman and the Ranking Member gave in 

their opening statements about the airspace incursion and other coordination issues, the airspace incursion was the FAA, it was the 

Department of Defense, it was the U.S. Capitol Police. So this is 

spanning many agencies and two branches of government, and it 

is very difficult for us at the State and local level to coordinate 

independently with all those different entities, and that is great 

value that the Office of National Capital Region Coordination has 

brought to us here in the District and the region. 

Senator WARNER. With the Chairman’s indulgence, I would like 

to have one more question. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Certainly. 

Senator WARNER. All of us remember where we were on September 11, and I was here with my colleagues in the Senate, and 

later that afternoon I decided that I would go over to the DepartVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 027755 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\27755.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
20

ment of Defense, where I spent 5 years of my life working there—

I will never forget it—and joined the Secretary of Defense and others, went out to the crash site on that facade of the building that 

was struck, and witnessed just the magnificent performance of all 

levels of fire, police, security, Red Cross, just coming together to 

work. And being an old communicator in the military, I have always been interested in communications, and I would like to 

know—and I have followed this through these ensuing years. Do 

we now have a network of communication between our fire and our 

police and other rescue workers in this National Capital Region 

that meets the criteria that you presumably have settled among 

yourselves? And are the recipients of the funds, individual police 

and fire and rescue services, satisfied and join you in your opinion 

as to what the situation is? 

Now, who would like to lead off? Why don’t you talk, Mr. 

Lockwood, and then I will get to the other three quickly. 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Sure. Just to create the framework for coordination between the multiple jurisdictions within the NCR, the multiple jurisdictions, we were able to bring a number of the CIOs together to look at how they are investing within their State enterprise or local enterprises and start integrating. We used some seed 

money from DHS, some monies or resources that were available 

through the local tax base, to start coordinating the actual networks themselves, then to integrate in the operation, the operators, 

the migration of databases, the maturation——

Senator WARNER. My time is going to run out. I just simply want 

to know: Do they have in their hands the equipment today in the 

fire and rescue and police and other services to handle a catastrophe if it hit this afternoon? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. They are better today than they were on September 11. We still have a long way to go. 

Senator WARNER. That is not too good after all these years, I 

have to tell you, gents. 

Mr. Reiskin. 

Mr. REISKIN. I would say in terms of voice interoperability, we 

are fairly interoperable between police, fire, emergency medical, 

and between the different jurisdictions. We are better than we 

were in 2001. We have, additionally, purchased and deployed at the 

suggestion of the responders a regional radio cache that we have 

put into use and will put into use during disasters that adds an 

additional 1,250 radios that are fully interoperable across all levels. 

Senator WARNER. Wait a minute. Where are we? What is existing 

today? If it happened this afternoon, what have you got in hand 

today? 

Mr. REISKIN. Well, all of the responders have radios that are 

largely interoperable with each other. We also have these caches 

that exist today that we would deploy. We have a protocol for deployment. We have a protocol for implementation. We would kick 

in that protocol and get those additional 1,250 radios out to folks 

so that we could communicate across the entire region. 

Senator WARNER. I am having a tough time digging through this 

testimony to figure out where we are. Give it a shot, Mr. Crouch. 

Mr. CROUCH. Yes, sir, Senator. I think what Mr. Reiskin is trying 

to say is that we have made great progress, that by and large our 

21

local fire/emergency responders throughout the region do have communications interoperability capability today that they did not——

Senator WARNER. It is the ‘‘by and large’’ that worries me. I tell 

you what. I will let you gentlemen put this in for the record. But 

anything, Mr. Schrader, you want to add to this? 

Mr. SCHRADER. Nothing additional, sir. 

Senator WARNER. Just tell me what is in place today, and if it 

does not meet your objectives, what is the timeline which you need 

to get the objectives? And do you need further funding specifically 

directed by the Congress or Homeland Security or wherever the 

deep pockets are to bring you up to speed? Because, gentlemen, if 

another crisis hits in this community and we are all running 

around like we were on the afternoon of September 11, the people 

of this community should chuck us all out. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator. The question you asked 

was going to be the first question I asked, and while you are here, 

I think it is real important that I have tried this last time around 

to get more money for the EMPG grants, and I would like you to 

let Senator Warner know how important that is, because my colleagues do not seem to understand that if you do not have the resources at the State level to have the people that can get the job 

done, you cannot get it done. 

Would somebody comment before we go to vote? 

Mr. SCHRADER. Senator, it is vital for the local jurisdictions live 

and die on EMPG grants. Without that money, we cannot keep 

these programs going, and a lot of the local——

Senator VOINOVICH. What are EMPG grants? 

Mr. SCHRADER. The Emergency Management Program Grant 

funds. They are absolutely essential, and they are matching grants, 

and our local jurisdictions, which is where our programs live and 

die, need those dollars. There is no question. We could not operate 

without them, and it is a very difficult process. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The budget right now is absolutely inadequate to get the job done? 

Mr. SCHRADER. Right. 

Senator WARNER. Then we need a line item to change it. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, why don’t the two of us work on it and 

put it in the budget. 

Senator WARNER. It is not that I am trying to get added protection for Members of Congress. But we do have the responsibility 

here in the Nation’s capital of literally millions of tourists at any 

time of day or week. We do have the three branches of the government collocated here, with the heads of the respective branches collocated here, and the functioning of our government is highly dependent on the interoperability of the three branches of government in a time of crisis. That in turn is dependent on the infrastructure that can react to a crisis and give us the means by which 

to continue to function as a government. 

I guess we do not have it in place this day. Is that about right? 

Maybe a little voice communication? 

Mr. CROUCH. I think we have extensive voice interoperability. 

Senator WARNER. You do? Then I do not want to underestimate 

it. 

Mr. CROUCH. We will get documentation of that for you. 

22

Senator WARNER. Well, what I would like to do is have a document signed by all of you saying this is our consensus of where we 

are today, where we need to go, and what are the mechanics, 

money or otherwise, to get there. 

Mr. CROUCH. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator, I am also going to ask Mr. Jenkins 

what—you can answer. He is from the GAO. He is looking at this. 

What is your answer to this question, Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. You mean the interoperability? 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes, sir. 

Senator WARNER. Today. 

Mr. JENKINS. I would agree with what they said; that is, there 

is partial interoperability but not complete, and they have asked 

for money in their grant to buy radios for Prince George’s County, 

for example, who is not totally compatible with everybody around 

here. So if they had to bring in Prince George’s County, you probably would have some communication problems. 

Mr. CROUCH. If I may, Mr. Chairman, respond also to your question regarding the Emergency Management Preparedness Grants, 

I think it is significant that in fiscal year 2006 there was $183 million appropriated for that. The National Emergency Management 

Association has asked for $270 million, and the President’s budget 

currently has $170 million in there. So we certainly appreciate the 

Chairman’s support. 

Senator VOINOVICH. We were able to get $10 million last year, 

but maybe with Senator Warner’s help and a few others, we can 

get additional funds to take care of your situation. 

Mr. CROUCH. Yes, sir. 

Senator WARNER. You know, it is amazing, Mr. Chairman. The 

budget which I have under my jurisdiction, as Chairman of the 

Armed Services Committee. The Department of Defense’s budget is 

nearly half a trillion dollars. And the Pentagon is part of the network and could again be the target. We just simply—we will get 

to the bottom of it. Thank you very much. But give us that analysis 

as quickly as you can. 

Senator VOINOVICH. My problem around this place is that we 

have silos all over, this appropriation, that appropriation. As a 

former mayor and governor, it bothers me to sit back and see that 

the big picture is not being considered. We should consider the type 

of relationships that the DOD and the NCR have, and whose programs we fund. We could respond to it in a very constructive fashion. 

Let me get back to the interoperability. When I was governor, I got chewed out by a lot of people because we appropriated $270 

million to go to 800 megahertz radio system. I would really like you 

today to tell the Subcommittee where you are with the voice and 

where you are with data communication? How much have you 

spent on it so far in terms of additional dollars? How much money 

do you need in terms of the dollars that are being allocated to the 

region and then to your respective States? Which portion of those 

dollars have you allocated to support this communications set-up? 

Mr. Lockwood, as I mentioned in my opening statement, Hurricane Katrina taught us the importance of a clear chain of command, and in the event of a natural catastrophe or major terrorist 

23

attack in the District or other regions in the NCR, is there any single official in charge who would have command authority over all 

of the resources in the region at the Federal, State, and local level? 

And if not, should there be? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. If there is an event, whether it is in the National 

Capital Region or any other region of the United States, the National Response Plan and the National Incident Management System will be utilized. If it takes place in the District, the District 

is going to be accountable. Our region will be supporting the D.C. 

Government. If national resources are required, they will be provided through an emergency management structure that will support our local governments. 

The coordination we are trying to do on a daily basis with the 

Federal family in the NCR is where those activities occur in the 

first few hours so that we do not, through protective measures and 

through protocols, mis-position ourselves. That is an ongoing challenge we work with. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I am going to recess the hearing to go vote. 

I would ask Senator Akaka when he comes back to take over and 

continue with his questions. 

[Recess.] 

Senator AKAKA [presiding]. The hearing will be in order. I want 

to thank you again for your testimony. This question is for any 

member of the NCR. Your joint testimony stated that the NCR web 

portal allows you to share regionally relevant data. Can you tell me 

what ‘‘regionally relevant’’ means? Specifically, does it include information on how each individual jurisdiction spends its own local 

and homeland security funds? Mr. Reiskin. 

Mr. REISKIN. I can try to respond. First, this portal was established as a workspace to give all the stakeholders or the relevant 

stakeholders in a region visibility into various programs, not just 

spending, but other aspects as well. With regard to spending, the 

data that is there now is the regional homeland security dollars, 

the UASI grants from all grant years. It also has some of the State 

homeland security fund data. It does not have local fund data from 

any of the government sources. 

As Mr. Schrader pointed out, the people who are responsible for 

the State and local homeland security spending in the respective 

jurisdictions are the same people, the people here, and the local 

level folks that we work with, the chief administrative officers. 

They are the same people who are doing the regional planning. So 

whereas, we don’t have a single place where we could go where you 

could see how much my police department is spending out of local 

funds towards preparedness—it is a significant amount—I am at 

the table and making the State decisions and making the regional 

decisions, and we are coordinating and leveraging. 

As an example, as we have developed the radio network that we 

were just talking about, and built up the radio interoperability, we 

have invested at different levels in different jurisdictions based on 

where they were, what investments had already been made. Many 

local jurisdictions had gotten themselves the 800 megahertz. In 

some circumstances we used regional funds to fill gaps in order to 

get everybody up to the same level. 

24

So we do make all decisions very much mindful of where the regional, State, and local spending investments have been made and 

will be made. 

Senator AKAKA. I look upon what you said as representing the 

group of you here. 

Mr. Jenkins, would you care to comment on this issue? Do you 

agree with that definition of regionally relevant information? 

Mr. JENKINS. I think our perspective on this is—I know that the 

last time we had a hearing, our position was described as a bookkeeping exercise, and I certainly do not agree with that. The basic 

issue here is that UASI is a regional source of money, and to be 

used effectively it has to leverage the money that is being spent 

elsewhere. So that it is an enhancement to money that is being 

spent elsewhere. It is not duplicative and it is not supplanting that 

money, it’s not being used to displace local funds, and therefore, 

you do at the very least need to know what the money is being 

spent on, for what purpose. I think it is better to know where the 

dollars are coming from and how much you can leverage, but at the 

very least you need to know what the money is being spent on, for 

what purpose, and in what way that UASI can be leveraged? It is 

supposed to complement and leverage these other monies. 

Senator AKAKA. To any member of the NCR, in 2005 DHS conducted an exercise in New Orleans called Hurricane Pam to test 

Federal, State, and local emergency response capabilities at that 

time. How many similar exercises has the NCR conducted? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. In the NCR, we do a number of events, including 

State funerals and special events. We look at every event in the 

National Capital Region. As an event, we look at the hot washes 

of the event to see what we did well and what we would like to 

do better. This is in addition to the major exercises that are played 

in the National Capital Region. 

One of the challenges that we have had with the different Federal activities and State or local activities, is how do we start integrating the lessons learned from the exercises to the resource 

spending or into operations themselves? That has been a challenge, 

and that is part of the focus in the partnership with the Military 

District of Washington, where we are trying to coordinate those 

Federal exercises and activities so we don’t have multiple exercises 

overlapping on similar objectives. That is a challenge. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Reiskin, at the July hearing, you testified 

that DHS and the District were working on an improved communication protocols for major security incidents in the District. Can 

you please tell us if those protocols have been implemented, and if 

communication between the District and DHS has improved? Specifically, can you provide us with an example of incident that occurred in the District since last July and describe the coordination? 

Mr. REISKIN. We did develop protocols. We developed generic protocols, although it did stem from that airspace incursion incident, 

and I can tell you that we have had a number of airspace incursions since then, and the protocols have worked as drafted. We get 

notification now through multiple paths, including through the Department of Homeland Security, but also directly from the FAA. So 

I believe that issue, which was certainly a problem for us, that particular one, has been addressed. 

25

There are other areas of notification that we are still working on, 

frankly, and as I mentioned previously, the challenge of Mr. 

Lockwood’s office, I believe, is not just to coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security—and our coordination with them, 

I would say, is excellent—but across the rest of the Federal Government, including the Legislative Branch. 

Mr. Lockwood’s office is currently convening a multi-agency 

group including Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and 

State and locals in this area to deal with bio-events. We solved the 

airspace incursion and similar events to that. We are now moving 

to bio-events, such as some of the false readings of anthrax that we 

have had at the Pentagon in the last years or so. 

So we have made very good progress in terms of airspace and 

some other incidents. In other areas, it is still a work in progress. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Reiskin, September 11 demonstrated the 

challenges of evacuating the District. The Metro stopped running. 

The main bridges and roads through Maryland and Virginia were 

gridlocked, and emergency response personnel trying to cross the 

city just made traffic worse at that time. What has the District 

done to improve evacuation capability since September 11? 

Mr. REISKIN. After September 11, we developed an evacuation 

plan and communicated that plan. We did a mailing to households 

in the District. We did that, I think, a couple of times. We developed signal timing capacity so that we could essentially flip a 

switch and time all of our outgoing signals to stream the traffic 

outbound on evacuation routes that we labeled. We established an 

intersection control program where we deployed people to make 

sure that the traffic is moving in the downtown area to clear people 

out. We deployed closed circuit television cameras all around the 

District, so that within the Transportation Management Center, 

which we stood up after September 11, we can monitor in real time 

what is happening on the streets, and then we can divert or send 

intersection control or other resources accordingly. 

We also—I think we discussed at this hearing last year—have 

exercised our plan. We exercised on July 4. It was an actual quasireal exercise where we put the plan into place, and although it 

wasn’t during an emergency situation, it did provide us some valuable information. 

Last year with our homeland security funds, we funded the development of a regional walk-out plan so that we can plan for, as 

practically happened, such on September 11, the facilitation of people leaving the District on foot as well as and safely in coordination 

with the people leaving in cars. We have purchased emergency generators for our downtown intersection signals, so that if we lose 

power, we don’t lose the traffic signals. We are also investing in 

some scenario planning that we will exercise to see how different 

kinds of events would impact our evacuation flow. And we brought 

home the message of shelter in place, versus evacuation, tried to 

do that strongly through our educational awareness campaign. 

We have, since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit, been reevaluating our plan. We’re currently in the process of updating our evacuation plan. We are looking specifically at the issues surrounding 

people with special needs and people without their own vehicles. 

Our plan did contemplate having buses available to move people 

26

who don’t have the ability to move themselves. But what we are 

doing now, is we are doing a little bit finer-grain analysis, looking 

at census data, looking at DMV data, to make sure and update 

where folks are that don’t have cars so that we can deploy our 

buses in the right places, and make sure that people in those 

neighborhoods are aware of where they need to go should they be 

required to evacuate. 

We are also looking at expanded rail and water-based modes of 

transportation to enhance. So we have done, I think, a significant 

amount, and we feel fairly confident that we could move a significant amount of people out of downtown in a relatively short period 

of time, notwithstanding what you see on a normal rush hour when 

that is not our goal to just get people out. 

But I do want to add that we see a scenario whereby we would 

have to evacuate the entire downtown or a large part of the District as being a very unlikely scenario, and we continue to push the 

message that in most cases and in most types of events, the best 

course of action, the safest course of action, will be to stay where 

you are. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Chairman, let me finish by asking Mr. 

Schrader and Mr. Crouch, has Maryland and Virginia been involved in evacuation planning? 

Mr. SCHRADER. Absolutely. Since Katrina, we have actually gone 

back as part of the National Plan Review, and pulled all of our 

States and 26 jurisdictions, together, and are developing a detailed 

evacuation plan for Maryland, which will then be coordinated back 

with the National Capital Region. Of course, Montgomery County 

and Prince George’s County are in the National Capital Region. 

Our policy is to have—our programs are statewide programs, and 

then we coordinate them with the NCR. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. CROUCH. Yes, Senator. Virginia’s efforts are very similar to 

Maryland’s in that regard, and they have included discussion 

among all of our jurisdictions. Most recently in the National Capital Region there was also a meeting of the chief administrative officers of all the counties and cities of the Virginia jurisdictions in 

the National Capital Region with their counterparts in outlying 

counties and cities, to discuss the capacity of the outlying counties 

to anticipate and care for a surge of evacuees from the National 

Capital Region. 

So these efforts are ongoing, and to some extent existed before 

Katrina and Rita, but certainly, have been reexamined and 

strengthened since that time. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your responses. Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Akaka. 

Mr. Reiskin, sometime ago, we talked about the issue of law enforcement agencies, and their communications with each other and 

coordinating their resources in the event of a terrorist attack. Are 

you getting the kind of cooperation that you should? Is this part 

of your strategic plan? 

Mr. REISKIN. Yes. There are actually 35 different law enforcement agencies that operate within the District of Columbia. So it 

is somewhat of a challenge, but the major agencies, such as the 

27

Capitol Police, the Park Police, the Secret Service, we work every 

day with them at the Metropolitan Police Department. Just a couple of hours ago we had a suspicious package at 15th and E, right 

by the White House. That is something that is jointly managed between the Secret Service and the Metropolitan Police Department. 

We have actually deployed Metropolitan Police Department officers 

into the command centers of the Capitol Police and the Secret Service on a regular basis, and certainly any time we have an event, 

we have their folks in our command center as well. 

For every major event, and for things as small as the National 

Marathon this past weekend, we jointly develop our plans with all 

of the law enforcement agencies in the District, and often in conjunction with those in the region. So I would say largely our coordination within the law enforcement community is very strong. 

Last year, in addition, we invested some of our UASI funds toward the development of a law enforcement data sharing network, 

which was more on the prevention side, perhaps, than the response 

side. This will help significantly in terms of information sharing 

across the region between all of our law enforcement agencies. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So you think that there has been a significant improvement from what it was? 

Mr. REISKIN. Absolutely, on a daily basis, I can at least say for 

the major ones. There are some very small law enforcement agencies, but I don’t think they’re really a significant issue. 

Senator VOINOVICH. It is my understanding that if something 

happened in Maryland or Virginia, or the District, Maryland would 

be in charge, or Virginia would be in charge, or the District would 

be in charge. Mr. Reiskin, if an event happened in the District you 

would have the job of accessing all the resources. You would be 

able to access Virginia or Maryland to help you to get the job done? 

Mr. REISKIN. That is absolutely correct. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Lockwood, where would you fit into the 

picture? Would you be sitting there next to them in the chair or 

would you be in communication with them because of your responsibilities? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Yes, sir. Typically for most of the event planning, I coordinate across different operation centers. I coordinate 

physically with several of my partners. In the event of an emergency, I will go to the inter-agency group that is trying to coordinate the Federal Government to provide——

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you have a command center? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Yes, sir. The Inter-Agency Working Group is at 

the Nebraska Avenue Complex under the Operations Division. During the event of an emergency, that group, whether the emergency 

is here in the National Capital Region or any other place in the 

United States, it will surge representatives of various Federal 

agencies, including the Legislative Branch, to integrate our response to the State and local governments. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Good. I really want all of you to tell me what 

needs to be done to complete the strategic plan. What is the 

timeline and milestones? I would like it in writing, and sent to Senator Akaka, as well. I want our staff to be able to monitor your 

progress. I would also like a full picture on where you are in terms 

of communication. How much money have you put in, how much 

28

additional money would you need to take it to where it should be. 

In my State, I put 250 million into it, the next governors put additional money into it. We are in pretty good shape relative to the 

rest of the country. 

I would also like to know your EMPG needs. I would like to 

share that with Senator Warner and my other colleagues. Maryland and Virginia should make sure your two Senators understand 

how important EMPG is. I am going to try and get additional 

EMPG funds because I know how important it is to you. 

Mr. Jenkins, you have had a chance to listen to this testimony 

here today. Are there any thoughts that you have, comments about 

some of the answers of some of the witnesses, and wrap it up from 

your point of view at GAO? 

Mr. JENKINS. I would say it is certainly our view that this group 

sitting at this table and the region as a whole has definitely established a cooperative working relationship that is very important for 

being able to accomplish what they need to accomplish. 

I think our concern still remains—and this is the thought I 

would like to leave—is that the documents that we saw are task 

and project oriented, and what we were having trouble looking at 

them and understanding is task and project oriented to what end? 

What is it that you want to accomplish? And it comes back, as I 

said, from my perspective, to the risk and capabilities, what do you 

want to get? 

When you look at the things, for example, it says ‘‘immediate’’ as 

the sort of measure, and immediate has to have an operational 

measure. In other words, what do you mean by ‘‘immediate’’ in 

terms of being able to evacuate people? So it really needs, from our 

perspective, to have—it should be a road map, and that road map 

should say when I get there, what is it that I want to be able to 

accomplish, and what is it that I want to be able to do, and how 

can I best do that with the resources I have? Because you will 

never have all the resources that you need, so you inevitably are 

going to have to make tradeoffs, and then on what basis are you 

making those tradeoffs? 

And we would like to see that in the plan because that is how 

you can then understand where you are trying to go and how you 

are going to get there. Right now these documents have a lot of 

very useful information in them, but it does not really tell you very 

much about the destination. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Reiskin, I know that the District uses text messages and emails to alert residents to emergency conditions in the District. 

How many of the one million people who live and work in the District can be contacted through the current emergency alert system? 

Mr. REISKIN. I can’t tell you how many can be. Right now of the 

roughly 580,000 residents in the District, we have about, I believe, 

18,000 who have registered for the text alert system, and that really is one of four means that we have to reach people during an 

emergency, but it is a significant one. One of the goals that I have 

tasked our emergency manager with is a significant increase in 

that number, getting up towards over 100,000 people, working also 

with some local private sector folks to help us on the outreach efVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 027755 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\27755.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
29

forts towards that goal, because the real-time awareness of an 

emergent issue is something that we believe is very critical, and we 

think that we need to take it to a much higher level. 

We have, in the region, invested in this text alerting capability 

across the entire National Capital Region, and I don’t have the 

numbers, but we can certainly get you the numbers for across the 

whole region how many people we have signed up to date, and both 

in the District and the National Capital Region we’re working to 

get those numbers up. 

Senator AKAKA. Besides the text messages and e-mails to alert 

the people, do you believe that the District needs a siren system, 

and if so, are there plans to do that? 

Mr. REISKIN. We are currently piloting—again, this is a regional 

project—we’re piloting a siren project that the District, frankly, has 

gone back and forth quite a bit on the siren issue. I think that general consensus has been that sirens are not very helpful in an 

urban environment. 

Our primary means of communication during an emergency, we 

have the text alert system, we have the emergency alert system, 

which is akin to the old emergency broadcast system, where we can 

take over the airwaves, radio and TV, to get messages out. We 

have, of course, our emergency portal on our website, and we have 

a reverse 911 telephone system, where we can call out to the entire 

District or certain neighborhoods. We think that those four components give us pretty good reach in terms of getting messages to 

people on an urgent basis. 

We are, however, as part of the region, taking part in the pilot 

of the siren system. We are also looking—I mentioned that we are 

putting emergency generators in place, or will have the ability to 

do so at our downtown intersections. The electronics that are associated with a modern traffic signal system actually would give us 

the capability to send messages out in a very localized way, not 

just sirens, but actual voice messages. So we’re also looking at that 

system as a way to deal with the outdoor warning system. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Chairman, let me ask Mr. Lockwood. 

There are more than 150,000 Federal employees who work in the 

District, a portion of which are critical personnel, who support Federal Continuity of Operations, and Continuity of Government Response Plans that are activated during an incident in the NCR. In 

the event of a major disaster within the NCR, there is no doubt 

that considerable confusion will exist, including traffic jams, power 

outages, and major disruptions of public transportation. 

I am concerned that Federal employees with COOP and COG responsibilities will be immobilized in this confusion and unable to 

execute COOP and COG plans in a timely fashion. My question to 

you is, what has been done to coordinate Federal COOP and COG 

plans with the District emergency evacuation plans? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. In our region, we have over 300,000 Federal employees. A significant number of employees are not COOP/COG, but 

we have critical personnel that need to get to where they need to 

go to support continuity of government and continuity of operations. For the coordination of this, one of the key efforts that we 

have been looking at is how do we credential people, pre-identify 

people so that we don’t walk into where we were on September 11, 

30

12, and 13, when people couldn’t get to where they needed to be. 

This is the interoperable identity management piece that we have 

been looking at for leveraging the Federal framework of FIPS 201. 

This region is probably the first region in the Nation that is looking 

at how to coordinate first responders and critical support people to 

cross through lines. 

Additionally, from the Federal side, we have programs under 

way to look at how we rally people and get them to where they 

need to be. They will be integrated into the testing scheduled that 

occurs every year. So those are actively engaged. But one of the key 

things that the Federal Government, State and locals, the identity 

management piece, where we are integrated is really a priority for 

the Federal Government to complete. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Reiskin. 

Mr. REISKIN. If I could add one thing that Mr. Lockwood didn’t 

mention, but that he’s really been instrumental in doing, is integrating the NCR State and local governments into the Federal 

COOP/COG exercise process. So while we’re fairly confident right 

now with our ability to move people out of the downtown in the 

event of an emergency, integrating us into their exercise process 

will give us some better visibility into what kind of impacts there 

are. As Mr. Lockwood said, it’s not all 150,000 employees who need 

to get out, but we do need to make sure that the ones who do need 

to move, can move, and by integrating us into that exercise, I think 

that will give us the visibility to determine whether we are there 

yet or what we need to do to fix it if we’re not. 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. A key piece of this was in previous cycles, local 

governments, State governments, were not represented within 

these discussions. They were simulated. It think it’s important, and 

I believe that the Secretary thinks it’s vitally important, that we 

include our State and local partners in this discussion. Furthermore, as we look at these exercises and events, if there is something that’s going to force a COOP action with the National Capital 

Region, there also needs to be a way to have an integrated Federal 

response. That integrated Federal response does require joint operations space, and we are actively looking at that with regard to our 

exercise strategies as well. For each exercise we want to make sure 

that the mix of Federal, State, and locals have an understanding 

of where they need to go in the event of an emergency, to integrate 

the response to support local government. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your responses. As you can tell, 

the Chairman and I are vitally interested in knowing what you’ve 

done thus far, and look forward to those kinds of documents. 

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to close by associating myself with 

the comments you made about the EMPG grant funding while I 

was gone. I understand you spoke about that for about 5 minutes. 

Rest assured, we are committed to increasing EMPG funds. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator Akaka. 

Again, for the record, I would like to have the written plan, and, 

Mr. Jenkins, I am going to ask you to look at it. Mr. Lockwood, I 

expect that Senator Akaka, and I will spend some time with you 

as we have along with the plan. 

31

Senator Akaka, I think it might be very worthwhile to schedule 

a hearing in September. If the plan is to be complete in August, 

you can come back in September, and brag about what you have 

done. 

This is a technical question for Mr. Jenkins. Is it necessary to 

include the Katrina after action report, the enhancement plan, and 

EMAP into the strategic plan? 

Mr. JENKINS. Well, I think certainly with regard to—the real 

issue out of Katrina is not a ‘‘normal major emergency, it’s a catastrophe, a catastrophic event.’’ That is defined by DHS as basically 

being a event that almost immediately overwhelms the capacity of 

State and local governments to respond. In other words, it turns 

the normal process in which State and local governments are the 

first responders and they ask for help further up the line, it turns 

that upside down essentially on its head, where the Federal Government then needs to be more proactive. And so I think that is 

clearly something that needs to be considered, is what happens to 

normal planning if there is a catastrophic event that really overwhelms State and local responders in the region? So I think it’s important to incorporate that into it. I think that’s very important. 

Senator VOINOVICH. If something would happen in the region, it 

would be a way out of anything that you could——

Mr. JENKINS. Way out of anything, and it would affect—as it did 

in Katrina—affects communications, affects transportation, affects 

the ability of the first responders to get to where they need to go, 

or be able to do what they need to do because their equipment is 

incapacitated. And so Katrina really is more of an issue of a catastrophic event. As horrible as the events of September 11 were in 

both New York and here in Washington, they were essentially 

local, non-catastrophic events. That is, they were events that were 

largely managed by State and local first responders who had the 

equipment and the ability to respond. So they were very different 

from Katrina in that regard, both in terms of—Katrina was much 

larger in terms of geographic scope and the degree and scope of the 

destruction, that is, the variety of things that it destroyed and its 

ability, therefore, for State and locals to respond. 

So I think that getting in and thinking about what would happen 

if there were a catastrophe—and that’s where you need to think 

about the risk. The risk is not very high here for an earthquake, 

and so you need to think about what the risks are that you face. 

Think about the capacity that you need, and what would happen 

under different sets of assumptions, and what does that mean in 

terms of the capacity that I have and what I need and what people’s roles and responsibilities are. 

So it is important, I think, particularly for the Katrina reports, 

for people to look at what the lessons are learned from Katrina, 

and what they mean for emergency preparedness in this region, 

particularly a region as high a risk as this region is for something 

pretty horrible to happen. 

So those are, I think, the most important things. And as I said, 

the other thing is really getting at the risk and therefore the capabilities that you need, whatever those risks are and then the capabilities that you need, and where are you with regard to those capabilities and where do you need to go in what priority order. 

32

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Mr. Lockwood, who oversees the evacuation of Federal buildings? 

We have several evacuation plans for our offices. We have a lot of 

other Federal agencies around here. Who is responsible to ensure 

that Federal agencies are prepared to evacuate and ensure that everybody knows where they are supposed to go? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Through the Joint Federal Committee, we try to 

make sure people are aware of some of the planning activities. One 

of the key planning activities has been protective measures. In the 

event of an emergency, a fire, in adjacent buildings, even if they 

are different branches of government within the Executive Branch, 

we have to sort out the planning, the immediate planning around 

those buildings. Each building has an occupancy plan. What we are 

doing now is looking at the clusters of Federal buildings within the 

National Capital Region. Essentially, there are 13 major clusters. 

We are looking in detail at one cluster right now to say, when was 

the last time the occupancy plans were updated? Have they been 

coordinated with their neighbors? Have they sorted through, if it’s 

inclement weather or the different threat types that you might be 

working. 

We’re doing a detailed piece on one of the clusters right now, and 

as we understand the conflicts and the deconflicts that we need to 

do, we’re going to then walk through the other clusters. 

Senator VOINOVICH. You are in charge of it? Is there someone in 

the Administration that says to Mike Leavitt or to some of the 

other secretaries of agencies, ‘‘Have you guys recently checked to 

see whether or not your folks know what they’re supposed to do 

and where they’re supposed to go?’’

Mr. LOCKWOOD. The guidance originally is through OPM and 

GSA, and that would be the driving guidance right now. The executing arm of this is the Federal Protective Service across the Executive Branch. One of the pieces of this office, is the coordination 

across the groups. Again, it’s coordination. I do not have authority 

over Secretary Leavitt or the other——

Senator VOINOVICH. But the fact is, if I want to find out when 

was the last time that they did a drill of some sort, who would 

have that information? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. I would have to work with FPS to understand 

that, and I could get back to you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. I would just be interested in it. It is one 

of those things, how often is anybody thinking about it? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Again, this goes back into the criteria of these 

occupancy plans and updating those plans. 

Senator VOINOVICH. This has been a good hearing. I think you 

know how interested we are. Our goal is to have the plan by August. 

We thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(33)

A P P E N D I X 


27755.001
34


27755.002
35


27755.003
36


27755.004
37


27755.005
38


27755.006
39


27755.007
40


27755.008
41


27755.009
42


27755.010
43


27755.011
44


27755.012
45


27755.013
46


27755.014
47


27755.015
48


27755.016
49


27755.017
50


27755.018
51


27755.019
52


27755.020
53


27755.021
54


27755.022
55


27755.023
56


27755.024
57


27755.025
58


27755.026
59


27755.027
60


27755.028
61


27755.029
62


27755.030
63


27755.031
64


27755.032
65


27755.033
66


27755.034
67


27755.035
68


27755.036
69


27755.037
70


27755.038
71


27755.039
72


27755.040
73


27755.041
74


27755.042
75


27755.043
76


27755.044
77


27755.045
78


27755.046
79


27755.047
80


27755.048
81


27755.049
82


27755.050
83


27755.051
84


27755.052
85


27755.053
86


27755.054
87


27755.055
88


27755.056
89


27755.057
90


27755.058
91


27755.059
92


27755.060
93


27755.061
94


27755.062
95


27755.063
96


27755.064
97


27755.065
98


27755.066
99


27755.067
100


27755.068
101


27755.069
102


27755.070
103


27755.071
104


27755.072
105


27755.073
106


27755.074
107

Æ


27755.075