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

94–905 PDF 2004

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S PLAN

TO CONSOLIDATE AND CO-LOCATE REGIONAL

AND FIELD OFFICES: IMPROVING COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY POLICY,

NATURAL RESOURCES AND REGULATORY

AFFAIRS

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,

EMERGING THREATS AND INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 24, 2004

Serial No. 108–168

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

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

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

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

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

——— ———

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY POLICY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND REGULATORY

AFFAIRS

DOUG OSE, California, Chairman

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

TOM LANTOS, California

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

BARBARA F. KAHLOW, Staff Director

DANIELLE HALLCOM QUIST, Professional Staff Member

LAUREN JACOBS, Clerk

KRISTA BOYD, Minority Counsel

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING THREATS AND INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DAN BURTON, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

TOM LANTOS, California

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

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

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

DIANE E. WATSON, California

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

LAWRENCE J. HALLORAN, Staff Director and Counsel

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Clerk

ANDREW SU, Minority Professional Staff Member

(V)

C O N T E N T S

Page

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

Statement of:

Hutchinson, Asa, Under Secretary, Border and Transportation Security,

Department of Homeland Security .............................................................. 19

Kinghorn, C. Morgan, president, National Academy of Public Administration; Edward Flynn, secretary, Executive Office of Public Safety, State

of Massachusetts; Karen Anderson, mayor, city of Minnetonka, MN,

on behalf of the National League of Cities; Martin Fenstersheib, health

officer, Santa Clara County Public Health Department, on behalf of

the National Association of County and City Health Officials; and

James Lee Witt, former Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, currently president, James Lee Witt Associates, LLC ....... 48

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

Anderson, Karen, mayor, city of Minnetonka, MN, on behalf of the National League of Cities, prepared statement of .......................................... 74

Fenstersheib, Martin, health officer, Santa Clara County Public Health

Department, on behalf of the National Association of County and City

Health Officials, prepared statement of ...................................................... 82

Flynn, Edward, secretary, Executive Office of Public Safety, State of

Massachusetts, prepared statement of ........................................................ 68

Hutchinson, Asa, Under Secretary, Border and Transportation Security,

Department of Homeland Security:

Followup questions and responses ........................................................... 44

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21

Kinghorn, C. Morgan, president, National Academy of Public Administration, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 51

Miller, Hon. Candice S., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Michigan, prepared statement of ............................................................. 30

Ose, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of ........................................................................... 3

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

of Connecticut, prepared statement of ........................................................ 27

Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Massachusetts, prepared statement of ................................................... 41

Witt, James Lee, former Administrator, Federal Emergency Management

Agency, currently president, James Lee Witt Associates, LLC, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 91

(1)

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S

PLAN TO CONSOLIDATE AND CO-LOCATE

REGIONAL AND FIELD OFFICES: IMPROVING COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

POLICY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, JOINT WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL

SECURITY, EMERGING THREATS AND INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Doug Ose (chairman of

the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs) presiding.

Present: Representatives Ose, Shays, Maloney, Miller, Tierney,

and Ruppersberger.

Staff present: Barbara F. Kahlow, staff director; Danielle

Hallcom Quist, professional staff member; Lauren Jacobs, clerk;

Megan Taormino, press secretary, Subcommittee on Energy Policy,

Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs; Larry Halloran, staff director and counsel; Robert A. Briggs, clerk, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations;

Krista Boyd, minority counsel; Andrew Su, minority professional

staff member; and Cecelia Morton, minority office manager.

Mr. OSE. First let me welcome everybody to today’s hearing, a

joint hearing between the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural

Resources and Regulatory Affairs, and the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to provide oversight to the

Homeland Security Department’s plan to consolidate and co-locate

regional and field offices, focusing on communication and coordination.

In November 2002, Congress established the Department of

Homeland Security to ensure that the tragic events of September

11, 2001, would never happen again. Transferring 22 former Federal agencies and approximately 180,000 employees to DHS is a

relatively easy task; however, integrating the staff positions and

physical assets and capabilities into a cohesive Department has

been an extremely difficult task. This effort is complicated by the

fact that the 22 former Federal agencies had and still maintain

multiple regional and field offices with overlapping jurisdictions.

Recognizing obstacles that the former regional field structures

2

would impose upon communication and coordination among and between the DHS staff and local first responders, I worked with subcommittee Ranking Member John Tierney in introducing Section

706 of the Department of Homeland Security Act. Section 706 requires DHS to develop and submit to Congress by November 25,

2003, a plan to consolidate and co-locate those former Federal

agency regional field offices within the same locality that were

transferred to DHS.

DHS submitted its report to Congress on February 4, 2004. The

report provided minimum description of consolidation and co-location plans of Homeland Security field offices. On a Departmentwide scale, DHS provided an outline of a plan to consolidate and

co-locate physical assets. DHS has not yet explained how or when

it plans to reorganize the regional field offices in their respective

jurisdictions.

Importantly, the report does not address the relationship between consolidation and co-location of physical assets and Section

706’s legislative history. The legislative history requires that consolidation and co-location is not merely an exercise of asset management and efficiency. As Congressman Tierney and I discussed

in a colloquy on the House floor, the purpose of the Section 706 report is for DHS to provide to the Congress a plan explaining how

it intends to use consolidation and co-location to improve the level

of communication and cooperation among and between DHS and

first responders. To the extent DHS staff is located in a single

building, they’re easier to cross train and to perform emergency

and other functions needed for Homeland Security in the case of

an actual emergency. It is also important for first responders to

have meaningful relationships with their counterparts in the local

DHS regional and field offices. Moreover, the one-stop-shop for

local first responders will greatly improve local preparedness and

response by providing improved communication and financial assistance.

Congress passed the act establishing DHS. It has already accomplished the most important job in the Federal Government. Congress understands that there were 22 Federal agencies with unique

histories and cultures and regional field structures and jurisdictions. It is a daunting task. However, DHS cannot fully provide

homeland security until its regional field structures are optimally

organized, staff is cross-trained, and the lines of communication between DHS field offices and local first responders are open.

We want to emphasize that today’s hearing is not about funding

of DHS or local first responders. Today’s hearing is also not about

which DHS regional and field offices might be closing. We called

this hearing to facilitate and improve this Nation’s state of readiness.

Today we will hear from DHS on attempts not only to consolidate

and co-locate DHS’s human and physical assets, but also how to do

so strategically.

We are joined on the second panel by some of the key players in

local first responder groups. We welcome all of you and thank you

for your tireless effort.

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Doug Ose follows:]

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Mr. OSE. As others join us, we will allow their statements to be

put into the record, but in the interest of time we are going to proceed directly to the witnesses.

In this committee, Government Reform, we swear in all of our

witnesses, regardless of subject. It is our tradition and protocol. So,

Mr. Under Secretary, would you please rise?

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. OSE. Thank you. Let the record show that the witness answered in the affirmative.

Mr. Under Secretary Hutchinson, it is good to see you again.

Thank you for joining us. We do have your statement for the

record, and we are pleased to have your testimony on this important subject. Go ahead.

STATEMENT OF ASA HUTCHINSON, UNDER SECRETARY, BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF

HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Chairman Ose. It is a pleasure to

be before this committee, and I want to thank you for your support

and leadership in this area.

Earlier this year, as you know, the Department forwarded a report assessing our field property portfolio, addressing some of the

issues that you are concerned about with regard to consolidation

and co-location of offices, and we understand from the discussion

of the committee staff that the focus of our report may have been

missing the mark somewhat, and after reviewing the report I agree

with you that it was a little bit too vague, and so I hope today’s

discussion will shed light on that and be beneficial to the committee.

I know that the focus is on the strategic consolidation, but I

might just comment on some of the progress that has been made

in the over-arching area of reorganization, efficiencies achieved

from that, and the better delivery of services.

First and foremost, we consolidated our border inspection agencies under one particular agency. As you know, prior to the creation of the Department, you had Agriculture inspectors, you had

Immigration inspectors, and Customs inspectors, all three reporting in to three different directors, three different departments of

government. That has been consolidated into one, and now we have

CBP officers who are cross-trained in inspection procedures, provide a better benefit to the public, and better accountability for

management purposes. In addition, we reorganized the enforcement side in Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including redesignating the Federal air marshal program as a part of that to

improve efficiencies.

When it comes to first responder grants, which is an important

capability with the State and local community, we hear loud and

clear the frustration that they had a number of different pipes into

the Department of Homeland Security, and so with the $7.1 billion

in assistance that had to be meted out last year through our Office

of Domestic Preparedness and our other grant programs, we have

now consolidated all of the grant programs into one funding stream

in the Department to give State and local first responders one portal into the Department rather than having multiple sources that

20

they go through. This would include the $500 million assistance to

fire fighters, and it would consolidate the 25 State and local support programs and initiatives into one office to ensure simplified

and coordinated administration of these programs.

From a strategic standpoint, the substantive offices will still

have impact on the distribution of these grants, but it facilitates

the delivery of those services through one portal.

We have also reorganized our national incident management system to be more effective. The Department established that this system, which is the Nation’s first standardized management plan to

create a unified chain of command for Federal, State, and local

lines of government for incident response. This certainly impacts

our relationship with first responders, as well.

We will have an incident management center integration center

to serve as a focal point for first responders to ensure that what

we provide is accurate and will be an effective management tool.

We’ll provide education and training, communications and equipment, qualifications and credentialling of incident management and

first responder personnel.

Then, I would also point out that the President’s 2005 budget

that has been submitted to Congress itemized $100 million in savings in terms of initiative through the strategic sourcings of office

supplies, weapons and ammunition, copiers, and fleet motor vehicles. These are all from different agencies where we have a more

strategic ability in procurement. We estimate a $100 million savings from that effort.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, you asked particularly about the facilities

and our planning in the co-location of offices. This is really being

done at three different levels. First, at the operational level it is

an ongoing project where we have legacy Immigration and legacy

Customs offices in two separate buildings. As leases expire, we are

co-locating those into one facility, and so it is a high priority for

us because it is important for those agencies to be working side by

side, but it varies in city based upon when the leases expire and

the operation capability. We are also doing the same consolidation

at the headquarters level with, for example, making sure that the

Customs offices are located with their strategic partners at the

headquarters level.

Finally, probably most importantly to this committee, is the regional concept, which is more of a long-term strategic alignment of

the 22 agencies. This will have to be taken a strategic step at a

time, first of all developing the whole regional concept and then

bringing the regional alignments together underneath that. Finally,

the last part of it really is making sure that the agency is being

conformed to that regional alignment, not necessarily by closing offices but by making sure their structure, their communication is

consistent with that regional structure. That is an ongoing project

and significant manpower hours are being devoted to that, but it

has not been completed and it is not subject to public revealing at

this point, but we hope to conclude that project in the near future.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will obviously submit my written

comments for the record, but I’ll look forward to our discussion.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hutchinson follows:]

21

22

23

24

25

26

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Under Secretary.

Mr. Shays, do you have any questions?

Mr. SHAYS. Not at this time, Mr. Chairman.

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

27

28

29

Mr. OSE. Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. I believe I will put my opening statement in the

record and welcome our witnesses.

Mr. OSE. Ms. Miller.

Ms. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I will follow suit and submit my

statement for the record. I welcome our witnesses, as well. I don’t

have any questions.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Candice S. Miller follows:]

30

31

32

33

Mr. OSE. We’re going to be out of here by 7 tonight. [Laughter.]

Mr. Under Secretary, we talked a little bit about what Section

706 sought, and I just want to make sure—and you touched on it

in your testimony about not quite getting it straight. What does

DHS understand the purpose of Section 706 to be?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, the language of the request has to do

with the co-location of offices, and so our report dealt specifically

with that aspect of it, touching upon the regions. But, it just was

not as specific and not as responsive to the strategic concerns that

this committee had, and so we welcome this opportunity to clarify

any particular issues that you have.

Mr. OSE. Given my background, I’m particularly interested in the

physical assets in terms of a schedule of leases that are expiring

here and there and so on and so forth. Have you been able to go

through and, for lack of a better word, quantify where the opportunity might exist across the country for co-location?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That process has started, first in the determination order. That was really for OMB purposes in making the

budgetary allocation of resources, and it was very sketchy information for each asset. So, that’s the determination order.

Each asset manager within the 22 agencies making up the Department has a very detailed inventory of all the assets, and that

is consolidated into a data base at Homeland Security, but that is

the process it has to go through for ultimately arriving at the consolidations that we and efficiencies that we hope to achieve down

the road. That will be done more in a long-term process, setting up

the goals and objectives that we are trying to accomplish. Any regional alignment that we have would have to be a strategic marker

that we have to respond to.

Right now I think our focus has probably been more narrow in

terms of, for example, the training facilities. We concentrated upon

and it has been my project to look at all of the training facilities

in the 22 agencies, the firearms ranges. Is there any consolidation,

any leadership that we can provide there? And, so that focus has

been there. Then we will broaden that more to all of the assets that

we had. But, that would be more of a strategic, long-term plan as

was outlined in the report.

Mr. OSE. As we were considering this hearing, I was trying to

conceptualize how you would do that, and I believe this puts it up

conceptually. DHS has 22 different agencies and 180,000 different

people. Without getting into specific agencies, if I understand what

your testimony is, making the determination and figuring out, that

this agency has these assets, and then you have broken those down

into, ‘‘This is office space we own, this is office space we lease, this

is where office space is located under this lease, this is where it is

owned.’’ Are you trying to—if I understand your testimony, in a 5

to 7-year period of time you’ll let those leases run their course and

then bring those facilities into a central location.

Do you have yet any of the 22 agencies finished relative to this

plan for consolidation and co-location?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Not in the long-term plan. And, let me come

back to your first comment. As, for example, if you take Chicago,

at Chicago we have worked to co-locate all of the investigative offices in Chicago, and that should be completed within 3 months in

34

terms of the Immigration and legacy Customs offices that are now

at one agency. That has happened at an operational level. We’re

not waiting. It is going to be accomplished. In Miami, 50 percent

of the investigators are co-located, and so you have different levels,

but that is an ongoing process that has some urgency to it because

we realize savings in that, and it is also better for our agents to

work together.

But in the longer term, for example, you know, Coast Guard,

which is not my arena of responsibility, but their massive amount

of facilities out there and how that relates to, for example, FEMA

or Border Patrol, and that’s going to take a longer-term study to

see if there’s any efficiencies and any logic in it, because it might

ultimately decide that they have two separate missions and it

would not be any benefit in co-location, and there would be more

of a strategic study that, quite frankly, I think the timeline that

was laid out in the report is—you know, it is months away before

the baseline is set for that aspect of it. That should not diminish

from the immediate steps that are being taken and efficiencies

being achieved.

Mr. OSE. Congressman Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Secretary, you have a lot under Department of Homeland Security. You’ve got it all. One of the things that we have been concerned about is how we consolidate and so on. There’s a temptation

to want to do it by access. You’ve got to do it and you’ve got to go

in there. What are you doing to make sure it’s more passive management? What capabilities do you have to do that? I understand

this is really a 7-year effort. I’m aware it’s going to be a long term

thing.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That’s absolutely the point that what should

drive this would be the mission, and the mission should define any

co-locations or asset managements. For example, when we realigned Immigration and Customs into one enforcement agency,

that mission definement set the stage for those co-locations. That’s

ongoing. The next——

Mr. SHAYS. How long is that going to take you?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That’s what I was referring to. In Chicago, 3

months it will be done there. In Miami we’re 50 percent there. It

depends upon location by location when the leases are up and that

opportunity presents itself. In the meantime, though, what we’re

doing, even though you might be in two locations, you’re mixing

your investigators so that they are co-located together even though

they are in separate locations. So we are taking those operational

steps.

But, in the next vision statement, really, it will be in terms of

our regional concept. The President submitted in his 2004 budget

that the whole Department would look at the regional alignment.

When that final decision is made, which should be in the near future, then that will define our missions by regions, and then you

can take the best-defined—the next steps that we take in reference

to assets, buildings, and so on.

Mr. SHAYS. What about the issue of standards? If we’re doing it

by mission, not by asset, you’re not going to assume that you have

a vacant building if it makes sense to move people somewhere else?

35

I mean, is the lease going to be turning on how we define an employee?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That certainly is a factor. I don’t think we’re

going to be abandoning leases that are going to cost taxpayers a

substantial amount of money if we have to lease additional space.

So, I mean, we’re just going to try to be smart about it.

Mr. SHAYS. What we’ll do is integrate the mission?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Absolutely.

Mr. SHAYS. You did what many think is very brave when you

started to talk about standards on a high level. I’m interested to

know what you feel about the goal of standards in determining allocation of resources.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, you might followup to make sure I’m getting after your point, but I think it is critical in terms of the allocation of the grant money, for example, that we have assessments

that are made——

Mr. SHAYS. Dealing with preparedness standards.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. We do not want to come back to Congress a

year from now and have you ask us what happened to that $7 billion that went out the door and we don’t have a good accounting

of that, that we actually enhanced security, so we do insist upon

our national priorities on preparedness, on response capability, and

that is supplemented by the State response plans that help give

more flexibility to it. We do want to have the national priorities reflected so that we can increase our preparedness and prevention capabilities.

Then you can more narrowly look at that in terms of rail and

transit systems and have a national baseline of prevention capabilities there. You look at our national incident management system

that is the first one ever in which we are prepared to respond to

incidents in the field, whether it is a terrorist incident or natural

disaster in which there is coordination, and a national plan that is

in place to respond to that.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OSE. Ms. Miller.

Ms. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Under Secretary.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you.

Ms. MILLER. About 2 months ago I had the distinct honor to have

Secretary Ridge in my District. We share hundreds of miles of border with Canada. In that economy we have the Blue Water Bridge,

which is the busiest water crossing. It is the only certified bridge

across the United States to accommodate hazardous materials. We

have a fleet and rail tunnel that runs right underneath of the

bridge. And we also have something that we all refer to in that

area as ‘‘Chemical Valley.’’ There are hundreds of chemical plants

on the side of the river there.

We took Secretary Ridge on the tour, a helicopter tour, about 4

hours. All were trying to express to him our concern, our consternation and trying to be very proactive on the local level with

regard to Homeland Security, understanding the unique nature

that we have, and yet a very small population comparatively.

36

I would ask you to respond to the regional allocation financially

and the criteria that you have for that. It is really quite an issue

in the Nation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Excellent observation, and that points up the

need to have a number of factors that are used in the distribution

of funds for Homeland Security purposes, and population is a relevant factor because, obviously, population centers are targets of

opportunity to the terrorists, but also you have critical infrastructure. You mentioned chemical plants being one of those, transportation centers and hubs, bridges, tunnels, these type of things that

have either symbolic value or infrastructure value. We also measure those in terms of the allocation of resources, and that should

be an important factor because that affects the deployment, the

drain that is on local first responders.

Another one I would add, a factor that is relevant is the extent

of operational capability that’s intelligence based from the terrorist

standpoint and the intelligence that we’ve received as to the nature

of their interest in a particular area.

Ms. MILLER. Shifting gears here for a moment, I have a great interest in what is happening in the Department in regards to the

regional headquarters. As you know, you and I have had some conversation about that. But, as you have mentioned, you’re not ready

to publicly disclose where some of them may be or any of them may

be. I’m anticipating, of course, that you’re putting together your criteria for the regional headquarters. As you put together the criteria, I also sit on the Armed Services Committee, and, of course,

we are fully engaged in watching what is happening with BRAC.

But, it is interesting. I think there are some analogies to be drawn

to the Department of Homeland Security with BRAC. The operative phrase there is ‘‘jointness,’’ so that you look at facilities where

you are able to be very cost effective, etc., for the taxpayers, of

course, looking at the military mission.

I’m wondering whether or not the Department of Homeland Security is coordinating very closely with the DOD as they are thinking about excess that we may have in the inventory for military installations within the Nation. As you are citing some of these regional headquarters, it would seem, as part of your criteria, you’d

be looking at secure locations, that you’ve be looking perhaps at locations that maybe already have several of your agencies under the

umbrella at that location, and again with the idea of jointness first

of all for the mission of Homeland Security but second cost effectiveness, as well, for the taxpayer. Are you coordinating that?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. As you noted, there is a lot of interest in this

issue and, just like the Secretary, I have been called upon to see

various facilities, and some of them being military facilities. Certainly it is something that should be considered and evaluated.

Quite frankly, the first level of priority is simply the decisionmaking as to the concept of operations at a region and then locations, the makeup of it, how many. Then, once those decisions are

made, I think then you start looking at, well, what kind of facility

should it be. I think it will be fairly robust in terms of its capabilities, but probably modest in terms of its consuming facility.

Then, you know, we will just have a longer-term plan as to

where it needs to go down the road, and during the course of that

37

certainly it should be coordinated with Defense facilities that are

available, best locations, and obviously with interested folks in

Congress that have a great interest and understand their Districts

more than anyone.

Ms. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OSE. The Members up here, with the Under Secretary’s concurrence, have asked for a second round of questions.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Certainly.

Mr. OSE. We’re going to proceed accordingly.

I’m interested in this integration project that is going on relative

to the regional and field offices. Apparently there’s 40 or 50 DHS

employees currently stationed in what is referred to as an ‘‘integration center.’’

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Correct.

Mr. OSE. Can you tell me who is the lead person?

Mr. OSE. Bob Stephan. Bob Stephan, who is an outstanding——

Mr. OSE. S-T-E?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. P-H-A-N. He has been tasked by the Secretary

to put together this team which is made up of our BTS agency employees and others to develop a concept of operations for regions,

make recommendations to the policy decisionmakers, and they are

actively engaged in that and doing an outstanding job.

Mr. OSE. Do you have a time table for the completion of this?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, it is—I would say that the—we have

been working on this really since the roll-out of the President’s

budget in 2004, so for some time, and it has gone through a number of iterations trying to improve the product, getting a lot of feedback from people who are knowledgeable about this, and there

have been adjustments made, and I think it is getting into a very

fine product that’s getting close to completion. It’s really up to the

Secretary and the White House as to the exact timeframe that this

is ready to go. But, I would say that we are getting closer.

Mr. OSE. Actually, this is one of the points I wanted to elaborate

on a little bit. As the President rolled his budget out in January

2003 for fiscal year 2004, we didn’t complete our work on that

budget until late January 2004. In a very real sense, you have been

at it or actually had it authorized for but a few months. To that

extent, I want to compliment you and your team for the progress

you’ve made. I don’t want to lose the point that you haven’t been

able to do this except since we finalized approval of the administrative side proposal.

I’m going to yield to Chairman Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

I’m interested in how the Department of Homeland Security has

involved local first responders and other stakeholders in the development of its regional plans.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, it is probably not a formal structure that

they would necessarily be involved in. This is the type of development that we have reached out, and people who have a long history

in working in these different agencies and law enforcement have

been engaged in. We have people involved in the integration staff

that are very knowledgeable in the first responder community, but

we have also learned that sometimes having too many meetings

out there creates a lot of controversy about the concept of this, beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\94905.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
38

cause even though to the knowledgeable members of this committee a regional concept makes sense in the delivery of services, it

creates a lot of consternation out there, as well, that this is somehow going to lose our office or we are going to lose some other capability, and so there has not been a formal communication structure

with the first responder community, but I believe that their interest has helped to drive this. They are the ones who are saying, ‘‘We

don’t know who to talk to. We’ve got 22 different agencies and we

don’t know the right people to go to.’’ Their comments are the ones

that are driving this whole initiative.

Mr. SHAYS. Basically a point I’d love to make to you because the

synergy that takes place among you and Secretary Ridge and others, the whole concept of the need to have standards in what you

do, we clearly see a need when we are allocating lots of the grants,

and the argument that every community should get a certain

amount per capita, I mean, I would suggest to you that communities—New York City clearly needs an extraordinary amount of

resources, as would Washington and others that are, I think, acknowledged to be targeted areas, but then the communities nearby.

And, I would make an argument to you that without setting the

standards we don’t know how to evaluate whether we are doing a

good job. And so, just as you need to be setting standards, I hope

they are starting to set standards and moving more quickly. We’re

trying to get that done in the bill by Mr. Cox. We would like very

much to see that move along more quickly.

What are the standards? Then we can evaluate how we are giving out the money. We’ll continually encourage you to update the

standards and change. Otherwise, I think we’re going to waste a

lot of resources.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. You’re absolutely correct. We’re in full agreement with you. Congressional support and the flexibility of those

grants and targeting it to high-risk areas has been very important

to what we have been able to do.

Mr. SHAYS. I’d love to just know, as a general rule, what is the

interaction that takes place among the four pillars that we basically designed when we wrote this law? I mean, do you have meetings where all of you get together and share your successes and

failures and talk about your challenges, or are you all so busy that

you’re all just kind of going in different directions?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Actually, Secretary Ridge has been very good

and Deputy Secretary Loy, in making sure we have regular meetings. So, in fact, yesterday at about 2:30 all the Under Secretaries

and Secretary Ridge met together in a conference room and we

talked about the current status of things, went around, covered

issues, and we do that once a week with Secretary Ridge and we

do it once a week with Deputy Secretary Loy.

Mr. SHAYS. Great. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OSE. Ms. Miller.

Ms. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Under Secretary, as we in the Congress are trying our

darndest to make sure that we get our Homeland Security funds

to our first responders and our local communities across the Nation, I have some consternation or we have had some consternation

39

in the State of Michigan—and I suppose this is happening in many

of the States—where it is by law, by statute, appropriate for the

States to take up to 20 percent of all the funding that we are appropriating for administrative costs, and understanding the budgetary constraints that many of the States are finding themselves

in. I come from State government. I know what it is to try to plug

a hole in the budget with any money that you can find. I can appreciate their actions by taking it all the way up to 20 percent, but

that was not what we had in mind when we were appropriating the

funds to be paying for State police or what have you that should

be paid for with other funds. We think those Homeland Security

funds should be going, as I say, for the most part to our local first

responders. Do you have any comment on that? Do you think—are

you able to promulgate rules to change that? Does it require congressional action? And, should we even be concerned with that?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, I think it is important for general Homeland Security funding to pass through the States because it is important that there is some coordination, some regional direction

that is given to the training, the response capability, and to set

some of those priorities. Now, as to whether it is 20 percent or a

smaller percent, I think—I believe that is congressionally fixed. I

will have to check to make sure, but I believe that is correct. We’ll

be happy to respond to any directions that Congress gave to us.

I think that there were appropriate circumstances whenever we

gave out the counter-terrorism funds. It did not go through the

States. This went directly to some of the urban centers that had

increased expenses for Operation Liberty Shield and when we had

a higher threat level, and there are overtime expenses, so there

should be some exceptions to that general rule of the security funds

going through the States.

Mr. OSE. If the gentlelady would yield? It is my understanding

that the typical administrative fee is around 10 percent. That’s the

usual. Now, given the Under Secretary’s comments about unique

circumstances, obviously there is some play to that.

Ms. MILLER. That’s correct. In Michigan actually historically it

has been between 6 and 8 percent, but right now it is running at

the full 20 percent, which has us—as I say, we have some consternation about that, so we are going to take a look at that. I’m

sure that’s not unique across the Nation. I don’t know what the

others——

Mr. HUTCHINSON. All the cities agree with you.

Ms. MILLER. I would just have one other question, Mr. Chairman, if I could, back to the regional headquarters. Again, we are

all very interested in that, and Chairman Shays had asked a little

bit about this, as well, but as you are developing your criteria, do

you take into consideration, as well, the first responders and how

they might interact with your regional headquarters? For instance,

in my District our local community college has one of two nationally recognized training centers for first responders. Again, we are

in an area that we pride ourselves on really trying to be very

proactive about these kinds of things. Would you look to that as a

consideration?

And, then my other question and I’ll be done here. I know you

said, again, it is premature to ask you or perhaps for you to talk

40

about where they may be located, but could you perhaps tell us, do

you have an idea about doing a pilot project for a regional headquarters? And, if so, when might you have such a pilot project?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. For the regional operating concept we had a

limited pilot in Miami when we were operational out of concern for

Haiti and the circumstances there and the potential of a mass migration. We had an operational concept that was set up that

brought all the agencies together, but that was somewhat of a test

as to how it worked.

In going back to criteria for regions, the first, most important

thing for us is the commonality of a region. Do they share threats?

Do they need to bind together working relationships, history. And

then we start looking at, you know, other factors such as what you

mentioned, which certainly should be relevant.

Ms. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Tierney.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I’d like

to add my opening remarks to the record.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John F. Tierney follows:]

41

42

Mr. OSE. There will be no objection to that.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.

Asa, how are you doing?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Good. Good to see you.

Mr. TIERNEY. We’ve been seeing more of you lately than anybody

else, I think, up here.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I love being over here.

Mr. TIERNEY. Yes. Let me just ask you a couple of quick questions here. One is with respect to cross-training. That was one of

the issues that the chairman and I talked about when the bill was

filed. Can you give us an update on what exactly is being done in

order to cross-train people from different agencies or departments

so that they have an appreciation for what the others are doing

and can better coordinate their efforts?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes, and I’m grateful for the congressional

push and encouragement in this area. I think it is a very important

part of the mandate of Homeland Security. For example, the first

instance would be in the reorganization we’ve accomplished Customs and Border Protection, which includes customs, immigration

inspectors, agriculture inspectors into one CBP officer. They are

being cross-trained. That is an ongoing effort that happens locally

on a day-by-day basis, but we are also formally doing it through

the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center where we are doing

cross training there, and the new batch of officers coming out have

that cross training.

It is also taking place in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement area where we have our special agents. They are working

side by side, Customs agents, Immigration agents historically. Now

they are ICE agents and they are being cross trained, as well,

working on cases together. That will be expanded.

Then, for example, the international arena, we’ve had to do substantial work, because all of the sudden we might have a TSA inspector in a region of the world that we might have other taskings

for. It is a gradual process and we want to be careful not to diminish their primary mission and training, but it is something we’re

looking at as aggressively as we can.

Mr. TIERNEY. And other areas besides that on the domestic level,

in particular, cities or regions?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes. I’m trying to think of illustrations of it.

For example, in the airports, just so limited, we just initiated the

Arizona border patrol initiative in Phoenix where we really are trying to address the lack of border patrol there, and we even had

some limited training of TSA so that they would know a little bit

more how to identify and work and support our efforts in the airports, not to interfere with their usual operations, just to be more

cognizant of other Homeland Security issues. So that is an ongoing

basis. We are continually looking for opportunities there, and as we

move into the regional concept obviously that’s where it will be enhanced to even a higher level because you would have a regional

director that would help in the cross-training, in the integration

whenever it makes sense.

Mr. TIERNEY. Will you be providing Congress with a more detailed plan of what you intend to do on cross training?

43

Mr. HUTCHINSON. We’re happy to keep you posted, and certainly

you would be formally notified of any development of a regional——

Mr. TIERNEY. Will you give us a plan of where you intend to go,

exactly what you intend to do, and when you intend to do it by?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. We would be happy to.

[The information referred to follows:]

44

45

46

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. One last question on that is: with respect to the Fire Act grants, is it the Department’s intention right

now to continue those, the administration of those the same way

that it has historically been done, or are you going to make any

changes in that?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. The only change that I’m aware of is that all

of the grants, including the fire grants, are brought under ODP, Office of Domestic Preparedness, simply for the purpose of having a

portal that all the grants be processed. We believe that makes it

easier. But the substantive review and the commitment at the administrative level will remain the same with emergency preparedness and response.

Mr. TIERNEY. So the application would go in as always and the

money would be directly out to the locals, as always?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes. Yes, right.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. OSE. I thank the gentleman.

I want to go back to a comment that you made earlier. I want

to particularly focus on this procurement consolidation for $100

million. Did I understand you to say that, by virtue of the procurement consolidation for DHS, you expect savings of $100 million?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That’s correct.

Mr. OSE. That’s just on the first year of expenditures?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. This is in our 2005 budget, and it is broken

down—office supplies, weapons and ammo, copiers, fleet motor vehicles, and IT savings is a big chunk of it I shouldn’t forget. So,

those are strategic sourcing savings.

Mr. OSE. That’s on the procurement side. So, in effect, you’ve almost a one-stop procurement shop there, where everybody’s request

can be consolidated and you can buy in volume, if you will?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Volume and efficiencies, yes.

Mr. OSE. All right. Now, on the other side of this, on the grant

side where assistance is being given out to local first responders,

that’s also been consolidated. I think your phrase was ‘‘one avenue

of access’’ for that. I want to build on that a little bit in terms of

first responders. Where do they go for assistance or guidance or direction? Whether you’re the fire department or law enforcement or

public health officers or whomever, is it DHS’s intention that each

of these different disciplines will have a one-stop portal, or will all

of the disciplines be grouped into a single portal?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. The change we’ve made is for the grant process, so that’s just really for the flow of money. Now, for technical

assistance and other support they still have varying agencies that

help them. For example, public health you mentioned. Obviously,

Department of Health has a huge role to play in that regard in

supporting them and directing them. The fire grants, you still have

the Fire Administration that supports them. If you are looking

then, of course, at police, they have a relationship with the law enforcement agencies that we would be supporting them, the Federal

Law Enforcement Training Center. So, it is a difference between

the flow of money and the technical expertise.

Mr. OSE. I am differentiating there, and that’s my question. I

think I understand the money flow side of things. I’m trying to unVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\94905.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
47

derstand the technical expertise. Is there a similar one-stop shop

concept for that?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. There is not now, but under the regional concept the Department of Homeland Security there will be that—they

will absolutely know who to go to on the regional level so they all

don’t have to go to Washington to call around. That’s one of the

major benefits of a regional concept.

Mr. OSE. All right. Now, with your cooperation—Ms. Miller, do

you have anything else for the Under Secretary?

Ms. MILLER. Could I ask one more question?

Mr. OSE. Certainly.

Ms. MILLER. Just very briefly—it is interesting in my counties—

and, again, I’m sure this is not unique—it seems as though almost

all the counties have identified as their priority their lack of ability

to communicate with one another for the different first responders,

particularly the county sheriffs, the police, etc. Do you have any

comment on what the appropriate role would be for your agency to

make sure that there is a standard, perhaps mandating the frequency or what have you, so as everybody is out purchasing these

new radio control towers at the cost of millions of dollars, that they

can—I mean, it’s great they could communicate within a county,

but how about the next county or State-wide?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I might not have the technical expertise to answer that question, but it is my understanding that this is really

not subject to a national standard, but it would be, for example, the

State of Arizona I know we’re setting some State principles in that

regard, knowing which system everybody should get on. States

might make a different decision in that regard. So, our priority is

interoperability of the communication systems. We direct that. We

give some flexibility obviously to the local communities as to how

to accomplish that.

Ms. MILLER. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OSE. All right. Mr. Under Secretary, we are going to leave

the record open for 10 days for questions for the record, so obviously when we send them we certainly appreciate a timely response.

We also, by consensus up here, think we might in 4 to 6 months

have another hearing just like this to discuss DHS’s progress. We’d

appreciate your cooperation on that.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Always.

Mr. OSE. It’s great to see you. You’re doing a great job. We appreciate your being here today.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thanks for your partnership.

Mr. OSE. All right.

We’ll take a 5-minute recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. OSE. We’ll reconvene.

As you may have seen in the first panel, as a matter of course

we swear all our witnesses. We are joined today on our second

panel by the following people: Mr. C. Morgan Kinghorn is the president of the National Academy of Public Administration. Welcome.

We are also joined by Mr. Edward Flynn, who is the secretary of

the Executive Office of Public Safety in the State of Massachusetts.

48

We are also joined by Mayor Karen Anderson, from the city of

Minnetonka, MN, on behalf of the National League of Cities. Our

fourth witness is Dr. Martin Fenstersheib, who is the health officer

for Santa Clara County Public Health Department on behalf of the

National Association of County and City Health Officials. And our

fifth witness is the former Administrator of the Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Mr. James Lee Witt, who is currently president of James Lee Witt Associates, LLC.

If you’d all stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

MR. OSE. Let the record show that the witnesses all answered

in the affirmative.

Now, as you saw in the first panel, what we do is we have each

of the witnesses from my left to my right summarize their testimony in the form of a 5-minute oral statement. We’ll then entertain questions from the Members present. I do want to remind everybody we have copies of your written statements and they will

be entered in the record, so if you could summarize and allow us

to get to our questions that would be great.

Mr. Kinghorn, you are first to be recognized for 5 minutes.

Welcome.

STATEMENTS OF C. MORGAN KINGHORN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION; EDWARD

FLYNN, SECRETARY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; KAREN ANDERSON, MAYOR,

CITY OF MINNETONKA, MN, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL

LEAGUE OF CITIES; MARTIN FENSTERSHEIB, HEALTH OFFICER, SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT,

ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY

AND CITY HEALTH OFFICIALS; AND JAMES LEE WITT,

FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, CURRENTLY PRESIDENT, JAMES LEE WITT

ASSOCIATES, LLC

Mr. KINGHORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to appear before you today to testify on the Department of Homeland

Security’s plan for the consolidation and co-location of regional and

field offices. I am the president of the National Academy of Public

Administration, which is an independent, nonpartisan organization

chartered by the Congress to offer trusted advice to public leaders,

including Members of Congress and agency policymakers. The

views presented today are my own and do not necessarily represent

those of the Academy, but they are based on a forum the Academy

held in late December with DHS officials and fellows of the Academy who are expert in intergovernmental relations.

There is little publicly available information on how DHS specifically plans to co-locate and consolidate its regional and field office

structures, so I will focus my remarks on issue DHS ought to consider as it develops and implements its plans. My comments are

centered on two topics. First, it is imperative that all stakeholders

fully understand that intergovernmental relationships are rapidly

evolving, and, second, it is essential that regional and field office

structures are effectively pieced together and managed within this

49

changing intergovernmental framework, and both issues directly

affect training, one-stop shopping, and first responder effectiveness.

I will now quickly highlight some key principles for managing

intergovernment relations under Homeland Security.

First, eliminate confusion. Many city, county, and State officials

do not yet sufficiently understand their functions, mandates, roles,

and responsibilities under Homeland Security. To address those

issues, DHS should: one, better articulate its intergovernmental

mission, vision, goals, and objectives; two, obtain widespread buyin from key stakeholders; three, widely publicize this intergovernmental framework as a high priority; and, four, as mentioned earlier, train and build capacity to accomplish that mission.

Second, balance command and control with collaboration. Intergovernmental relations have evolved from vertical, stovepiped systems into a much more complex, overlapping network that are both

vertically and horizontally linked. Within this very decentralized

network system, command and control are sometimes necessary,

but DHS should use collaboration, partnerships, and incentives

wherever possible.

Third, test the system against probable scenarios. DHS has conducted such simulations, but it should consider more sophisticated

capacity-building initiatives. This could involve taking a set of

multi-jurisdictional crisis scenarios and asking the partners in the

system to demonstrate how their personnel, equipment, protocols,

and procedures would respond.

Turning briefly to field and regional office issues, DHS office

structures must be derived from a clearly articulated mission—or,

in the case of DHS, missions—in order to effectively organize training, technical assistance, and information dissemination. Given the

complexity of homeland security, DHS may need a variety of field

and regional structures.

Next, DHS needs to consider advantages and disadvantages of

existing models. There is a wide range of structural models, from

strong regional directors such as at FAA to a coordinating committee approach such as the DOT or some other issue such as subagency differences within the Department. Each differ primarily

with respect to the extent to which the regional office controls what

goes on in the field. For DHS that control might need to change,

depending upon circumstances.

The Department should establish unambiguous lines of authority. The authority for critical incident decisionmaking should rest

as closely as possible in field offices directly affected by events. Regional office should play a role when, one, multiple field offices face

terrorist attacks or other large-scale challenges; two, when serious

interjurisdictional disagreements arise; three, when a policy is

being imposed over multiple jurisdictions; or, four, when consolidating functions in regional offices will achieve efficiency.

Headquarters must carefully monitor the field and regional activity. Failure and ineffectiveness in some past Government reorganizations have been attributed in part to lax oversight of field and

regional office activity. In most cases, DHS should place career civil

servants in regional management positions because they have experience managing large Federal organizations and responses to critical incidents. Political appointees would likely experience difficulty

50

maintaining long-term intergovernmental partnerships, since political positions typically turn over quickly.

DHS should ring out structural duplication while maintaining

necessary redundancy, and DHS as well as we should not confuse

duplication with the redundancy necessary to replace failed or immobilized components.

The Academy stands ready to assist your committee and the Department of Homeland Security in any way we can, and I thank

you for allowing me to share my views.

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Kinghorn.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kinghorn follows:]

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

Mr. OSE. Our next witness is Mr. Ed Flynn, who is the Secretary

of Public Safety for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Welcome.

Mr. FLYNN. Thank you very much. Good day, Mr. Chairman,

Congressman Tierney. Thank you for having me here. I am the

Secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety. In Massachusetts, that is a Secretariat that includes 10,000 employees and $1

billion budget. It includes our State Department of Prisons, our

State Police, our Emergency Management Agency, our Parole

Board. It includes the National Guard, the Registry of Motor Vehicles, and a wide variety of institutions and agencies. And in the

last year it has also started to include responsibility for Homeland

Security. When this administration took office, Homeland Security

was a separate stovepipe, a separate advisor to the Governor, and

it was certainly seen, if you would, to be a good idea to co-locate

that function in the Executive Office of Public Safety, which already had responsibility for emergency management and the State

Police and the National Guard and things of that nature.

To paraphrase a now-somewhat-discredited famous domestic advisor, ‘‘Co-location, it’s a good thing.’’ Now, I come to that conclusion based on many years of police experience and some very specific experiences of recent years. I have spent 33 years in the law

enforcement business. I worked my way up in the chain of command in Jersey City, NJ, before I became a police chief, first in

Braintree and then Chelsea, MA, and then finally in Arlington, VA.

I was the police chief in Arlington on September 11, 2001, when

the Pentagon in Arlington, VA, was attacked. Certainly that has

had an effect on my thinking when it comes to Homeland Security.

I work for our Governor, who was the executive in charge of the

first national special security event post-September 11. That’s Governor Mitt Romney. The event was the Salt Lake City Olympics.

So the two of us have very practical experience as to managing

Homeland Security in a post-September 11 world, and we come to

these responsibilities with very specific concerns about how this

business is conducted.

First and foremost, one of the things I learned at the Pentagon

is what we all know now, which is any community has the potential for being an incident commander for an act of international terrorism. We also learned that everything police and fire do at the

scene of a terrorist event arises out of their core mission. Finally,

we learned that no jurisdiction does this alone, that it is essential

to have mutual aid partners and an interjurisdictional response.

But certainly an interjurisdictional response in metropolitan

D.C., in which I had to coordinate the activities of seven major sophisticated police departments, is profoundly different than coordinating a similar response in, say, New Jersey or Massachusetts,

where there are 351 fiercely, proudly independent cities and towns,

each one of whose shoulder patch proudly proclaims what decade

in the 17th century they were founded. Coordinating that response

obviously puts a great burden on the State to be strategic, to coordinate those 351 cities and towns, to have some sort of strategy

that kind of operationalizes the military dictum that he who tries

to defend everything defends nothing. And, so it is in Massachusetts we’ve worked hard to leverage Homeland Security funding,

which is also spent through my office, to create interjurisdictional,

67

interdisciplinary partnerships, to create formulas that guide our

funding to make sure that the funding is risk based, vulnerability

based, and threat based, and, finally, to make sure that we are in

touch with our core constituencies. This arises out of the fundamental principle of organization which balances the desire to organize functionally with the need to functionalize geographically.

If there’s one thing the policing business learned in the 1980’s

and 1990’s particularly as we tried to engage with our communities

and have a positive impact on the quality of life and on crime, it

is that we had to be close to our constituents. Where possible, that

meant physical decentralization. That meant putting our cops in

the communities, be they in station houses or in storefronts, or at

least giving them geographic responsibility. We did the same thing

with our detective divisions. Why? Because we found out a long

time ago detectives don’t talk to patrol officers and patrol officers

don’t talk to detectives, and the fact is that in policing we don’t

tend to share information with people we neither know nor trust.

And to achieve that, whether it is within the precinct house or in

an interjurisdictional drug task force or gang task force, we’ve got

to put those cops together where they are going to talk to each

other, where they’re going to learn to trust each other, rely on each

other, and, yes, ultimately actually tell each other things.

Now, this is true in police work and it is true in most areas of

government—that we work collaboratively with those we know and

trust, and if we have them in the same building they’re going to

talk to each other, they’re going to buildup those trusting partnerships, and they are going to coordinate their activities. Certainly

we’ve tried to do that at the Executive Office, where the Under Secretary for Homeland Security and Public Safety are right next to

each other, as they are with the Under Secretary for Corrections.

We think they need to model the behavior that we’d like to espouse

for our Federal partners. We think there’s no better way to coordinate the central aspects of information flow than to have the people

responsible for that information in the same vicinity in a situation

in which they can communicate with each other.

Thank you.

Mr. OSE. Thank you for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Flynn follows:]

68

69

70

71

72

Mr. OSE. Our next witness is the mayor of Minnetonka, MN, the

Honorable Karen Anderson. Welcome. You are recognized for 5

minutes.

Mayor ANDERSON. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman

Ose and members of the committee. The National League of Cities

is very pleased to share our position on the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to reorganize, restructure, co-locate the regional and field offices of more than 22 agencies that were merged

in the new department.

I am Karen Anderson, mayor of Minnetonka, MN. I’m a past

president of the National League of Cities, and I am a member of

the Department of Homeland Security’s State and Local Senior Advisory Committee.

I understand our written testimony is already part of the record,

so I will just summarize some of that.

The National League of Cities is the largest and the oldest organization representing local governments in the United States. We

represent over 17,000 cities, towns, and villages. Our municipal

leaders are concerned about any plans to restructure the DHS field

offices. They know that will impact our local governments, our first

responders, and our ability to fulfill the expanded duties for emergency preparedness and homeland security.

I want to highlight four points that we urge Congress and DHS

to consider for the restructuring process: the importance of a centralized field office, the establishment of local task forces to help

in that, information sharing and best practices, and then all hazards planning.

First, the importance of providing a one-stop shop in the form of

a centralized office when possible would be a valuable benefit to

local government. Having a centralized office with the authority to

quickly garner the resources needed during a catastrophe, to perform the onsite coordination among Federal agencies, that’s all

paramount to improving the readiness and the response capabilities locally. A good example of a one-stop shop is Minnesota’s State

duty officer, whose office is available 24 hours a day 7 days a week

to determine the appropriate State agency and to identify and mobilize the resources that are needed in an emergency. This model,

when applied to the consolidation of field offices, could provide a

one point of contact to determine the appropriate Federal agency

and identify the Federal resources that are available to assist our

local first responders in an emergency.

The field offices could also provide local governments with the

technical assistance needed to plan for coordinated response, procure needed equipment, coordinate training and exercises, and secure grants.

Second, NLC strongly supports the creation of local task forces

that include local elected officials and first responders to facilitate

the establishment of efficient and workable co-located regional or

field offices. It’s a good government approach to ensure that the

input of all stakeholders is included early in the process.

Information sharing and best practices, third, I would like to emphasize the importance of sharing information and sharing our best

practices among all stakeholders. DHS can play an important role

in providing a centralized clearinghouse of best practices that are

73

drawn from all entities involved in emergency response and homeland security. That clearinghouse should be accessible to local governments and first responders through both DHS, but also through

the local field offices. That could be a point of collection for the best

practices, as well.

All hazards planning, fourth. DHS must build on the progress

made through FEMA’s focus on all hazards planning. This model

should be used in the consolidated field offices to integrate planning for natural disasters with the expanded duties for Homeland

Security. Our folks are most concerned that the resources already

developed for responding to natural disasters that we know are

going to occur—we are going to have tornadoes in Minnesota. We

know that and we are prepared to respond and we want to make

sure that those capabilities aren’t diminished or lost with the new

attention paid to homeland security.

Finally, NLC urges Congress and DHS to ensure that there are

enough resources and flexibility in the consolidation process to address the unique needs of every local jurisdiction. Using a one-sizefits-all approach to disaster preparedness is not the most successful

way to improve homeland security, and a careful analysis is needed

to ensure that these efforts don’t create an added level of bureaucracy.

We want to congratulate Secretary Ridge and his staff on the

progress that has been made within the last year, and we do appreciate the challenges that still lie ahead. To continue this progress

and ensure that the field offices are most effective we need strong

partnerships, collaboration problem solving, and enhanced communication. Mr. Chairman, NLC looks forward to working with you

and the Department of Homeland Security to build a national system of domestic preparedness that is flexible enough to prevent

and respond to all types of emergencies.

Thank you. I would be available for questions.

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[The prepared statement of Mayor Anderson follows:]

74

75

76

77

78

79

Mr. OSE. Our next witness is Dr. Martin Fenstersheib who is,

again, the health officer for Santa Clara County in California. Welcome, sir. We do have a copy of your written statement for the

record. You’re welcome to summarize in 5 minutes.

Dr. FENSTERSHEIB. Thank you very much, Chairman Ose, and

greetings from the great State of California.

Mr. OSE. Thank you.

Dr. FENSTERSHEIB. It is my pleasure to be here speaking to you

about this very important issue today. I am representing the National Association of County and City Health Officials, and it represents the nearly 3,000 local health departments across the country. I work at one such local health department in Santa Clara

County, CA.

We are really, really happy to be here, to be basically the new

kid on the block when it comes to first responders. I think it was

already—public health and health was already mentioned I think

by the chairman once today, so we’re very, very happy about that.

But it is a shift. I think it is a paradigm shift in the thought process and the perception of what first responders are today, and

clearly when we look at the issues of biological warfare, bioterrorism, public health has played and continues to play a major role

in what we are doing.

Now, in California we are really proud of the way we have basically worked our coordination efforts with our traditional first responders, and through the efforts of the funding from the Department of Homeland Security we have been able to secure some of

those funds, but it has been through the leadership within California that has directed those funds to include public health at the

table to make sure that discussions and integration and collaboration include the critical work of public health, be included, and that

we would also and I would also suggest be perhaps a guiding force

or some direction for the Department in the future, to really require that public health be at the table in all the negotiations for

co-location, for standardization, and for other types of planning

within the Department of Homeland Security.

I wanted to give you a couple of examples of how things really

work. Because of the integration and the work we have been doing

in actually sitting at the same table with the new players that I

consider not traditional in my field, which is the sheriff, my local

sheriff, my local police chiefs, my local county fire people, because

we have sat at the table, because we know one another I think our

response has been very, very effective.

Almost 1 year ago today in San Jose at the airport an American

Airlines plane landed there, and the pilot reported to us that there

might be a couple cases of SARS on board. We got that information

from county communications and it was required or requested of us

in public health to be the lead in the incident command. This has

never happened before. And I don’t know whether that’s a good

thing or not, but we did speed out to the airport and we entered

the plane as the first first responder to that incident. We actually

evaluated the situation on that airplane as it sat on the tarmac

and determined that there were a couple people that may meet the

definition of SARS.

80

This, again, was not a terrorist event, but certainly it could have

been any biological agent that we were dealing with. It could have

been smallpox that we were dealing. However, we did evaluate

those patients. We had the paramedics on board. We had the police

there. We had fire. We had HAZMAT units there. But we directed

the response. We had those patients get off of the plane and get

into the ambulances and go to our general hospital, where they

were evaluated.

Now, none of those patients turned out to be SARS; however, as

I said it could have been smallpox. Because of the training we’ve

had in public health, we have been vaccinated. We could have actually entered that plane safely and evaluated that incident had it

been smallpox at that time.

We’ve also been able to deal with some of the white powder incidents that have come up all across the country, and because of the

work, the integration, the collaboration that we’ve had with traditional first responders, recently one of the fire chiefs—one of the

police chiefs at a local municipality called me up and said that

there was a questionable couple of letters that had white powder

in it, what should he do. Again, unprecedented type of relations

with public health, mainly because this is the planning that we

have been doing under our directions down from Homeland Security.

We got that letter tested. It turned out not to be anything, which

was good, but we were able to do a risk assessment and work with

that local police agency to deal with the local response, and everything worked out fine.

On the education side, we were talking about cross training and

different types of education materials. We developed locally something which I think could be a national model. It’s called ‘‘Disaster

University.’’ It is something that public health has put together.

Here’s our brochure, first catalog. Basically, it is different courses

where we’ve served as a clearinghouse to bring people together and

train them. We have mental health professionals, again, which

should not be left out in this equation. We’ve had fire and police

trained in many, many different areas, and I think it will serve

again as a way of cross training and providing different levels of

expertise to others. We might expand that to some of the traditional agencies within the Department of Homeland Security whom

we don’t really talk with. TSA at the airport—we have no relationship with them whatsoever, and several other of the agencies. And

so I think, again, bringing some of those closer to where the first

responders actually work, where we work, would be very helpful.

We think that, again, that we have provided some really good

models, and California has taken a leadership role again, as I mentioned, really making sure that public health is at the table and

actually making sure that some of the funds from DHS are expended in the area of public health. IN fact, it’s 20 percent.

We welcome DHS’s leadership, and we want to be at the table.

We want to be at the table during planning, and we want DHS to

be at our planning table, also. Remember that public health is concerned with the health of the community, but we also are concerned with the health of the first responders and will be there to

protect them, also, before they go out in harm’s way.

81

Thank you very much.

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Doctor Fenstersheib.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fenstersheib follows:]

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

Mr. OSE. Our final witness on the second panel is Mr. James Lee

Witt, who is the former Administrator of the Federal Emergency

Management Agency. He is the president of James Lee Witt Associates, LLC.

Sir, welcome to our panel. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. WITT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this hearing today. I

appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to share my

thoughts.

First let me say I am extremely concerned that the ability of our

Nation to prepare for and to respond to disasters has been sharply

eroded. I would urge that you look at the consolidation of offices

and other areas of concern at DHS. You look at them for their effect on the local, State, and Federal partnerships for an all hazard

approach to emergency and consequence management.

During my tenure at FEMA, the staff and the resources of our

regional offices enabled our agency to maintain strong relationships

with our State and local partners and other Federal response agencies in the cities and States. These relationships were critical for

the effective communication and coordination before, during, and

after a disaster. Relationships built over the years facilitated our

ability to preposition staff, resources in advance of hurricanes and

flood disasters, helped expedite efforts in catastrophic disasters like

Hurricane Floyd, the North Ridge Earthquake, the Murray Building bombing, and many others across our Nation.

Through ongoing training and exercising of the administration of

our performance partnership agreements with the States in their

areas, our regional staff were able to truly know the State and

local capabilities, both strengths and weaknesses, so that our

FEMA team could hit the ground during a disaster and support resources that State and local government needed. Relationships that

were built over the years during disaster and non-disaster experiences allowed the regions and the entire agency to accurately identify the needs of the State and local governments’ first responders

and disaster victims.

I feel very strongly that these people in the front lines of the defense of our homeland must have the input into the policies of

DHS, especially in the discussion of regional and field offices. Everyone agrees that creating DHS has been and continues to be a

monumental and very difficult task. While many elements are providing essential security for our Nation, I and many others in the

emergency management community here and across the country

are deeply concerned about the direction FEMA’s all hazard mission is headed.

I hear from emergency managers, local and State leaders, and

first responders nearly every day that the FEMA they knew and

worked with has now disappeared. In fact, one State emergency

manager told me it’s like a stake has been driven in the heart of

emergency management of this Nation. They are suffering the impact of dealing with a behemoth Federal department rather than

the small but agile independent agency that coordinated Federal

response effectively and efficiently, understands the needs of its

local and State partners. They’re concerned that the successful

partnership that was built and honed over all of the years between

90

local, State, and Federal partners and the ability to communicate

and coordinate and train, prepare, and respond has gone downhill,

and they are at a loss as to how to work with the Federal Government now and they fear for their community should a catastrophic

disaster occur.

So what is it that is causing this concern? First, FEMA has lost

its important status as an independent agency. Instead, it has been

buried beneath a massive bureaucracy whose main and seemingly

only focus is fighting terrorism. And, while that is absolutely critical, it should not be at the expense of preparing for and responding

to natural disasters. While the likelihood of another terrorist attack

on our homeland is sure to happen, it is an absolute certainty that

our country will experience more natural disasters, and there will

be no question that some will be catastrophic. It is not a matter

of if, it is a matter of when and where.

Second, the FEMA Director has lost Cabinet status, and with it

the access and the close relationships with the President and Cabinet affairs. I assure you that we could not have been as responsive

and as effective during disasters as we were during my tenure as

FEMA Director had there been layers of Federal bureaucracy between myself and the White House. Just one degree of separation

is too much when time is of the essence and devastating events are

unfolding rapidly.

I firmly believe that FEMA should be reestablished as an independent agency, reporting directly to the President but allowing for

the Secretary of Homeland Security to task FEMA to coordinate

any type of response to a catastrophic terrorist or manmade event.

Historically, duty of consequence management following a terrorist event is important. We saw that in the Murray Building. We

saw it in September 11th. We saw it in several others. But I think,

Mr. Chairman, that the years that I have served in public service,

which has been almost 25, this experience that I had from local,

State, and Federal, and while I have seen and witnessed over many

years, partnerships working together with State and local government and Federal agencies is absolutely critical. We had one of the

most dynamic Federal teams in the Federal Government that I

have ever witnessed.

In closing, let me say this. The 8 years as FEMA Director I saw

Federal career employees work unbelievable hours, made sacrifices,

and made a difference for this country because they cared about

what they were doing, and I will never, ever forget that. So, thank

you.

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Witt.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Witt follows:]

91

92

93

94

95

96

Mr. OSE. As is our normal practice, we will now go through

rounds of questioning. Each Member will be given 5 minutes. There

is a clock there in front of Dr. Fenstersheib and Mr. Witt to monitor your time.

Dr. Fenstersheib, you mention in your testimony the State law

that sets up the five-member county-based, what term did you use?

Mr. FENSTERSHEIB. Approval authority.

Mr. OSE. Approval authority—thank you—for the expenditures of

Federal grant moneys from DHS. Now you’ve testified that it has

been a phenomenal or at least a reasonable success. Do you know

of any other jurisdictions outside of California that have used anything of a similar nature?

Mr. FENSTERSHEIB. I really don’t. I know that there’s certainly

close coordination for the urban area types of grants that are coming from DHS, but I’m not aware of any that are similar to California in this regard.

Mr. OSE. Besides Santa Clara, where else has this strategy been

particularly effective in California?

Mr. FENSTERSHEIB. Well, I am part of a group that encompasses

all of the health officials in the San Francisco Bay area, and we

were just talking about this last week, and everybody was agreeing

and shaking their heads that it has actually worked phenomenally

well. In fact, I spoke to the Office of Homeland Security’s Deputy

Director this morning to tell him that I thought that it was working well and that I was going to then pass that on to this committee, so I think it is working quite well.

Mr. OSE. So there are eight counties in that?

Mr. FENSTERSHEIB. Nine.

Mr. OSE. Nine?

Mr. FENSTERSHEIB. Nine counties.

Mr. OSE. All right. And they each have their own five-person adjudicatory body?

Mr. FENSTERSHEIB. They sometimes call us the ‘‘Gang of Five.’’

But yes, that’s it. It’s not under law; it is just a directive by the

Office of Homeland Security in California.

Mr. OSE. The State Office of Homeland Security?

Mr. FENSTERSHEIB. State Office of Homeland Security called

OHS.

Mr. OSE. All right.

Mr. FENSTERSHEIB. They also made it required that we have 20

percent, 20 percent, 20 percent for fire, law, and health, and 40

percent discretionary funds that we can all agree on for things such

as training.

Mr. OSE. OK. Now, Mr. Flynn, in terms of your experience both

in Massachusetts and then onsite at the Pentagon, would this kind

of a body have helped in terms of pre-event type of situation,

helped in terms of resolving many of the conflicts that you had to

deal with kind of in the crush of the moment?

Mr. FLYNN. Well, just for the record, even through the pleasant

haze of history we really didn’t have a lot of conflicts there, just

by nature of this region. As you know living here, there’s an extraordinary amount of intergovernmental collaboration already in

place because Washington, DC, metro has been at ground zero for

60 years, so there were very, very few interjurisdictional, interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\94905.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
97

disciplinary problems at the Pentagon because we had worked and

trained and drilled together, unlike most of the rest of the country.

Similarly to what California does now, Massachusetts, with its

next iteration of Homeland Security funding, has pledged itself in

its Homeland Security strategy, which has recently been approved

by ODP, to distribute this money based on jurisdictions that we

have fixed that largely mirror the old emergency management jurisdictions and regions of the State, and those regions will each

have a governing council made up of police chiefs, fire chiefs, emergency management directors, hospital officials, emergency management directors, and people representing the city and town manager

community, and that group will, in fact, decide who the fiduciary

is for that money, they will identify someone to assist with a regional plan, and they will be the ones making the decisions to distribute those funds. So we’re kind of taking a page from California’s book without knowing it, but we are going to apply the same

concept in Massachusetts.

Mr. OSE. All right. Now, Dr. Fenstersheib, I don’t mean to pick

on you, but I just—this Disaster University concept that you came

up with—first of all, I want to enter into the record the pamphlet

you have there, but I also would like to have you expand upon

what the Disaster University concept does.

Mr. FENSTERSHEIB. Well, it’s not a building but it is a virtual

university, and what we’ve done is co-locate a lot of the training

efforts and serve as a clearinghouse or resource, but we also provide—we have staff that oversee this. We put out—and I think it

is very useful just figuring out all that’s out there. I think a lot of

people don’t even know what’s out there for training. And so bringing everything together, getting the information out to the appropriate people that might benefit from those particular trainings,

get that information, sometimes bringing actual people out that we

feel need to be in our area to train, say, mental health professionals which we just had a couple weeks ago, which was very, very

valuable. I mean, mental health is often something that’s lost. And

actually the concept of just identifying what’s needed from all of

the jurisdictions and then bringing those and making those available, and then having something really that you can put your

hands around and look at like a university catalog and say, ‘‘This

is what is offered,’’ and actually offer credits, too, for those professions that have continuing education.

Mr. OSE. But that was not put together by the Public Health Office; that was put together by the county, so it is holistic?

Mr. FENSTERSHEIB. The Public Health Department is within the

county, and so we in Public Health actually have the staff that are

doing this.

Mr. OSE. But you have mental health, you have physical health,

you have law enforcement, you have fire.

Mr. FENSTERSHEIB. We’re doing it for them.

Mr. OSE. OK.

Mr. FENSTERSHEIB. So it is happening in public health, but it

brings everyone together and gets all of their requests and puts

them all into one place.

Mr. OSE. All right. Thank you.

Mr. Tierney.

98

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Witt, you have me concerned here with your testimony, so

let me ask. You’re indicating to us, I believe, that even before

there’s any attempt at consolidation or coordination amongst the

various DHS departments, you feel that FEMA has sort of had its

role subsumed and no longer able to respond as quickly, no longer

able to take charge of the consequence situation, and no longer able

to get a direct decision from the White House or the top as they

have in the past; is that correct?

Mr. WITT. Well, I’m very concerned about it, particularly as this

consolidation occurs, that I think it needs to be looked at very carefully because you don’t want to lessen the opportunity of the President to be able to make a decision very quickly, directly to the head

of FEMA or the agency that’s responding. I know in the past with

experiences I had, that one phone call and have that access, to be

able to make that decision very quickly makes a big difference, particularly for a Governor of a State. I think it has lessened the importance of an all hazard approach to consequence management. I

know, working with Congress and working with the White House,

it was absolutely important to be able to have access and to be able

to talk to chairmen, to be able to talk to Members, particularly in

Districts that have been affected. So yes, I think it has been lessened, and I think the—I am concerned about the regions, I’m concerned about consolidation. If a consolidation is within the municipality that they’re all in, that’s different and should be looked at.

But if it is broader than that, then that’s where I would have questions.

Mr. TIERNEY. I don’t speak for the chairman, but I know we were

originally talking about municipalities and local offices and the

benefit of tying them together.

Mr. WITT. Yes.

Mr. TIERNEY. That doesn’t concern you——

Mr. WITT. Not within that——

Mr. TIERNEY [continuing]. Drawing people in for an entire region.

Mr. WITT. Yes.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Flynn, how do Mr. Witt’s concerns impact Massachusetts? And what is Massachusetts doing to sort of confront

those types of concerns?

Mr. FLYNN. Well, we’re certainly working very closely. The Emergency Management Agency in Massachusetts is part of the Executive Office of Public Safety. It has a long and rich history of collaborating well with FEMA, as well as with the regions of Massachusetts that report to it for emergency management purposes. What

our priority is right now is making sure that emergency management works seamlessly with the rest of our Homeland Security efforts, which means really helping make it more intrinsic to the efforts of the State Police and the Department of Fire Services and

the National Guard by making them a prime provider of incident

command training for all of those jurisdictions of a higher level. So

we are trying to get our Emergency Management Agency to move

somewhat beyond its historic responsibilities for consequence management and mitigation and into a more proactive stance regarding

Homeland Security generally.

99

Mr. TIERNEY. If there was a natural disaster in Massachusetts,

who would the emergency management people report to directly?

Mr. FLYNN. Well, it would depend on who the incident commander was, obviously, and the type of incident it was. So clearly

every community becomes an incident commander if they have a

disaster. In that context, whether it is a fire disaster or a police

disaster or overall disaster, the Emergency Management Agency in

Massachusetts plugs right into whatever the incident command

system that is in place. Functionally, of course, they report to a

Secretariat, but in the field, of course, they are part of the incident

command structure.

Mr. TIERNEY. Suppose we have a huge flood in Gloucester, a lot

of devastation on that and it becomes a national area of concern

up and down the coast. What would be the process there? I mean,

how would the process differ than it used to under FEMA as it was

constructed prior?

Mr. FLYNN. Well, at the State level it doesn’t now, in our experience. I mean, certainly local emergency managers respond to or report to or coordinate, I suppose is actually the best term of art.

Local emergency managers coordinate with the regional emergency

manager who coordinates with the Statewide emergency manager,

and they make sure that the appropriate resources are brought to

bear. Their job is to coordinate a mitigation response, and they do

so very well.

Mr. TIERNEY. Suppose it is large enough that you want to get the

national perspective or whatever, take another step.

Mr. WITT. The next step is the State Emergency Management

Agency connects to FEMA and activates their responses.

Mr. TIERNEY. And now, Mr. Witt, you’re saying what happens

then under your concern.

Mr. WITT. Yes.

Mr. TIERNEY. Explain to me what you think is the problem

there—that they contact FEMA and under the old FEMA what

happens and what looks like to be occurring, what happens now?

Mr. WITT. If it was an event that was large enough that the

State and local government were not able to respond to to minimize

a risk to that State or those communities, then that State director

of emergency management would make a request to the FEMA regional director’s office, the regional director’s office. That would

come up to the headquarters or through the Governor’s office, and

the Governor would make a request to the President for either an

emergency declaration or full declaration.

The regional office then would work with the State in conjunction

with them in doing the very fast damage assessments and analysis

to see whether it was warranted for the President to make a declaration.

That speed is very important because it could mean whether or

not lives are saved and property saved, and that is my concern,

particularly when it comes to the national level. If Under Secretary

Michael Brown has to go through two to three layers of bureaucracy within the Department of Homeland Security to advise the

Cabinet and the President that the Governor of Massachusetts has

asked for an emergency declaration for public health and safety,

and that it is important to get the President to declare this immeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 16, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\94905.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
100

diately, if it goes through two, three layers of decisionmakers, that

chain can be broken very quickly and that speed could be stretched

a lot longer in getting something done.

So it is important that the Under Secretary, like the Director of

FEMA, be able to connect to someone to make that decision immediately and not have a layer between that decision process. That’s

my concern.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Witt, I’m going to get back to you, and

when the yellow light goes on I probably will, but I want to get into

some other issues because I think what you’re talking about right

now as far as direct decisionmaking has to do with anything that

we have to do and any type of disaster or whatever.

I was a former local elected official for 18 years, and I was a

county executive for 8 years and a county executive during September 11, and I know your pain or know your issues. And I think one

of the things that is very important when you deal with Federal

Government, to be honest with you, I didn’t really care much about

what the Federal Government did other than when they gave us

good grant money, and so what I found is that when we got money

directly from the Federal Government that came directly to the

locals without going through the Federal and State bureaucracy,

we would get the money right away, we could put it out in the

street, whether it was for cops or whatever. It was there. And when

I see a program that is too bureaucratic and doesn’t have that kind

of system, we need to look at it.

Now, Homeland Security really—the Department of Homeland

Security is a reality. We have to deal with it. It is broad. It is very

bureaucratic, and unfortunately it doesn’t have the resources that

it needs. When you don’t have the resources, you have to pick your

priorities.

Your comments, all of you, about being involved in the front line,

I mean, any good managers go to the front line and ask the front

line what they need.

In my District we did a—which is the 2nd Congressional District

and it has NSA, it has the Port of Baltimore, it has a lot of different areas, a lot of water, and I want to ask about Isabel. But

anyhow, in that District we did a survey of all local institutions—

volunteer fire, career fire, governments, whatever. Of all those institutions, 76 percent hadn’t received any money from Homeland

Security. So we have a problem here. We have an issue, and that’s

why we’re having this hearing.

I would like to know—I guess, Ms. Anderson, we’ll start with

you—what you feel needs to be—it’s just a broad softball question,

but what you feel you would like to see from your perspective as

mayor on what priorities would you need. Now, there are priorities.

There’s an intelligence issue where you have your local people getting together with the State, the Federal, and FBI, and Customs.

There’s one group dealing with intelligence. Then there’s the first

responder issue. Then there’s a lot of the medical issues afterwards

if something does occur. So from a local elected official, what would

you recommend? And if you could address the issue of baseline. I’m

going quick because I only have 5 minutes. I don’t see how we can

101

really have any standards until we have a baseline of standards so

that we know exactly what we need. What you need in your jurisdiction might not be what we need in Gloucester or need in other

areas, and we need to be more specific.

I know Congressman Tierney and Congressman Shays and I

have a bill in, a standards bill, to try to develop that. I don’t know

where the bill is right now, but you know hopefully we’ll be able

to move forward and at least get people thinking of standards.

Ms. Anderson.

Mayor ANDERSON. Well, as we know the resources are being directed through the States at this point. The National League of Cities did support that for the first year and a half. We recently

changed our position——

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Good.

Mayor ANDERSON [continuing]. And said that we believe that the

resources should go through the States except for those cities and

regions of over 100,000 and larger population or those with a specific, unique need that might need direct funding. And the reason

we changed our position is because the money isn’t getting to the

local level.

I think we are encouraged by movement just within the last couple of months that maybe some of that logjam is beginning to be

broken and being addressed. But, interestingly, the needs are different in every State and in many unique regions and areas, so I

think it is difficult to have it based on a national baseline or standard, and it may be very appropriate to do that on a regional basis.

But the locals need to know about that. They need to know with

some certainty where to go and how the baseline and the standards, where they are being developed and where they are and how

to respond. That’s where we see that the consolidated field offices

could be very helpful, because they will be unique to each.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And have input from the local level.

Mayor ANDERSON. Yes.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Have you been working with NACO, National Association of Counties, on this issue?

Mayor ANDERSON. We have been working with NACO on Homeland Security issues. The discussions about co-location and consolidation are very recent, so we have not, but we certainly will.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Witt, the issue of Isabel, a lot of the

area that I represent was on the water in Baltimore and different

parts and a lot of people lost their homes and hadn’t had that kind

of devastation in a while. FEMA eventually came in, but one of the

main reasons I think that we started to get the attention is that

we got Ridge to come. Once we got the man, I mean, the leader to

be there, then we were able to move forward. And I agree with you.

I mean, when you have a natural disaster you have to move quickly. You can’t wait. And, part of FEMA’s role pursuant to the Federal law is basically to help people in the beginning stages to get

them where they need to be. And yet when you have Coast Guard,

Customs, all these different arenas, I’d just like to know that you

have to take care of, too, because Ridge has a really tough job.

What would your—what do you know about Isabel and how FEMA

reacted with respect to that disaster and what recommendations do

you have to make it better?

102

Mr. WITT. Well, two things. One, it was very interesting on Isabel. We got a lot of calls from States. We got calls from Virginia

and Maryland and we advised them and helped them, some of it

privately. The response was not as good as it should have been.

The closeness of working with the State and local communities was

not as good as it had been in the past. I don’t think it is anyone’s

fault. I just think the fact that a lot of the focus and attention that

FEMA has had in the past on these type of events has been lessened because of demand on them for other priorities that have been

placed through Department of Homeland Security, which is important and critical. Don’t get me wrong, but I think what bothers

me——

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. But there has been a dilution of where it

was and where it is now?

Mr. WITT. Yes. Priorities change during different times, there’s

no doubt. But, what concerns me is the fact that, you know, we had

the Federal response plan in place, the national Federal response

plan that was amended after the bomb in the Murray Building to

include terrorist type events. Based on that, every State and every

local government prepared Statewide plans and local plans in preparing for and responding to an all hazard approach using the ESF

function at the Federal, State, and local level. So a system was in

place.

The problem I had is to save time, save money, and to move this

process much faster is why are we trying to reinvent the wheel instead of just adding more spokes in it that it needs. That’s one of

my concerns.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. OK. Thank you.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Kinghorn, you talked in your testimony about

something to the effect of we’re only as strong as our weakest link,

and I presume you’re suggesting that we have some specific points

that you identify as most troublesome, and I’m wondering if you

would be willing to share those with us.

Mr. KINGHORN. I think one of the things that I’m certainly hearing from this panel and our fellows who are involved in this—a

third of our fellows are from State and local government, local

health officials, and heads of most of the county organizations and

city organizations who have been involved in looking at these

issues—that the situation has dramatically changed. There were

two large scenarios done, one before September 11 and one last

year, Top Off and Top Off 2. One of the key things that came out

of that was the incredible size difference in the number of organizations involved in potential terrorism attacks other than natural disasters, and the real requirement to develop, as Mr. Flynn and others mentioned real relationships with different organizations.

I think it is not so much one city versus another as the weakest

link; I think it is this issue that was talked about today, developing

best practices from what is coming out from all the localities, because there is really no and there probably can’t be any centralized

control over what a best practice is. But, I think what could be

done is to share how, in these kinds of situations, people can react

better. There were over 120 different entities in Top Off 2 that

interacted. Just like we heard from Dr. Fenstersheib, we had new

people who never had become leaders in incidents being thrust into

103

those positions. I think that’s really what we meant by the weakest

link. When we have to really look at this in terms of unnatural disasters, terrorism, the situation can be quite different.

Mr. OSE. OK. Mr. Witt, I want to go back a little bit here. Congressman Ruppersberger brought up Hurricane Isabel. We’ve had

fires in California, things like that. I’m trying to figure out, in the

context of the discussion we had about standards, what is the

standard for response from the Federal Government? For example,

I carry around this little Blackberry all the time and it’s like I’ve

got a 30-second response to anything that happens. Sometimes I

like it and sometimes I don’t. But, I’m constantly in contact with

people in my office somewhere. So when we’re talking about FEMA

having been subsumed at the DHS, the standard for FEMA response should be——

Mr. WITT. Basically, using the fires in California as an example,

State director of emergency management, when those fires begin,

would contact the FEMA regional office in Sacramento, in San

Francisco, and say, ‘‘We have a situation that may expand. Would

you get your team here in our emergency operations center so they

can be here working with us,’’ and they would be there. They would

respond.

We had on the national, regional level, we had red, white, and

blue teams that were on duty for that particular month that, if

something like this was starting to take place, then this team

would automatically be there in support of that particular State in

the operations center. Then, if it expanded, then the team was

there supporting the State and being able to communicate that

back to not only the region but also to Washington.

Let me just share this with you. I was in Chicago and it was at

night when the fires were going on, and I called Dallas Jones, the

State director, to see if there was anything we could do to help

him. Chairman Jerry Lewis called me from California because it

was in his District, a big part of it, that night on my cell phone,

and he was—he said, ‘‘James Lee, I need some help.’’ I said, ‘‘Mr.

Chairman, what can I do to help you?’’ He said, ‘‘Well, the fire is

extremely bad. We’re going to lose a lot of homes,’’ and he was very

worried about it. And, he said, ‘‘Could you please tell me someone

within FEMA that I could call to talk to, because I cannot get anyone to return my calls.’’

Mr. OSE. Has FEMA’s approach in terms of the standby teams

changed? Do you know if these teams are still in existence?

Mr. WITT. Mr. Chairman, I could not answer that question. I do

not know.

Mr. OSE. I’m wondering how——

Mr. WITT. I have not been working—Mr. Flynn might be able

to—you’ve been working with them on it?

Mr. FLYNN. I haven’t had any complaints yet.

Mr. OSE. Well, I am concerned. You’ve suggested that perhaps

there had been significant change, and I’m trying to figure out

what the change might have been.

Mr. WITT. There has been so much change, you know, I cannot

answer that if they have been dissolved or added to because I don’t

talk to FEMA that much.

Mr. OSE. So we don’t know if they are still there or not?

104

Mr. WITT. No, sir.

Mr. OSE. All right. My time has expired.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Flynn, in light of the reports this week that

the State and city officials in the Boston area might not have been

informed after September 11th about certain boats carrying natural liquid gas, I’m interested in fleshing out a little bit about how

the communications system is working here. Can you tell me how

information on threats now gets relayed from the Department of

Homeland Security to the local first responders? What’s the process

on that? Who does it go through?

Mr. FLYNN. Well, I think it is important to note that there are

two sources of information now available to State and local police

officials. This can be good. It gives us more opportunities to get

more information. It can be bad when one source of that information doesn’t know about the information the other source is providing and can’t verify it. We had all three experiences. We get information from the FBI, frequently from the Joint Terrorism Task

Force, and that comes to us through our State Police members on

it, as well as the major jurisdictions. That’s certainly a robust and

effective investigatory task force. We also from time to time get

threat information from the Department of Homeland Security.

The difficulty is that sometimes it’s not the same information

from both entities, and there are times that one entity is unaware

of the information the other entity has. I would say some of this

perhaps is structural and goes back to the founding of the Department of Homeland Security, and clearly a significant component of

our law enforcement response to terrorism is not located in Homeland Security, and so therefore there are not perhaps the levels of

coordination at that level.

Mr. TIERNEY. That was a point back when it was being set up.

Mr. FLYNN. So, I mean, that’s certainly been a challenge for us.

Obviously, as you know, back home the local media have been all

over this LNG issue and who knew what when. I can say that I

called in my office just before I came here and asked if we’d gotten

any spontaneous phone calls from our Federal partners, and we

hadn’t yet, so I still don’t have any information to add to that

which was revealed yesterday, although I did buy a copy of the

book to read on the airplane to find out for myself what had gone

on. So I know what you know right now.

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, you know, ‘‘I told you so’’ is not a policy, so

I won’t get into that too much, but there was a lot of discussion

at the time as to, you know, pick 22 out of 133 agencies and organizations and clump them together and sort of somehow leave the

FBI out, along with others, and put certain other ones in.

The fire departments tell me that they’re not in the loop, that

DHS may notify local police officers, whatever, through the law enforcement, whatever, when there’s a threat out there, and the fire

department doesn’t seem to be indicated that they should get the

same level of detail that the police do, but they feel they ought to

somehow be included in notice of threats out there because it would

help them respond and they should be part of that. What’s your

feeling on that, Mr. Flynn?

105

Mr. FLYNN. Well, I think there’s two ways to look at this issue,

and I’d really like to turn the paradigm around a little bit after I

respond to the primary question here.

We work hard to keep our fire departments in the loop through

a notification system known as ‘‘SATURN,’’ and what that acronym

means——

Mr. TIERNEY. You’re talking about the State?

Mr. FLYNN. That’s correct.

Mr. TIERNEY. And, I guess, just to stop you, because I’ll be limited time, I’m really talking about the Federal flow of information

of threat assessment as it may go through the State or not.

Mr. FLYNN. Well, when DHS provides information to us we send

it out to our red, white, and blue teams, so, you know, the

boilerplate general threat information we provide immediately to

our fire partners as well as our State partners.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. Mr. Witt, have you heard similar

things on that? Is there any issues on that, if you can tell me about

what you’re hearing.

Mr. WITT. I have heard similar. I was in New York yesterday

and I visited with the fire commissioner of New York and some fire

folks, and I think it boils down to different States having different

systems in place and how they communicate, because a lot of times

you get into areas, particularly in the major metropolitan areas

and States with high population, you get into situations where

there’s a lot of turf wars, there’s a lot of ownership.

Mr. TIERNEY. That would never happen in Massachusetts.

[Laughter.]

Mr. WITT. So I don’t know if that is a fixable solution right now.

I think it is a doable thing in the future, but I think it is going

to take a little bit more time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Witt, besides FEMA and the concerns you have

for it being sort of subsumed into a bureaucracy, of any of the other

21 remaining agencies that are sort of connected at the DHS, do

you have a fear that any one of their missions or goals are going

to be put in the same sort of predicament?

Mr. WITT. I do have a lot of concern. You know, when I was at

FEMA we worked extremely close with SBA, HUD, Corps of Engineers, DOD. It was really a unique Federal team of 26 agencies.

And I do have some concerns. I had a lot of the disaster medical

teams across the United States contact me because they had basically cut the funding to the disaster medical teams that we had

built over the years. These teams are absolutely critical, particularly when you have catastrophic events. They responded to September 11 in New York, the Pentagon, and many other places.

They responded in North Ridge, Floyd. These teams are volunteer.

They are like Doctors Without Borders. They’re like our national

search and rescue teams, and they train very hard. They’re doctors.

They’re professionals. They’re paramedics. And they contacted me

and they could not get anyone at FEMA nor DHS or HHS to talk

to them. So I have a lot of concerns across the board in how it has

been handled. But, you know, Secretary Ridge has a huge responsibility and Under Secretary Hutchinson, White House is a fellow

Arkansan I know well and have met with.

106

And let me just say, too, when Joe Albaugh was at FEMA and

now Michael Brown—and I met with him quite often and had

lunch with him and told him, I said, ‘‘Look, anything I can do to

support you behind the scenes quietly that will help you to be successful, I will do, because if you are successful then I know that

the American people are going to be taken care of, because I’m worried about it, I’m concerned about it, and I still want to help and

do what we can.’’ But it has to be a partnership and it has to be

from the local, State, national level, because, you know, when Secretary Flynn in Massachusetts, if something happens you know

who is going to be there at the first. It’s going to be your local and

State first responders, emergency management, all of them. And

you know what’s interesting? They’re going to respond regardless

of what kind of equipment they’ve got because they care about the

community.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.

Mr. OSE. I want to thank our witnesses for appearing today. It

is interesting hearing the testimony, the challenges that lay ahead

of us. In its first year as a department, DHS has made significant

progress toward achieving its mission of reducing this Nation’s vulnerability to terrorism and preparing the various levels of government for dealing with any such disasters, whether they be natural

or otherwise. It’s clear we have a long road ahead of us. We’re not

doing everything perfect yet. You heard me ask Under Secretary

Hutchison about a followup hearing in 4 to 6 months. I think that

would be appropriate. We are going to leave the record open for 10

days for Members’ written questions. We’ll get them to you and

we’d appreciate a timely response.

We thank you all for taking the time to come down and participate.

We are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned, to reconvene at the call of their respective Chairs.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

Æ