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

23–158 PDF 2005

S. Hrg. 109–171

THE WAR ON TERRORISM: HOW PREPARED IS

THE NATION’S CAPITAL?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT 

OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 14, 2005

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

TRINA D. TYRER, Chief Clerk 

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

ANDREW RICHARDSON, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Minority Staff Director 

NANCI E. LANGLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

TARA E. BAIRD, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

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

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2005

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

U.S. Government Accountability Office .............................................................. 5

George W. Foresman, Assistant to the Governor of Virginia for Commonwealth Preparedness, Commonwealth of Virginia ............................................ 7

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

in the State of Maryland ..................................................................................... 9

Thomas J. Lockwood, Director, Office of National Capital Region Coordination, U.S. Department of Homeland Security .................................................... 10

Edward D. Reiskin, Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice for the 

District of Columbia ............................................................................................. 12

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Foresman, George W.: 

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

Prepared joint statement by Edward D. Reiskin, George W. Foresman, 

and Dennis R. Schrader with an attachment ............................................. 33

Jenkins, William O., Jr.: 

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

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

Lockwood, Thomas J.: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64

Reiskin, Edward D.: 

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

Prepared joint statement by Edward D. Reiskin, George W. Foresman, 

and Dennis R. Schrader with an attachment ............................................. 33

Schrader, Dennis R.: 

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

Prepared joint statement by Edward D. Reiskin, George W. Foresman, 

and Dennis R. Schrader with an attachment ............................................. 33

APPENDIX

Questions and Responses from: 

Mr. Jenkins ....................................................................................................... 68

Combined responses from Edward D. Reiskin, George W. Foresman, and 

Dennis R. Schrader ....................................................................................... 74

Mr. Lockwood .................................................................................................... 85

(1)

THE WAR ON TERRORISM: HOW PREPARED IS 

THE NATION’S CAPITAL? 

THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2005

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

WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE, OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 

SD–562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V. Voinovich, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Voinovich, Akaka, and Dayton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. The Subcommittee will please come to order. 

Good morning, I want to thank you for joining us today. This 

Subcommittee which has authorizing jurisdiction over the District 

of Columbia meets today to examine an issue of crucial importance 

to the Nation, the Washington region, and to each person present 

in this room: How prepared is the Nation’s Capital to respond to 

a terrorist attack? 

This hearing was requested by my friend and colleague, Senator 

Akaka, and we have been planning to hold this hearing for some 

time. I want to make it clear that it was not triggered as a result 

of what happened in London recently. 

The Office of the National Capital Region Coordination within 

the Department of Homeland Security was established in the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002. The Office was created to oversee 

and coordinate Federal programs and domestic preparedness initiatives for State, local, and regional authorities. Since September 11, 

2001, over $500 million have been directed toward the region to ensure that preparedness efforts across the region are fully coordinated, appropriately integrated, consistent, non-duplicative, effective, and efficient. 

Today we are holding this hearing to ensure that the Office of 

the National Capital Region Coordination, and the other responsible agencies of the Capital Region are adequately performing 

their roles. Various events and news reports have repeatedly highlighted the problems with the Office’s distribution of funds and the 

lack of coordination in the region’s response capacity. 

Because of votes that are going to be starting at 10 o’clock, I am 

going to ask that the rest of my statement be included in the 

record. 

2

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]

OPENING PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Good morning. Thank you for joining us. Today, this Subcommittee, which has authorizing jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, meets to examine an issue of 

crucial importance to the Nation, the Washington region, and to each person present 

in this room: How prepared is the Nation’s Capital to respond to a terrorist attack? 

This hearing was requested by my friend and colleague, Senator Akaka, and we 

have been planning to hold it for some time. 

The National Capital Region is home to the District of Columbia, the three 

branches of the Federal Government, two States, 12 local jurisdictions, and over 

four million Americans. The White House, the Capitol, the Pentagon, and countless 

Federal buildings and monuments throughout the region are as much the symbol 

of liberty, our history and values as a Nation as they are the centers of its governance. 

On September 11, 2001, the Region came under a terrorist attack from passenger 

airliners transformed into deadly weapons. One slammed into the Pentagon. The 

other, United Flight 93, headed toward the Capital Region, but never reached its 

mark. The heroism of the passengers aboard thwarted the attack, sacrificing their 

lives in the process. Though we will never know whether the terrorists aimed for 

the White House or the Capitol Dome, the intended consequence is clear. 

A little more than a month later, the region experienced an anthrax attack that 

took five lives nationwide, required the testing of thousands of mailroom employees 

throughout the region, and shuttered buildings around the city for months. I remember vividly the uncertainty as I was forced to leave my office in the Hart buildings for 4 months while it was decontaminated. 

Since then we have lived with the knowledge that the National Capital Region 

is a top target for terrorists. The recent barbaric attacks in London serve as a stark 

reminder that we have deadly enemies, intent on striking at the heart of our society. 

Now, as you look around the Capitol complex, you see numerous road closing, cement jersey barriers, the construction on the new Capitol Visitor Center, and thousands of green bollards around every building, to protect us from terrorist. Sadly, 

vigilance must be the order of the day. 

The Office of the National Capital Region Coordination, within the Department 

of Homeland Security, was established in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The 

Office was created to oversee and coordinate Federal programs and domestic preparedness initiatives for State, local and regional authorities. Since September 11, 

over $500 million have been directed toward the region to ensure that preparedness 

efforts across the region are fully coordinated, appropriately integrated, consistent, 

non-duplicative, efficient and effective. 

Today, we are holding this hearing to ensure that the Office of the National Capital Region Coordination, and the other responsible agencies of the Capital Region, 

are adequately performing their roles. Various events and news reports have repeatedly highlighted the problems with the Office’s distribution of funds and the lack 

of coordination in the region’s response capacity. When a Cessna airplane flew into 

restricted airspace, forcing an evacuation of the White House and the Capitol, it was 

later learned that neither Mayor Williams, nor the District of Columbia emergency 

services, were informed in a timely fashion. 

Earlier this spring, media stories highlighted the mismanagement of Federal 

homeland security money, such as: $100,000 to enroll District of Columbia sanitation workers in public speaking courses, and $100,000 to develop a song to teach 

children about emergency preparedness. 

Last week, The Washington Times reported that the District of Columbia failed 

to keep track of millions of dollars in Federal bioterrorism funds that it has received 

since 1999, leading to improper expenditures and spending delays. 

In a tight budget, with demands for homeland security funding that far exceeds 

the capacity of this Nation to furnish it, it is discouraging and frustrating to learn 

that coordination is lacking and that higher homeland security priories, such as 

equipment for first responders, is neglected in lieu of the above expenditures. 

Stronger management and accountability mechanisms must be implemented to 

avoid these mistakes in the future. 

In June 2004, GAO released a report which recommended that the Office of the 

National Capital Region Coordination work with local jurisdictions to develop a coordinated strategic plan to establish goals and priorities, monitor the plan’s implantation, identify and address gaps in emergency preparedness, and evaluate the effecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:44 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 023158 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\23158.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
3

tiveness of expenditures by conducting assessments based on established standards 

and guidelines. 

One of the greatest concerns noted in the report was the inability of the Office 

to account for the funds that were distributed. I am also concerned that despite 

GAO recommendations, a strategic plan has not been released. It is contrary to good 

management practices to proceed large expenditures without a strategic plan. We 

must do better. 

In closing, I would like to take a minute to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of those that work to secure this region every day: The emergency responders, 

fire fighters, local and Federal law enforcement, and military personnel. Thank you. 

It is my hope that today we will begin to identify and eliminate any hindrance to 

the capacity of these people to get the job done. To this end, I offer whatever assistance I can. 

I now yield to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, my good friend Senator 

Akaka, for an opening statement.

Senator VOINOVICH. I would now like to call on Senator Akaka, 

my colleague and the individual who encouraged me to hold this 

hearing. Senator Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

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

in welcoming our witnesses this morning, and I am going to be 

brief. 

I am grateful to—and I really mean this—my friend, the Chairman, for working with me and the Subcommittee in scheduling today’s hearing, which will analyze how well prepared the National 

Capital Region is for a major emergency. 

I believe that the NCR with its 12 jurisdictions in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, can serve as a coordination 

model and a test bed for other parts of the country in implementing 

homeland security policies. 

Our focus today is twofold. First we will look at how well the region’s State and local governments are coordinating amongst themselves and with the Federal Government. Second, we will examine 

whether Federal homeland security dollars are being spent wisely. 

I have a longer statement that I would ask consent to be made 

part of the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Thank you Chairman Voinovich. I join you in welcoming our panel of witnesses. 

I am grateful to my friend, the Chairman, for working with me in scheduling today’s 

hearing, which will analyze how well prepared the National Capital Region (NCR) 

is for a major emergency. 

I believe that the NCR—with its twelve jurisdictions in Maryland, Virginia, and 

the District of Columbia—can serve as a coordination model and a test bed for other 

parts in the country in implementing homeland security policies. 

Our focus today is twofold. First, we will look at how well the region’s State and 

local governments are coordinating amongst themselves and with the Federal Government and, second, we will examine whether Federal homeland security dollars 

are being spent wisely. 

Two months ago we were reminded of the importance of homeland security coordination in the Nation’s Capital when a small prop plane caused the evacuation of 

Federal buildings and the Congress after accidentally crossing into DC’s restricted 

air space. 

Although Federal officials responded quickly to the perceived threat, they failed 

to involve or even notify District officials. 

Last week, the vulnerability of metropolitan cities was demonstrated by the coordinated bombings of the bus and subway systems in London. The London attack 

was horrific and senseless. I believe this tragedy can teach us how to better prevent, 

4

deter, and recover from a similar attack in the United States. If such an event were 

to occur in the District, an effective response would require the combined efforts of 

Federal, State, and local officials because DC is home to the Nation’s Capital and 

adjoins two States. The coordination challenge that NCR officials face is more complicated than other areas of the country where there is less of a Federal Government presence. 

In addition, the NCR is required by DHS to share and administer Urban Area 

Security Initiative grants as a region. No single government has autonomous control 

over that funding. Reaching the necessary consensus between multiple jurisdictions 

on how best to spend the funding significantly compounds the work required to administer the grants. 

This is not the case anywhere else in the country. 

Sharing funding effectively while coordinating regional priorities is an exercise 

that other cities have not had to undertake yet. 

While the requirement of regional coordination has created challenges for NCR 

members, the NCR has a head start in creating an effective regional model, which 

is what the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is now encouraging throughout the country through its grant awards. The DHS Interim National Preparedness 

Goal, released this March, instructs State and local governments to collaborate regionally through mutual aid agreements to increase capability and share costs. Let’s 

not forget that the NCR began working on homeland security coordination and collaboration on September 11, 2001. 

Despite the significant progress made in the past four years, I have some concerns 

about the level of coordination in the National Capital Region. 

First, it does not appear that the District of Columbia Office of Homeland Security 

has a system in place to track homeland security funding being spent in DC and 

the surrounding counties. 

In response to a recommendation made in a May 2004 Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) report, the Homeland Security Office recently established a database 

to centralize all Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) funded projects being undertaken by the NCR. However as GAO will testify today, this database does not hold 

any information on other homeland security grant funding being spent in the region. 

How can the NCR ensure that its UASI funding is being well spent if there are 

no consolidated records on other ongoing homeland security programs in the region? 

Second, the NCR has yet to develop a strategic plan for homeland security in the 

region. 

Homeland security grants are not being spent to meet a set of cohesive, overall 

objectives. Instead, each project is considered on its individual merit. While this system may ensure that grant funds are spent on legitimate purposes, it does not enable the region to use grant funding efficiently to reduce vulnerability gaps and 

build capability. 

The NCR members are working on a strategic plan for the region but have not 

said when it will be finalized and implemented. 

I recognize that the NCR is working with limited staff and a number of pressing 

priorities. However, without a strategic plan, the NCR cannot effectively leverage 

the millions of Federal dollars awarded to the region every year for homeland security. 

Third, as the recent small plane incident shows, there are serious gaps in the coordination and communication between DC officials and the Federal Government. 

Mayor Williams, who is responsible for the District of Columbia and all those who 

live and work here, said he was not notified until after the event was almost over. 

This failure of communication may be attributed to any number of different missing links: The DC police officer stationed at the Homeland Security Operations Center was not informed of the violation by his HSOC colleagues because he lacks a 

Top Secret security clearance; the telephone line that connects the DC police command center with the Federal Aviation Administration was disconnected, and the 

Homeland Security Information Network never issued an alert to State and local 

officials. 

We cannot afford to have a layered system where every single layer fails. 

I know the men and women working to protect our Nation’s Capital have a neverending challenge before them and I recognize and commend them for their hard 

work and dedication. It is my hope that our hearing will assist these public servants 

by bringing needed attention to the critical work they perform. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you on this and other 

DC oversight issues in the future.

Senator AKAKA. As the Chairman noted, we will be having a series of votes at 10, and I want to give our witnesses all the time 

5

1The prepared statement of Mr. Jenkins appears in the Appendix on page 21. 

we can, and tell you that we appreciate your presence here and 

your responses, and I look forward to the testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. We are fortunate that we have some excellent witnesses this morning. William Jenkins is the Director of 

Homeland Security and Justice Issues at the Government Accountability Office. 

George Foresman is the Assistant to the Governor for Commonwealth Preparedness for the State of Virginia. Thank you for being 

here. 

Dennis Schrader is the Director of Maryland Governor’s Office of 

Homeland Security. 

Thomas Lockwood is the Director of the Office of the National 

Capital Region Coordination in the Department of Homeland Security. 

Finally, we have Edward D. Reiskin, the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice for the District of Columbia. 

Gentlemen, it is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in all 

the witnesses. If you will stand, please, and be sworn in. 

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

so help you, God? 

Mr. JENKINS. I do. 

Mr. FORESMAN. I do. 

Mr. SCHRADER. I do. 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. I do. 

Mr. REISKIN. I do. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

We will start out with you, Mr. Jenkins. I would request that you 

limit your testimony to 5 minutes, and I assure you that the rest 

of your testimony will be made part of the record. I do want to 

apologize in advance, but because of the limited time we have 

today you will probably receive questions from the Members of this 

Subcommittee in writing. We would appreciate your getting back to 

us as soon as you can with your written responses. 

Mr. Jenkins. 

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

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. JENKINS. Thank you. Chairman Voinovich and Ranking 

Member Akaka, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing on efforts to use Federal grants to enhance emergency preparedness in the National Capital Region. 

A coordinated, targeted and complementary use of Federal homeland security grants and all other available resources for enhancing 

emergency preparedness in the region is important. Effectively 

managing and using these funds is one mean of achieving an important goal: The ability of first responders to prevent where possible, prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks 

and other major emergency incidents with well-planned, well-coVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:44 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 023158 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\23158.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
6

ordinated and effective efforts that involve a variety of first responders from multiple jurisdictions. 

The Office of National Capital Region Coordination was created 

by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to coordinate Federal, State 

and local efforts to secure the homeland in the NCR and to assess 

and advocate for State, local and regional resources needed in the 

NCR. 

Effectively managing first responder funds requires the ability to 

measure progress and provide accountability for the use of available funds. This requires a strategic approach to homeland security 

that includes identifying threats and managing risk, aligning resources to address them, and assessing progress in preparing for 

and mitigating those threats and risks. 

In May 2004 we reported that the NCR faced three interrelated 

challenges in managing Federal funds in a way that maximizes 

their effectiveness and minimizes inefficiency and unnecessary duplication of expenditures. Those were: (1) the lack of preparedness 

standards; (2) the lack of a coordinated region-wide strategic plan 

to guide expenditures; and (3) a readily available, reliable source 

of data on funds available to first responders in the NCR and their 

use. 

Without the standards, a region-wide plan and data on available 

funds and their use, it is difficult to determine whether NCR first 

responders have the ability to respond to threats and emergencies 

with well-planned, well-coordinated and effective efforts. 

In our May 2004 report we made three recommendations to the 

Secretary of Homeland Security that addressed these three interrelated challenges. The NCR has made progress in implementing 

these recommendations, but none has yet been fully implemented. 

Specifically, first, we recommended that the NCR develop a strategic plan that includes performance goals and priorities that could 

be used to guide the use of funds to enhance emergency preparedness in the NCR. According to the Office of National Capital Region Coordination, a final draft for review has been completed and 

circulated to key stakeholders, and will feature measurable goals, 

objectives, and performance measures. 

Second, we recommended that the NCR monitor the strategic 

plans implementation to ensure that funds are used in a way that 

promotes effective expenditures that are not unnecessarily duplicative. This cannot be done, of course, until the final plan is final. 

The key to implementing this recommendation is data on funds 

available in the NCR for emergency preparedness and their use. 

Currently, the NCR, through the D.C. Office of Homeland Security, 

maintains data on Urban Area Security Initiative funds and funds 

that are allocated directly to the District of Columbia. However, at 

this time it does not have uniform, reliable and readily available 

data on funds available to NCR jurisdictions from non-UASI grants 

such as the State homeland security grants. NCR officials recognize 

the need to develop a more systematic means of capturing information on all homeland security grant funds available and their use 

within the NCR. 

The third recommendation was to identify and address gaps in 

emergency preparedness in the NCR and evaluate the effectiveness 

of expenditures in closing those gaps. To date, no systematic gap 

7

1The prepared joint statement of Mr. Reiskin, Mr. Foresman, and Mr. Schrader appears in 

the Appendix on page 33. 

analysis has been completed for the NCR as a whole. However, by 

March 2006 the NCR plans to complete a gap analysis using the 

National Emergency Preparedness Standards of the Emergency 

Management Accreditation Program. 

At some point this effort must be integrated with the performance standards that DHS has developed as part of its national preparedness goal. Since our May 2004 report, DHS has developed a 

list of 36 capabilities in terms of planning, training, equipment and 

exercises that first responders would need to develop and maintain 

to effectively prepare for and respond to major emergency events 

that would require the resources and participation of first responders from Federal, State, and local jurisdictions. 

We applaud the efforts that the NCR has made to implement our 

recommendations. We believe that fully implementing them will be 

a major step toward developing the structure, processes and data 

needed to assess and develop emergency preparedness capabilities 

in the NCR. 

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Be pleased to respond to any questions you or Senator Akaka have. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Foresman. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE W. FORESMAN,1 ASSISTANT TO THE 

GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA FOR COMMONWEALTH PREPAREDNESS, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. FORESMAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Senator, thank you 

all for holding this hearing today, and we very much appreciate the 

opportunity to talk about the progress that has in fact been made 

in the National Capital Region. 

We have submitted joint written testimony on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland and the District of 

Columbia in our continuing spirit of cooperation. 

We have four goals for the Subcommittee today. First, we want 

to place our collective work in the NCR into the broader perspective impacted by recent history, current progress and future plans. 

Second, we want to help this Subcommittee, other Members of 

Congress, and most importantly, our citizens understand the real 

and tangible actions that we have taken to achieve higher levels 

of regional coordination to prevent attacks, and if necessary, to respond in the National Capital Region. 

Third is a desire to articulate progress by pointing to measurable 

steps that we have taken in a collaborative fashion with our partners at the local level, in the private sector and with our Federal 

partners that will improve the region’s readiness, both in the context of the public and private sector. 

And finally, we want to reassure this Subcommittee and the Congress as a whole—you all are residents of the National Capital Region much of the time, your staff are residents all of the time—that 

we remain focused for the longer term efforts as we recognize that 

the threats that we face as a Nation, as region, as communities, 

will not diminish in the near term. 

8

Clearly we have made much progress, but there is one principle 

that has underscored everything that we have done since the tragic 

hours of September 11. The phenomenal coordination challenge 

that we face in the National Capital Region is driven by our strict 

adherence to the principles set forth in the formation of this great 

Nation of ours. There is no single person, office, level, or branch of 

government vested with the ability to direct the full range of preparedness activities across all others in the region. So we adhere 

to the principle that while challenging, collaboration, and coordination must be followed lest we undermine the very values of governance that America is seeking to preserve. 

What I would offer to you—and I think Mr. Jenkins has done a 

nice job of underscoring some of the issues—is it is easy to say that 

we must do a better job of coordinating regionally, it is phenomenally difficult to make that happen on a day-to-day basis, but it is 

a challenge that we remain committed to in the National Capital 

Region. 

The NCR presents a unique coordination challenge for those who 

protect its residents and institutions, especially from the threat of 

terrorism. Recognizing the evolving character of the threat and the 

need for new types of collaboration, we are working in partnership, 

local, State, Federal, and private sector, to reduce the vulnerability 

of the NCR from terrorist attacks, and to do a better job at managing the full range or risks that we face on a day-to-day basis. 

There is much activity occurring in many domains. Efforts to improve health and medical readiness are being supported by the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Actions to improve the military’s readiness to support civil authorities at home 

here in the National Capital Region is being led by the Department 

of Defense. The Department of Homeland Security is one of many 

focal points of Federal activities that we have to work with across 

the National Capital Region, and they are of course focused on 

many areas ranging from intelligence sharing to border security, 

and clearly, Secretary Chertoff has set a new standard yesterday 

when he announced the reorganization and refocusing of the Department as part of the second stage review. 

All of these activities impact us at the local and the State level, 

and it is important that we continue to coordinate across the Federal family, across all branches of the Federal family, to ensure 

that we have a coordinated and seamless strategy for dealing with 

emergencies and disasters. 

You will hear from our discussions today, from my colleague, 

Dennis Schrader in Maryland, Ed Reiskin in the District of Columbia and Tom Lockwood from the Office of National Capital Region 

Coordination, about how regional coordination has been developed 

over the course of the past 4 years, and how it represents a complex structure, but a complex structure that nevertheless is needed 

in our structure of government in this country. 

Regionalism is important to the future of managing risk in this 

country, and many of the lessons that we have learned in the National Capital Region are certainly applicable to other regions of 

the country. 

But we remain committed to creating an enterprise of preparedness in the National Capital Region that assesses the risks and alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:44 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 023158 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\23158.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
9

1The prepared joint statement of Mr. Reiskin, Mr. Foresman, and Mr. Schrader appears in 

the Appendix on page 33. 

lows us to control our destiny. At the end of the day, we remain 

committed to ensuring that we control our priorities, our destiny 

and our focus in terms of our ability to prepare for emergencies and 

disasters, including terrorism, and we will not allow our enemies 

to charge those priorities for us. 

At the end of the day, preparedness in the National Capital Region is a fundamental responsibility that all of the governors, the 

Mayor of the District of Columbia, are committed to, and we recognize that all emergencies and disasters, irrespective of where they 

occur, are local and State issues and will be dealt with by local and 

State officials. 

We very much appreciate the opportunity to testify today. My 

colleague, Dennis Schrader, from the State of Maryland, will now 

talk about the governance structure. 

TESTIMONY OF DENNIS R. SCHRADER,1 DIRECTOR OF THE 

GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY IN THE 

STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka. From 

the very beginning, going back almost 36 months now—that anniversary will be on April 5, 2002—the two governors, the mayor and 

the President’s office came together around eight commitments to 

action, and this has been an evolving governance process. But the 

key to the governance process from the very beginning was deliberate focus on management of the program, and accountability for 

every action that we take. Having that kind of an accountability in 

a complex environment like this really required that the principals 

had their people working very closely together. It is a privilege for 

me to be working with my colleagues from Virginia, DC, and the 

Office of National Capital Region. 

Early on we determined that as resources would come into the 

National Capital Region, it had to be centrally managed, and we 

determined that the most appropriate way to handle that was to 

have the District of Columbia be the State administrative agency 

for those resources, and we are very pleased with the job that they 

have done on our behalf. 

We meet monthly face-to-face. Our principals, the governor and 

the mayor meet approximately quarterly on a variety of issues. 

Homeland security is one of them. So each of us feels a mutual responsibility to each other for the evolution of this process. 

The first 18 months was spent working hard on how to put the 

governance structure together. One of the eight commitments was 

around decisionmaking and coordination, and there was a lot of 

time spent on that, and actually, that was done before the Department of Homeland Security was established. 

With the establishment of the Office of the National Capital Region with the stand-up of the new department in early 2003, that 

office evolved, but it has really taken off to a new level under Tom 

Lockwood’s leadership since May 2004, and his energy and commitment to bringing us all together and driving this to a new level has 

been laudable, and we appreciate that, at least in Maryland, and 

10

1The prepared statement of Mr. Lockwood appears in the Appendix on page 64. 

the other States. I think I can speak for my colleague in Virginia 

and DC. 

We continue to focus on a day-to-day basis on project management. That process evolves. But also in the governance process we 

learned early on—and we had a major milestone in February 

2004—that we needed to bring the local jurisdictions into the governance process, and we formally brought the chief administrative 

officers from the local jurisdictions into that process. And you have 

a document, which I will not go through, but that lays out the 

structure of how all that works, and in collaboration with the 

Emergency Preparedness Council, which gives us visibility for the 

local elected officials, the private sector and other regional government agencies, as well as the nonprofit sector. 

So this governance structure was agreed upon in February 2004, 

and we have been exercising that since then, and I will be honest 

with you, we have had a lot of bumps and grinds, as any major 

process like this, but I believe the commitment, the week-in and 

week-out, we actually have a conference call every Friday at noon 

that we have together, and it is very rare that all of the folks from 

the principal team are not on that call. 

So the last thing I will leave you with is that we also have a bottoms-up process within the CAO group. They have visibility on all 

what are called the emergency support functions. The local emergency responders from all the various communities, the 15 emergency support functions, and that is managed by the chief administrative officers with the help of the Washington Council of Governments, and that is a very complex process. 

Let me just leave you by saying we have had a number of very 

important milestones. We have bought 1,000 800-megahertz radios 

that are shared within the region and can be deployed at a moment’s notice. That was a very major improvement. We have interoperability teams that are working. We have bought 9,000 sets of 

turnout gear for all the fire and emergency medical responders in 

the region, and we have reached out to the physical disabilities 

community. We have a citizen education program under way, and 

we are focused also on critical infrastructure protection and training and exercises. 

I will stop there, but I will say that our governance process is 

evolving, it is working, and it is very focused on accountability and 

management. Thank you, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Lockwood, how long have you been with 

DHS? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Since about May 2004, so I am coming up past 

my 1-year anniversary. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. LOCKWOOD,1 DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

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

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Thank you for allowing us to come. Again, this 

work that we do is truly a collaborative effort between Federal, 

State, local government, and the private sector, including our notVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:44 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 023158 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\23158.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
11

for-profit community and our regional partners. So again, I want 

to recognize all of the partners that we have in the region. 

These partners have been significant in putting together and 

planning regionally to lead the Nation in that concept. We continue 

to work closely, and in the near term, we very much intend to come 

out with a regional strategic plan, one that is based on all of those 

partners, their comments, their concerns, about this region, going 

back almost to 2003, at which time we were in the State of Maryland as part of the Maryland Homeland Security team very much 

coordinated even back then with Mike Burns. We appreciate the 

work that Mike and the White House has done to lay out this 

ground work. 

We use the UASI grant really as a tool to begin integrating the 

region. We had three critical points at that time: To prevent terrorist attacks in the NCR, to reduce the NCR’s vulnerability to terrorism, and to minimize the damage and recover from attacks that 

do occur. 

This framework of cooperation, this framework of true regional 

capability, of committing the resources to regional initiatives, really 

was the ground work for where we are at today, so that was a 

great move on Congress’ part to allow those resources to be committed to regions. 

But as indicated by GAO, there was much more work to be done. 

This was a first step. The next step was really to bring in the concept of standards, performance measures, to really articulate a 

common regional strategic plan that integrates Federal, State, and 

local spending to prioritize as a community, and we have aggressively followed up on those recommendations. 

Again, the need for this plan again is to establish coordinated regional goals and priorities for the enhancement of homeland security and first response capabilities within the NCR to guide, integrate and ensure efficient spending of security dollars, of grant dollars, of budgeted dollars in resources, and again, to provide a 

means for actual improvements that are being made. 

We also have some key principles that we developed that is going 

to guide us, and probably the most important one, strengthening 

regional coordination among all partners to gain synergy while sustaining jurisdictional authority and enhancing capabilities. That 

truly means we are working as a team. 

A couple other key points: To prepare for all hazards including 

manmade and naturally occurring emergencies and disasters, so 

that this is part of our day-to-day practices and expandable in the 

event of an emergency. We have another key piece in this region, 

to foster a culture of collaboration, respect, communication, innovation, and mutual aid among all the homeland security partners. 

When we talk about these partners again we have six forms of constitutional government that we deal with every day, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, the District of Columbia, 

with the Legislative Branch, the Judicial Branch, the Executive 

Branch, how do we coordinate together as a team. 

We are developing and we will be publishing shortly the National 

Capital Region Homeland Security Plan. This is not a invented 

plan. This builds upon all the previous work over the past several 

months, the work that the police chiefs, fire chiefs, emergency manVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:44 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 023158 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\23158.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
12

1The prepared joint statement of Mr. Reiskin, Mr. Foresman, and Mr. Schrader appears in 

the Appendix on page 33. 2Table 1 appears in the Appendix on page 46. 

3Table 2 appears in the Appendix on page 47. 

agement communities in the region, pulling all of that work together to meet the intent of where GAO was commenting that we 

really want to have better coordination and visibility amongst the 

funding streams. A key step is building those performance measures, and this regional assessment that we have done, both across 

the region and with jurisdictions, will be a key piece in that. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Lockwood. Mr. Reiskin. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD D. REISKIN,1 DEPUTY MAYOR FOR 

PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Mr. REISKIN. Good morning. Thank you. My name is Ed Reiskin. 

I am the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice for the District of Columbia. I appreciate the opportunity as well to round out 

this discussion with my partners from Maryland, Virginia, and the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

I am going to talk about funding, which has been an area of 

focus for us and I know an area of interest for you. One of the 

major sources for regional homeland security efforts, sources of 

funding since 2003 has been the Urban Area Security Initiative, 

fondly known as UASI. In the National Capital Region it has been 

one of our major areas around which we have coordinated and 

worked together as a region. 

As Dennis mentioned, the District of Columbia serves as the administrator or State administrative agent for the region’s homeland 

security funds through UASI, and to that end we have established 

an Office of Homeland Security within the Executive Office of the 

Mayor to perform that function. The purpose of the Office is 

through agreement with all the participants, to provide a comprehensive grant oversight program for the entire region, and we 

collectively have made it a priority of that office to make certain 

that all UASI grant funds are expended effectively, efficiently, 

timely, and consistent with grant guidelines and desired outcomes. 

This Office serves as the reliable and primary source of information on the Homeland Security grant programs, including criteria 

used to determine spending priorities and actual expenditures. 

Since the establishment of this Office, there have been a number 

of benefits that creation of this Office has provided to the region. 

As outlined in the table, Table 12 in the testimony we submitted 

for the record, the Office is currently managing UASI grants totaling over $170 million. Over 90 percent of these funds allocated to 

the region since 2003 have been either expended or obligated, as 

detailed in Table 23 in the testimony. 

Despite that relatively high number, we do acknowledge that the 

level of spending is relatively low when measured solely on a grant 

expenditure basis. However, it is important to note that there are 

no significant dollars that have not been programmed. They are not 

technically expended. Virtually every dollar is tied to a project that 

is currently in progress of completed. 

13

However, funds are only deemed expended when the goods or 

services have been received, the invoices have been received and 

processed, accounting entries are completed within financial systems and quarterly reports sent to the Federal Government. 

We, therefore, believe that basing an evaluation of any region’s 

homeland security spending purely on its rate of official expenditure is not the best measure of its effectiveness. Analysis of funds 

allocation and progress on each project better provides an evaluation of how and whether the funds are being spent. An analysis of 

the outcomes ultimately will determine if they have been spent 

wisely. 

The reason why our spending rate is low, however, compared to 

other UASI regions, is that following the receipt, programming and 

expenditure of congressionally appropriated funds in 2002, the region was very deliberate in its execution of the then-new homeland 

security grant program. As you have heard, we have a lot of stakeholders and a complex system in which we work, and determining 

how to best use these valuable grant resources takes time, and particularly when we first came together as part of this regional process, we needed to ensure that we had all of the stakeholders involved and systems in place to ensure a viable process. 

Nevertheless, and with the help of recommendations from the 

GAO, we constantly strive to improve our administrative processes 

and have done so, and in the coming year we will focus the Office 

on strengthening the region’s overall management reporting mechanisms with regard to these grants. 

We are currently taking several steps to develop these enhanced 

mechanisms such as building program management capacity to assist with managing and monitoring the region’s homeland security 

grant activities and the development of a regional web portal to 

create a collaborative environment for stakeholders throughout the 

region. 

So we, therefore, believe we are on a good track from an administrative perspective to provide the support needed for this complex 

process to ensure that we manage the use of these funds to achieve 

the outcomes that will make the region safer and more secure. 

So with that, you have heard about how we are organized, how 

we have strategized and managed ourselves to work towards the 

achievement of our homeland security vision for our unique and beloved region, and while we are unique in many respects, we hope 

that there are lessons learned for other areas of the country so that 

they, too, can transcend political jurisdictional boundaries to make 

their regions, and therefore the country, safer and more secure. 

That concludes our statement and we welcome the opportunity to 

discuss this further. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. In my opening statement there were references to some areas that I have concern with. 

In particular, I am referring to the first Cessna that flew into the 

restricted air space, forcing the evacuation of the Capitol. We later 

learned that it took 30 minutes for that information to be shared 

with the District of Columbia, the mayor, and the chief of police. 

I suspect that you have remedied that situation? 

Mr. REISKIN. We have. 

14

Senator VOINOVICH. I want to say to all of you that I am impressed with your testimony today. As a former governor, and especially in the Cincinnati area where we have three States that come 

together, I know how difficult it is to get everybody together. The 

fact that you have all appeared here and presented joint testimony, 

is an indication that you recognize in terms of governance and 

working together, how important it is that you continue that. I am 

very pleased to hear that you talk quite often. I am also pleased 

to see that each of you in your own respective jurisdictions, particularly the States, have your own various local government groups 

that you stay in touch with. 

I would be interested in knowing what kind of a mechanism you 

have put in place to allocate resources. I know in my State of Ohio, 

there is a significant amount of grant money coming into the State. 

Allocating these funds in an effective and efficient manor is difficult. How do you go about allocating those funds in this region? 

Mr. FORESMAN. Mr. Chairman, the easy way would be to simply 

allocate it on a population based formula, but we chose very early 

in the process not to do that. Essentially, the process works like 

this: We take a broad category, a broad pot of dollars, if you will, 

in terms of the UASI grant availability. Throughout this process 

we have continued to identify the needs at the local level, statewide, region-wide, and essentially using the ESF structure, the various support functional activities, proposals permeate up through 

those ESF functional areas, they come forward to the chief administrative officers, who then rack them and stack them and 

prioritize them. They subsequently come forward to the senior policy group——

Senator VOINOVICH. Who are the chief administration officers? 

Mr. FORESMAN. County managers, city managers, that type of 

thing, comes forward to the senior policy group. And we have had 

a little bit of a variation on it——

Senator VOINOVICH. Who is the senior policy group? 

Mr. FORESMAN. That would be the six representatives of the two 

governors and the mayor. It is typically the Homeland Security Adviser and the State Emergency Management Director, as well as 

two representatives from the Office of National Capital Region. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Who staffs that for you? 

Mr. FORESMAN. We staff it using part of the administrative 

funds. We staff it through the district’s Office of Homeland Security through contract support to provide——

Senator VOINOVICH. You are using the EMPG funds then to do 

that. 

Mr. FORESMAN. No, sir, using UASI funds. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. 

Mr. FORESMAN. But what it essentially provides for is a distributed process that allows those same key decisionmakers that make 

budget decisions at the local level, chief administrative officials, to 

make budget decisions with regard to Federal allocations. Simply 

put though, getting 12 local jurisdictions, say the fire community, 

for instance, it requires getting 12 fire chiefs to agree on spending 

priorities within the fire discipline across local jurisdictions and appropriate State agency folks. It is not easy. It is new. But it is 

working thus far. 

15

Senator VOINOVICH. When I was Mayor of Cleveland it was difficult to get anybody together. Since September 11, things have 

changed. Because of the initiative that we have taken on the Federal level in terms of providing funds, it is amazing the coordination and cooperation that we are seeing in the States. Good people 

are getting together and backing off their turf, trying to get the job 

done. 

One of the things that I think people fail to realize is that here 

in the District we are obviously more vulnerable than other places 

in the country. As Senators, we have men and women that work 

for us. Many of us are here during the week and go home on the 

weekends. The people who work in our offices live in this region 

and are at more risk than many Americans. The Capitol complex 

has been evacuated seven times. During the Anthrax attack, we 

were out of our office for 4 months. I think that it should be comforting to some of the moms and dads and grandmas and grandpas 

of these people, that you all are working together. You have a 

heavy responsibility, and I am grateful that you are moving in the 

right direction. 

Mr. Lockwood, do you have enough people over in your shop to 

get the job done for you? How many do you have, Mr. Lockwood? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Currently in the office I have a Deputy, Ken 

Wall, who is one of the best deputies in DHS. We have EA support 

and we have some detailees in the office. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do all of you feel that the ONCRC is doing 

a good job with coordination in the region? Mr. Lockwood, is your 

office implementing a structure to track and coordinate the funds 

coming into the region? Does this structure answer the concerns 

and questions that GAO has asked? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Yes, the structure that we have put into place 

right now. We put in the organizational structure of the leaders so 

that they are looking at both the local spending and their jurisdictional spending. Now as we are building out the actual management mechanisms, and the people to actually do the work, the infrastructure, the databases will be compiled to reflect that 

integrational process. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And you are also working on the gaps that 

you might perceive that are out there? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. There is two pieces of this. At the national level 

through DHS activities, through Presidential Directive 7 and 9 that 

are asking for the establishment of baselines, DHS is very actively 

establishing those. There is a preliminary document statement 

have gone out. They are working with their State and local partners now. And the goal for ESF—check that—for Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 7, critical infrastructure piece, they 

are looking to finalize that, I believe fall of this year. 

And for Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 8, emergency preparedness standards and guidelines, again, this fall. 

There is a lot of interaction across the Nation with the State Homeland Security Emergency Management first response communities. 

Mr. FORESMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would feel remiss if 

I did not offer a State perspective, having been in the region since 

prior to September 11, having looked at a lot of the national issues. 

Congress’ intent in creating the Office of National Capital Region 

16

Coordination—which I, as a State official, did not particularly 

agree with on the front end, but I have now seen the merit in 

that—is not appropriately resourced to accomplish the mission that 

you all have asked them to accomplish. I say that irrespective of 

whether Tom Lockwood or Mike Burn is occupying the seat in 

there, but it is a phenomenal challenge. I would offer to you that 

we have evacuated the Capitol, but providing that level of facilitation and coordination between the District, the two States and the 

U.S. Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive Branch is a phenomenal undertaking, and there are insufficient resources just to 

coordinate the Federal piece of it amongst themselves, much less 

with the State and local partners. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you for your candor. Senator Akaka. 

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

with you, Mr. Chairman, that what we have heard is pleasing to 

our ears, and you have indicated that you have been working hard. 

I am glad to hear the words being used, ‘‘accountability,’’ ‘‘commitment,’’ ‘‘coordination,’’ putting together government structure, a 

framework, and even maybe another step would be to set standards. And so you are working together since, I believe, 2004. 

I would be interested in hearing from any member of the senior 

policy group who could explain to this Subcommittee how you share 

information on ongoing homeland security projects, and in your respective jurisdictions, and whether this is a formal or informal 

process. Mr. Schrader. 

Mr. SCHRADER. One of the things that we are most concerned 

about in Maryland particularly has been the notion that we have 

one State and we talk frequently with our local jurisdictions to 

make sure that we have an integrated program within the State 

that then coordinates back with the National Capital Region. 

Just to give you an example, we have a fusion center in Maryland, which we call the Coordination and Analysis Center. We are 

very careful to make sure that all the jurisdictions in Maryland are 

tied into that, but then we are working with the Washington Field 

Office, Virginia, and DC, to begin to look at how do we integrate 

those efforts. That is just one example. 

We have got a critical infrastructure protection program in Maryland that we work very closely with the FBI and the Department 

of Justice, as well as DHS. We have got a joint committee that 

looks at how do we coordinate the three jurisdictions with the Federal Government on that critical infrastructure. 

So it is on a program by program basis, at least in Maryland, 

and I know my colleagues are working with us. Similarly, we are 

creating focus on that so we make sure that we leverage the resources. So if we are investing in critical infrastructure protection 

in Maryland as a State, we want to make sure that we leverage 

those resources back to the NCR so that there is collaboration. 

So those are just a couple of examples. 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Within the National Capital Region following 

September 11, the Executive Branch, through the Chief of Staff, 

had reached out and created a group called the Joint Federal Committee. We meet once a month. It includes members of the Federal 

family, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Very similar how we 

get together as a team once a month, the Joint Federal Committee 

17

gets together once a month to sort out clearinghouse issues of how 

do we coordinate issues, specific issues of coordination of interest 

and to ensure that our Federal family is being linked back over to 

State and local efforts as well. When I say our Federal family, I 

do mean all three branches of the Federal Government. 

A key piece that I believe everyone here at this table really feels 

very sincerely is we all feel strongly about this region, its institutions, about our residents, and about our guests. We also see that 

there is a responsibility on us to talk to other regions of the Nation, 

and one of the pieces that I can see is very active coordination with 

our State partners back over with other regions of the Nation, and 

trying to make what we are doing here available to other people. 

Most of those are informal discussions. Some are through formal 

activities such as the National Governors Association, but for example, in your home State of Hawaii, as seeing what we are doing 

here, General Lee wanted to know more about Smart Card Initiatives to help management of first responders working through Honolulu County. There has been a lot of coordination now to see what 

we are doing and how we might leverage this with other areas. 

Again, this is very preliminary pieces, mostly informal, some formal meeting structures. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, to any of you, Mr. Jenkins from GAO has 

testified that NCR should systematically track non-UASI grant 

funds. Do you agree with this recommendation, and if you do, why 

or why not? Mr. Foresman. 

Mr. FORESMAN. Senator, the one thing I would offer is I track 

every dollar in Virginia on a day-to-day basis, as do my colleagues 

in Maryland and Virginia, so the decisions that are made are informed by what we are doing with a multitude of grant funds ranging from the bioterrorism money through CDC, funds that are coming down through a variety of other Federal sources, as well as the 

more than $500 million annually that the State contributes to a variety of preparedness type activities, whether it is law enforcement, 

fire, or emergency medical services. 

I think that part of the issue becomes to what degree is that necessary and to what degree does that clarify or cloud an issue? And 

Mr. Jenkins and his staff have been phenomenal in working with 

us and giving us great ideas as we have worked forward. But a perfect solution, it is easy to articulate a perfect solution, but I am not 

sure that bringing my daily accounting sheets and giving them to 

my partners in Maryland and DC is going to improve our decisionmaking, because as we go through these collaborative discussions, 

Dennis will say, ‘‘Are we going to do this issue?’’ And I will say, 

‘‘Well, here is how we are addressing it in Virginia.’’

And frankly, I think we have to be careful that, as all of the witnesses have testified today, that we protect the uniqueness and the 

individuality of local governments and State Governments while 

providing the appropriate level of transparency, and there are political dimensions and practical dimensions. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

But may I ask Mr. Jenkins whether he has any comments to make 

on that? 

Mr. JENKINS. Actually I do, because I am a little bit puzzled by 

the response. We have been told that they are going to do that and 

18

that they agree with it, and as a matter of fact, in Mr. Reiskin’s 

testimony May 16 before the D.C. City Council he said specifically 

that: ‘‘in the coming year focus will extend beyond the UASI grant 

program to include strengthening of the region’s overall management and reporting mechanisms. We are going to be developing a 

regional web portal to create a collaborative environment for NCR 

stakeholders. The portal will serve as an information management 

tool for accessing and sharing regional relevant data to include 

comprehensive information on the availability and spending of Federal grants in the NCR, regional priorities for determining future 

spending of those funds.’’

So I am a little bit puzzled by the response, given this, and the 

fact that we have been told that they are going to do it. 

Mr. REISKIN. If I could try to clarify. Our focus within the region 

and within our Homeland Security Office that serves as the administrator, has largely been, particularly when DHS stood up, has 

been centered around the UASI grant fund because that was the 

big gorilla on the table. That is where our focus has been, but as 

I had indicated in my testimony both here and to the D.C. City 

Council, we recognize that the UASI program is just one funding 

source and one part of the activity that our overall strategy needs 

to address, some of which are non-funding issues, they are policy 

and coordination issues. 

So through the development of the regional strategy that is currently taking place, that will provide a framework within which we 

make decisions based on UASI, decisions within which the States 

will individually make decisions based on their State Homeland Security grant programs, Health and Human Services grant programs, as well as policy, operations, coordination decisions. 

We most certainly want our office to be able to provide for, on 

a regional level, relevant data, and certainly all data that we are 

responsible for within our office on behalf of the region, we intend 

to share and make available. 

We have not worked through the details of which State grant 

fund programs from Maryland, or Virginia we would include as 

part of that regional information. We would most certainly include 

that which we are responsible for. We have begun meeting through 

the convening of the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of 

Domestic Preparedness with the State administrative agents of the 

whole region, including even beyond Maryland and Virginia, to 

start coordinating and sharing information, and we will work towards providing as much useful information as we can without 

overloading folks with more data than they can use. 

I would finally echo George’s statement that throughout the process at all levels, from the region’s fire chiefs getting together to the 

region’s chief administrative officers getting together, to us at the 

State level getting together, we bring with us and are informed by 

our knowledge of all of the many activities both from Federal 

funds, local funds and other policy issues that are happening in our 

respective jurisdictions. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Senator Dayton. 

19

Senator DAYTON. We are going to have time, Mr. Chairman? You 

have enough seniority and majority to—I will be comfortable walking out with you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. We are going to wrap it up. 

Senator DAYTON. I have one more question mainly. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Sure. 

Senator DAYTON. Given the complexity of the government arrangements—and I certainly understand those, appreciate those 

difficulties—but in an emergency situation, it seems that complexity becomes difficult because of human nature and the like. In 

both of the evacuations, one the Chairman mentioned, the other a 

year before when the Governor of Kentucky came in on a private 

plane without an operating transponder, and from what I recall 

reading, the FAA had that information, he communicated that to 

others including the Capitol Police, and once again we were evacuated. 

In both instances the response of the Capitol Police was heroic, 

and we were evacuating as quickly as feasible. But if either of 

those planes had been a hijacked plane by a terrorist organization, 

it would have crashed into the Capitol before hundreds, if not thousands of people could have gotten out. Do we need to have one 

overriding agency, whoever that is, in charge of this and able to 

make all necessary decisions—you are shaking your head—so that 

we can get an immediate response when one is called for? 

Mr. FORESMAN. Senator, in my estimation, no. Simply put, we 

cannot do it one way in the National Capitol Region and a different 

way in the remainder of the Nation because we are in fact one Nation, and we have to have one process, one structure, if you will, 

concept in terms of how we deal with emergencies and disasters. 

One thing I would point to is many of the systems that were put 

in place—and I was here on September 11—many of the systems 

put in place in the immediate days and weeks and months in the 

aftermath of September 11 were done so in a very reactive fashion. 

They were done so without necessarily a great deal of ability for 

thoughtful analysis, collaboration among local, State, and Federal 

officials. They were well intentioned, and they were the best that 

we could do at the time. 

I think the level of maturity that we have seen in the National 

Capital Region—and we get better with every event—tells me that 

we are in fact getting where we need to be. Are we there yet? Absolutely not. Are we ever going to be 100 percent risk free? No, we 

are not. 

But from an operational perspective, I think the level of cooperation and coordination is vastly improved over what it was during 

the anthrax attacks in 2001, and I frankly think that under the 

structure of governance, you cannot have one agency that is going 

to be in charge. It is more important to make sure that people who 

are in charge of specific pieces are doing their job, and that we 

have got the collaborative and coordination mechanisms in place to 

make sure that it is all in one game plan. 

Senator DAYTON. Anybody else, given our shortage of time? I see 

a couple of nodding heads. Does anybody have a significant disagreement with that? 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Not a disagreement, but actually an expansion. 

20

Senator DAYTON. Do we have time, Mr. Chairman, for an expansion? I defer to you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. Mr. Lockwood, please respond and then 

we will adjourn. 

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Through the National Capital Region Coordination Center, where you have multiple agencies now engaged 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week, looking at the air picture, this is now 

much better coordinated after May 11. Each incident that happens, 

each activity that happens in the region, we try to learn from those 

activities and fold those back in. So the lesson learned from May 

11 have already been incorporated. And again, a key piece of this 

is as the Federal Government takes activities out into their State 

or local government, there has to be active coordination and communication with their partners. 

Senator VOINOVICH. A symbiotic relationship is essential for all 

of you to be successful and achieve your goals. The more you work 

together and the more you coordinate, the better off this region will 

be. As I said earlier, I want to congratulate you on the effort that 

you are making. 

Mr. Jenkins, I really appreciate GAO’s oversight over this issue, 

and I am sure that your work has been very helpful to everyone 

here. I am hoping that when we get together in the next 6 months, 

that we will be talking about how the strategic plan is completed, 

and some of the issues that Mr. Jenkins has raised no longer exist. 

Again, thank you very much for your work on behalf of this region of the country for us and for the people that work with us. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:22 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(21)

A P P E N D I X 


23158.001
22


23158.002
23


23158.003
24


23158.004
25


23158.005
26


23158.006
27


23158.007
28


23158.008
29


23158.009
30


23158.010
31


23158.011
32


23158.012
33


23158.013
34


23158.014
35


23158.015
36


23158.016
37


23158.017
38


23158.018
39


23158.019
40


23158.020
41


23158.021
42


23158.022
43


23158.023
44


23158.024
45


23158.025
46


23158.026
47


23158.027
48


23158.028
49


23158.029
50


23158.030
51


23158.031
52


23158.032
53


23158.033
54


23158.034
55


23158.035
56


23158.036
57


23158.037
58


23158.038
59


23158.039
60


23158.040
61


23158.041
62


23158.042
63


23158.043
64


23158.044
65


23158.045
66


23158.046
67


23158.047
68


23158.048
69


23158.049
70


23158.050
71


23158.051
72


23158.052
73


23158.053
74


23158.054
75


23158.055
76


23158.056
77


23158.057
78


23158.058
79


23158.059
80


23158.060
81


23158.061
82


23158.062
83


23158.063
84


23158.064
85


23158.065
86


23158.066
87


23158.067
88


23158.068
89

Æ


23158.069