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

90–234 PDF 2004

S. Hrg. 108–291

NOMINATION OF C. SUZANNE MENCER

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON THE

NOMINATION OF C. SUZANNE MENCER TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR 

DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

SEPTEMBER 16, 2003

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Deleware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Counsel 

JOHANNA L. HARDY, Senior Counsel 

TIM RADUCHA-GRACE, Professional Staff Member 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

BETH M. GROSSMAN, Minority Counsel 

JENNIFER E. HAMILTON, Minority Research Assistant 

AMY B. NEWHOUSE, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 4 

Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................................... 10

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 12

Prepared statements: 

Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 17

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 17

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2003

Hon. Wayne Allard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado .......................... 1

Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado ..... 2

C. Suzanne Mencer to be Director, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Department of Homeland Security ................................................................................. 6

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Allard, Hon. Wayne: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1

Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 2

Mencer, C. Suzanne: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6

Biographical and professional information requested of nominees .............. 19

Pre-hearing questionnaire ............................................................................... 37

Post-hearing questions and responses for the Record from: 

Senator Lautenberg ...................................................................................... 75

Senator Akaka ............................................................................................... 80

(1)

NOMINATION OF C. SUZANNE MENCER 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2003

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:38 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Collins, Levin, and Lautenberg. 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. I notice 

that two of my distinguished colleagues from Colorado are with us 

this morning and I also know that they are on very tight schedules, 

so I am going to dispense with the ordinary order for this hearing 

and call on my colleagues to introduce the witness and then I will 

do my opening statement. 

This is a hearing on the nomination of C. Suzanne Mencer to be 

the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, the Department of Homeland Security. I would say to the nominee that she 

obviously is thought very well of by the two Senators from Colorado, that both of them have taken time from their extraordinarily 

busy schedules to join us this morning. 

We will start in order of seniority with Senator Campbell. 

Senator CAMPBELL. Madam Chairwoman, with your permission, 

I would like to yield to Senator Allard. I know his schedule is a 

little tighter than mine. 

Chairman COLLINS. OK. 

Senator CAMPBELL. The last two times, I think I went first anyway. 

Chairman COLLINS. That would be fine. Senator Allard. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Senator ALLARD. Madam Chairman, if that would be all right 

with you, I will proceed. 

Chairman COLLINS. Absolutely. Welcome. We are delighted to 

have you here. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you for your consideration and thank 

you for the good work that you do. 

Madam Chairman, it is a privilege to be here with my good 

friend and colleague, Senator Campbell, to present to you Sue 

Mencer, who the President has nominated to be the Director of the 

Office for Domestic Preparedness in the Department of Homeland 

Security. 

2

Madam Chairman, Members of the Committee, we in Colorado 

approach this nomination with mixed emotions. On one hand, we 

are pleased that the President selected such a strong, competent 

leader to head this important office. Yet on the other hand, we feel 

the impact of losing one of the Rocky Mountain State’s finest public 

servants. 

Ms. Mencer served our country for nearly 25 years and the State 

of Colorado for the last 3 years as the State’s Executive Director 

of Public Safety. As a distinguished FBI agent, Sue proved her 

mettle during several high-profile national security investigations 

and later as the FBI’s supervisor for the Denver Joint Terrorism 

Task Force. 

However, those years in the FBI must have seemed like a walk 

in the park compared to the last 3 years. Appointed in 2000, Sue 

took over the Department of Public Safety just in time for the tragedy of September 11. As we all know, the shock waves from that 

terrible day were felt around the country, including Colorado. Fortunately for Colorado, though, we had in Sue a leader capable of 

developing a new plan for preventing and, if necessary, responding 

to a potential terrorist attack. 

Under her guidance, Colorado quickly moved to create an Office 

of Preparedness, Security, and Fire Safety, which brought focus 

and structure to the State’s terrorism prevention and response 

planning. The Office has also acted as a conduit for counterterrorism and response activities, including Federal first responder 

grant programs. Perhaps more importantly, Sue helped develop 

Colorado’s homeland security strategy. This well-crafted document 

strikes a delicate balance between enhancing the State’s homeland 

security activities while emphasizing the importance of close cooperation with local officials, Federal agencies, and the private sector. 

Madam Chairman, the importance of first responder preparedness cannot be understated. Sue once said, ‘‘A lot of home security 

is common sense.’’ That is refreshing, isn’t it? ‘‘It is preparing for 

times that there might be a cessation of activity as you know it, 

no different than being prepared for a natural disaster, like a winter snowstorm or a tornado in the Midwest.’’

As the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, Sue will 

bring the same common sense, practical thinking, and steady leadership that made Colorado one of the most prepared States in the 

country. I believe the President chose the right person in Sue and 

I give you my strongest endorsement for her confirmation. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much. Senator Campbell. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Senator CAMPBELL. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate being here also to co-introduce Suzanne Mencer. I have been 

scratching a few things off of my notes. Everything that Senator 

Allard has already said, I certainly endorse, but will try not to be 

redundant. 

As Senator Allard said, Suzanne served as an FBI agent for over 

two decades. She began her career with the Bureau after spending 

3

several years teaching Spanish in the public school systems of Florida, Ohio, and Missouri. One thing I did not know about her is that 

she met her future husband through FBI training, too, and I would 

like her to introduce her family before I finish my statement, if she 

would. 

Ms. MENCER. Thank you, Senator. With me today, I am very 

happy to have my husband, John Mencer, my son, Alex, my nephew-in-law, Chris, and my brother-in-law, George Doms. They came 

from New Jersey for my hearing. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. We welcome all of them today. 

Senator CAMPBELL. Thank you. Once with the Bureau, she left 

for service in Mobile, Alabama, and continued on to positions in 

New York City, FBI headquarters here in Washington, DC, and finally a move to the Denver office in 1990, which was certainly 

Colorado’s gain. 

During her term with the FBI, she participated in specific operations which made use of her English and Spanish skills. She is 

fluent in Spanish, and in this day and age, I think that is an 

extremely important asset to have in any public sector. She went 

on to serve as a supervisory special agent while here at the headquarters in Washington, and she was also in charge of investigations in country-specific areas of national security and had responsibilities for preparing the Congressional budget for the National 

Security Division of the Bureau. 

Once in Denver, she had the important responsibility of supervising a squad of special agents, analysts, local law enforcement officers, and other Federal agency investigators in the Joint Terrorism Task Force that Senator Allard mentioned. She served as 

the chair of the Interagency Threat Analysis Group for the Summit 

of Eight which was held in Denver in 1997, and leaders from literally all over the world were at that conference. She was also the 

chair of the Intelligence and Threat Analysis Committee of the 

Denver Consortium of the White House Commission on Aviation 

Security and Safety. 

After she retired from the FBI in 1998 and thought she was 

going to move forward in a life of relaxation with her family, she 

worked as a consultant providing antiterrorism training to local 

law enforcement throughout the United States in cooperation with 

the Institute of Intergovernmental Research. 

Then in 2000, Suzanne was appointed by the Colorado Governor, 

Bill Owens, as Senator Allard mentioned. She has done a terrific 

job in that capacity, overseeing the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, the Colorado State Patrol, the Division of Criminal Justice, 

and the Division of Fire Safety. She currently manages 1,200 employees and an operating budget of $195.5 million. 

I might also say, Madam Chairperson, when Suzanne first got involved in law enforcement some years ago—I am sure you are well 

aware of this—it tended to be a male profession. There were very 

few women in those days in the FBI or any Federal agency, and 

even in the local departments. They did have some trouble in those 

years working themselves up to positions of authority and to command. And certainly from that standpoint, Suzanne, I think, was 

really one of the women that cracked the glass ceiling, so to speak, 

in law enforcement. 

4

During her time with the Department of Public Safety, she has 

also been instrumental in creating the Colorado Office of Preparedness, Security, and Fire Safety, and did all that without adding additional employees and without receiving appropriation from the 

Colorado General Assembly, which is generally broke, as all State 

offices are now. 

She worked with a number of groups that I was very interested 

in, and, in fact, sponsored a number of bills dealing with them, the 

Police Officers Standard and Training Board, the High-Intensity 

Drug Trafficking Board, which is called HIDTA, the Judicial Discipline Commission, the Governor’s Clemency Board, and she currently also serves as adjutant professor at the University of Colorado in Denver. 

So I have no doubt, as does Senator Allard, that she is more than 

well qualified to be the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness. She understands that the new warriors in this war on 

terrorism very often are local police, local firemen, and certainly 

has the support of them, too. 

So with that, I would say that this very dedicated, tenacious, and 

extremely talented lady, I should think would be well received by 

this Committee and by our colleagues on the floor of the Senate. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, and in that regard, 

your strong endorsement makes a great deal of difference to this 

Committee and to your colleagues, so thank you very much for taking the time to be with us today. 

Senator CAMPBELL. Thank you. I told Suzanne that I would have 

to excuse myself because I have other commitments, too. Thank 

you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Absolutely. Thank you. 

We are now going to resume with the normal order of procedure 

and I will deliver my opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Today, the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

is holding a hearing to consider the nomination of Suzanne Mencer 

to be the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, known 

as ODP to the Members of this Committee, in the Department of 

Homeland Security. The ODP administers a number of homeland 

security grants to State and local governments. 

If confirmed as Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, 

Ms. Mencer will be responsible for assisting States and local jurisdictions in their efforts to help prevent, plan for, and, if necessary, 

respond to acts of terrorism through training, equipment, technical 

assistance, and other support. She will also be called upon to distribute billions of dollars of Federal assistance for States, localities, 

and first responders with what is now a notable lack of guidance 

from Congress. Indeed, the 187-page Homeland Security Act contained but a single paragraph on grant programs for first responders, but help is on the way. 

This Committee has taken a keen interest in improving the way 

we support our States, communities, and first responders. The 

Committee has held three hearings examining this important issue. 

In addition, earlier this year, the Committee unanimously endorsed 

5

legislation I introduced, the Homeland Security Enhancement Act, 

which would streamline and strengthen homeland security grant 

programs. And just last week, Senator Pryor and I introduced legislation to provide advanced counterterrorism equipment and information to law enforcement agencies to help them prevent, detect, 

and apprehend terrorists. 

By working with and listening to State and local officials and 

first responders, the Director of ODP will be able to improve the 

security of each and every community. 

I am hopeful, Ms. Mencer, if you are confirmed, that you will 

take swift action to correct some of the problems we have experienced in the distribution of homeland security grants. One is making sure that the grants, training, and exercises are flexible enough 

to meet the homeland security needs of our communities. On a 

number of occasions, officials and first responders from my home 

State of Maine, as well as other States, have expressed concerns 

to me about the lack of flexibility in grant funding. This has hindered their efforts to protect their communities. 

For example, Maine’s fire chiefs have told me that the rigid rules 

of homeland security grant funding are actually preventing fire 

fighters from accepting training opportunities at the National Fire 

Academy. That just does not make good sense. 

There have also been delays in distributing money from the Federal Government to the local level. I hope you will work to expedite 

the distribution of funding so that we don’t have the experience 

that we heard about at one of our hearings, where the local fire 

chiefs and police department chiefs who testified said that they had 

yet to receive any homeland security funding. 

I was very pleased to read in your written responses where you 

stressed your commitment to providing flexible resources to each 

and every State. I strongly endorse your commitment to establishing a baseline level of capacity to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. We recognize that different areas of the country 

have different needs, but every area needs to bring their homeland 

security baseline up to a certain level. After all, each State must 

protect its vulnerabilities, including critical infrastructure and borders. Each State must train and equip first responders. 

Coordination with agencies within and outside the Department 

will also be key to your success. I hope that you will take steps to 

eliminate redundant paperwork, standardize equipment and training standards, and coordinate emergency preparedness plans. 

And I realize that you can’t do this alone. This Committee has 

worked on a bipartisan basis to improve the resources available to 

the Department. I hope that you and your staff do not hesitate to 

contact this Committee and work very closely with us if you find 

that you need additional tools to effectively assist our communities 

and first responders. 

Let me end my statement by saying that I am very pleased you 

have agreed to take on these challenges. Your extensive experience 

in the FBI, as the State official leading the Department of Public 

Safety in Colorado, and as a private consultant providing 

antiterrorism training to local law enforcement make you unusually well qualified for this vital position. 

6

1The biographical and professional information of Ms. Mencer appears in the Appendix on 

page 19. 

Pre-hearing questionnaire appears in the Appendix on page 37. 

Post-hearing questions and responses appear in the Appendix on page 75. 

I now want to indicate for the record that you have filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, that you 

have answered the pre-hearing questions submitted by the Committee, and that your financial statements have been reviewed by 

the Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information will all be made part of the hearing record, with the exception 

of the financial data, which are on file and available for public inspection in the Committee offices. 

Ms. Mencer, our Committee rules require that all witnesses at 

nomination hearings give their testimony under oath, so if you 

would please stand and raise your right hand so I can administer 

the oath. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to the 

Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Ms. MENCER. I do. 

Chairman COLLINS. You may be seated. 

It is my understanding that you do have a statement you would 

like to make and I would ask you to proceed at this time. 

TESTIMONY OF C. SUZANNE MENCER,1 TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS, DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. MENCER. Thank you. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today and I just want to express my 

sincere thanks to Senators Allard and Campbell for their statements. That was very humbling and I appreciate that. 

My name is Suzanne Mencer and I am President Bush’s nominee 

for the position of Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness 

in the Department of Homeland Security. It is indeed a great honor 

to appear before you today. 

If I may, I would like to introduce yet again very briefly my husband, John, who has been my biggest supporter, my mentor, my 

biggest fan through these 25 years. Our son, Alex, who is here 

missing school today but getting extra credit for his American Government class, so we are happy that he is here. Our daughter, Jessie, is unable to be here. She is a student in Massachusetts in college and she couldn’t make it for the hearing, but she has always 

been very proud of everything I have done and I appreciate that. 

My brother-in-law, George, and his son, Chris, who came all the 

way from New Jersey this morning to be here with me today. 

Thank you for allowing me to introduce them again. 

Thirty-five years ago this month, as I began a 10-year career as 

a high school Spanish teacher in Worthington, Ohio, I never 

dreamed I would be sitting here today, nominated by the President 

of the United States. And not even after a 20-year career in the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, investigating and supervising foreign counterintelligence, international and domestic terrorism, did 

I dream of this. Not even when Governor Bill Owens appointed me 

to become the Executive Director of Public Safety for Colorado 3 

7

years ago did I imagine being here today. Indeed, this is a great 

honor. 

However, I do believe that my experience at the Federal level in 

terrorism matters, combined now with my years of service at the 

State level, working closely with first responders and local law enforcement, provide a truly unique perspective. I have seen what is 

necessary at the Federal, State, and local level to combat terrorism 

and I have seen it from an investigative response and tactical perspective. I know firsthand how important equipment, training, and 

exercises are to prevent another event from occurring, but if it 

does, to have the resources to respond in the most effective and efficient way possible. 

I have worked closely in Colorado with sheriffs, chiefs, fire chiefs, 

emergency response personnel, health care providers, and our Federal partners to develop plans using regional approaches. We stress 

in Colorado that we must all work together, crossing city lines, 

county lines, State boundaries, because a weapon of mass destruction overwhelms the capability of any one community to respond. 

But more importantly, we stress that we must combine our resources. Terrorists are not restricted by city, State, or county lines, 

and we need to prepare accordingly. 

If confirmed, I hope to use that perspective to ensure that the 

Federal funds so necessary to the defense of our country are directed and applied throughout the United States to reap the greatest benefit to detect, deter, and respond to a terrorist act. 

If I am confirmed, I would be grateful, humbled, and honored to 

have the opportunity to use my expertise and my abilities to serve 

the President and my country in the Department of Homeland Security. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for considering my 

nomination and I would be happy to answer any questions you 

might have. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much. I will start my questioning today with the standard questions that we ask of all nominees. 

First, is there anything you are aware of in your background 

which might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to which you have been nominated? 

Ms. MENCER. No, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Second, do you know of anything personal or 

otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have 

been nominated? 

Ms. MENCER. No, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. And finally, do you agree without reservation 

to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before 

any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Ms. MENCER. Yes, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. We will now begin the first round of questions, which we will limit to 8 minutes each. 

In response to the Committee’s written questions, you voiced 

your general support for creating a one-stop shop for homeland security grants and other assistance for State and local governments 

and first responders. A number of us on this Committee, including 

8

Senator Levin and myself, have pushed very hard for there to be 

a central point of contact that State and local governments and 

first responders could go to get information about grant programs. 

And as I mentioned in my opening statement, the Committee has 

approved legislation that would create a one-stop shop for first responders. It would also enact other measures to streamline the 

grant process. In addition, the Department is moving in that direction, as well. The legislation would require the creation of a single 

toll-free number for grant assistance. It would reduce duplicative 

grant applications and required plans. 

Based on your experience in Colorado and elsewhere, what specific steps would you take to bring about a consolidation as far as 

having a single point of contact for our first responders and our 

State and local governments? How can we improve the ability, 

since you have seen it from the State level, of our governments and 

first responders to get quick and accurate information about potential grants? 

Ms. MENCER. Yes, Madam Chairman. I do believe that there are 

things that can be done and I think ODP, the Office for Domestic 

Preparedness, has already started down that path, to look at ways 

to streamline this process. And certainly in the State of Colorado, 

ODP has been a tremendous help already with answering our questions concerning all the grant issues on this very important issue 

of homeland security. 

I think the Office for Domestic Preparedness will continue to do 

that and I understand there is some discussion at the Department 

of Homeland Security to further streamline the process, as you 

have suggested. 

Chairman COLLINS. Are you aware that it is now a 12-step process to actually get the money down to the local level? It requires 

the filing of a report saying how you want to spend the money, 

then that is approved, then another report, and another plan have 

to be filed. Will you commit to working very closely with this Committee to simplify the process? We are committed to getting our bill 

through, but it may be next year before it is signed into law. 

Ms. MENCER. Absolutely, Madam Chairman. I would be committed to working with this Committee on a number of issues and 

that is one of them. I think streamlining is always something that 

we should strive for, as long as we maintain the funding for the 

maximum amount of good and make it efficient and effective. 

Chairman COLLINS. I also want to bring to your attention a very 

popular grant program that has worked extremely well in my State 

and in States across the country, and that is what is known as the 

Fire Act. It gives grants directly to local fire departments so they 

can improve their capacity to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. And with the help of the fire fighting community, we drafted 

our bill very carefully to preserve the administrative structure of 

the Fire Act program because it has a minimum of bureaucracy. It 

works extremely well and there is a high satisfaction level. 

The administration has suggested a different approach. We want 

to make sure that this program, which is working so well, while 

it is being transferred to a new location, continues to be administered as a separate grant program. When something is working 

9

very well, we ought to preserve that and not jeopardize it by folding it into other grant programs that aren’t working as well. 

If confirmed, will you work to preserve the administrative structure of the Fire Act? 

Ms. MENCER. Madam Chairman, I believe it is the intent of Governor Ridge—Secretary Ridge at this point to maintain the Fire Act 

as it presently stands no matter where it happens to reside. I think 

it is a good program. I have heard from my fire fighting associates 

that, indeed, it is a program that they like, and I am sure that it 

will maintain its integrity no matter where it goes. 

Chairman COLLINS. The next issue I want to discuss with you 

has to do with the formula for allocating homeland security grants. 

As you can imagine, whenever we discuss formulas or the allocation of resources in Congress, those of us who represent smaller 

States often have different views than those of us who represent 

more urban populated States. 

What I want to point out to you, since you will undoubtedly be 

involved in the discussions on this, is that each and every State, 

regardless of its size, has certain homeland security needs and 

vulnerabilities. The State of Maine is a perfect example of that. We 

only have 1.2 million people, but we are a border State with Canada. We have an extensive coastline that makes us vulnerable. We 

have a very busy port that is the second-largest port by tonnage 

along the East Coast. 

We know that two of the hijackers on September 11 started out 

in Portland, Maine. I think that illustrates that we have to be very 

careful about allocating funds purely on a per capita basis—and 

some have argued that that is how it should be done. 

Larger States already receive substantial homeland security 

funding from other programs, such as the High-Threat Urban Area 

Grant Program, which I support, and which the legislation that I 

have authored would expand upon. In fact, during the past 2 years, 

Congress has provided more than $1 billion for high-threat funding, which benefits only a handful of States, and that amount is 

roughly a third of the total homeland security assistance to State 

and local governments. 

Second, not all potential threats directly target people where 

they live. A recent edition of Government Executive magazine focuses on the growing threat to our agricultural sector and our food 

supply. The article notes that foot and mouth disease is the most 

infectious virus known, for example, and that it could be spread by 

the wind more than 170 miles in aerosol form. The article also cites 

a National Defense University report that states even a limited 

outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country affecting not 

more than 10 farms could have a $2 billion impact. 

I wanted to take some time to give you that background because 

I have a feeling you will be hearing alternative views from some 

of my colleagues. But I want to make sure that I have your commitment that you will carefully assess this whole area of funding 

and not adopt what I believe would be a simplistic approach based 

on population that would not take into account the real vulnerabilities and threats that different States may have. 

Another example would be a State like Delaware, a very small 

State but one that has a large Air Force base in Dover, a speedway. 

10

I know my colleague, Senator Carper, is very concerned about the 

issues that his State would face, too. 

Do you share my belief that we need to consider a range of risks, 

threats, and vulnerabilities in addition to population when deciding 

how to effectively allocate homeland security grant funding? 

Ms. MENCER. Yes, Madam Chairman. I believe you are absolutely correct. It is a complicated issue that deserves a more measured response, and certainly not a simplistic approach. And I think 

you are absolutely right that you have to take in many factors 

when you look at how to protect a State and what needs to be protected. You have to consider its vulnerability, the threat level 

against that State, and also its critical infrastructures and its population. So it is a multi-faceted view of how to protect these States. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome, Ms. Mencer. It is nice to see someone here who is so well 

qualified and we look forward to your service. 

I doubt that establishing the Department of Homeland Security 

has not been a gargantuan undertaking, but I was concerned about 

something—and by the way, you have a Colorado connection and 

I have two. They are two little grandchildren, my son’s children 

who were born in the mountains in Edwards, Colorado, just a beautiful place. We have a real fondness for Colorado and understand 

Colorado builds great character—— [Laughter.] 

So we are happy to see you here. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator, excuse me for interrupting you, but 

I would note that she has New Jersey relatives with her that she 

introduced, so I knew you would want to know that and——

Senator LAUTENBERG. From where? Maybe we can wrap this up. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Where are you from? 

Mr. MENCER. Pennsauken. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Oh, Pennsauken, more in the Southern 

part of our State. It is nice to see you here, and for sure, that is 

another plus, Ms. Mencer. [Laughter.] 

That was good judgment. [Laughter.] 

There was an article in Sunday’s Washington Post entitled, ‘‘The 

Government’s Hobbled Giant,’’ and it talked about the slow start 

and the confusion and suggests low morale at DHS. Now, the 

President initially resisted creating the Department and we hope 

that he is fully committed to giving it the resources that it needs 

to do the job that it must. I am interested in what you have had 

to say on the subject. 

I am also interested to learn what our nominee thinks about the 

adequacy of the formula ODP used to allocate first responder 

grants. Last March, ODP made an additional allocation of $566 

million. Small States received anywhere from $4 to $9.78 per capita. New York, ground zero on September 11, received $1.40 per 

capita. Only California did worse on a per capita basis. My home 

State of New Jersey lost 700 people on September 11, received 

$1.69 per capita when the nationwide per capita average was 

$1.98. 

11

Now, Congress is partially to blame for the allocation formula 

used since the PATRIOT Act requires that each State, regardless 

of size, receives 0.75 percent of the total funding. That means that 

nearly 40 percent of it gets doled out in equal allocations. The 

Chairman talked about a bill that she has to improve the ODP 

grantmaking. Unfortunately, the bill does not fix the small State 

minimum, nor does it require that the population density be incorporated into the allocation formula. 

So I hope that you will be able to agree with us that S. 1245 

needs to be fixed so that we can reduce the enormous per capita 

disparities in the ODP’s first responders grants, disparities that I, 

frankly, cannot justify to my constituents, many of whom were directly affected by the tragedy of September 11. 

I am concerned that in the nearly 2 years since September 11, 

the Bush Administration has failed to direct and assist States in 

developing a comprehensive threat assessment, which is of immediate importance to local and State Governments, as you surely 

know based on your own experience. If confirmed, what can you do 

to help expedite these Federal-level assessments and to help the 

States and the locals to develop their own comprehensive threat assessments or threat evaluation? 

Ms. MENCER. Madam Chairman, Senator Lautenberg, that is 

kind of a multi-faceted question and I will try to take them as I 

remembered them. 

As to the morale in the Department of Homeland Security, I certainly haven’t been there, but I certainly haven’t noticed anything 

in the individuals that have been working with me through this 

confirmation process. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You saw the story in the paper? 

Ms. MENCER. I saw the version that was printed in our Denver 

Post, yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I see. 

Ms. MENCER. Yes, but that is all I have seen, but I have not witnessed that at all. 

As to the formula process and trying to assess what a State 

needs and what kind of funding should be distributed, as I said 

earlier, I think it is a multi-faceted process and it is my understanding that the Department of Homeland Security is presently 

working on revising a formula—the formula, revising it so it is 

more comprehensive and takes into account a lot of factors. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The threat assessment, I think, is the 

most important. I mean, if there is ever a vulnerability that has 

been identified——

Ms. MENCER. Right. 

Senator LAUTENBERG [continuing]. It is our region, New YorkNew Jersey region, and——

Ms. MENCER. Yes, sir, and they also are working—I know we are 

working very hard in Colorado to do a threat assessment now that 

is due to the Office for Domestic Preparedness by December 31, 

and that is working with our State, Federal, and local law enforcement and first responder community to do certainly a comprehensive and complete threat assessment. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Would you comment on the effectiveness of 

the color-coded homeland security system? I have had some signifiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:29 Feb 25, 2004 Jkt 090234 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\90234.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
12

cant doubts about it because it is so non-specific that people don’t 

know what to do. I get calls in the office from constituents asking, 

‘‘Is it safe to plan a wedding in New York? Can we visit this place 

or visit that place? Do we dare do it? These are friends of children, 

grandchildren. So I say, yes, you can’t not conduct your normal life. 

What do you think about the homeland security system—and I understand there is some review taking place there, is that true? 

Ms. MENCER. Yes, sir. It is my understanding it is under review 

currently. In the State of Colorado, I can tell you that we have 

made decisions based on what we perceived as our threat in our 

particular area by consulting with all of our partners in the State. 

I am certain that my former colleagues at the FBI would certainly, 

if there were specific threat information, let that be known to any 

area that might be more susceptible or the subject of a threat. So 

I am fairly confident that if there were specific information, it 

would be passed, then we must devise—each State must determine 

how are you going to react to these threat levels, and that is what 

we have done in Colorado. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. I think that the system was originally 

designed to reach those who are responsible for the law enforcement side, the whole security agenda, and as a consequence, there 

was some comfort taken, well, the governor would know and the 

head of the State police and the local police departments and emergency units. But again, because of the confusion that it brought, 

and without any direction or any warning as to what you do when 

the threat level is raised, what you don’t do, do you keep your kids 

home from school, don’t go to the doctor, don’t go to work, all of 

those things. 

But, Madam Chairman, we have a very good nominee here and 

I am sure that she will pass with flying colors. I just want her to 

remember that New Jersey has specific vulnerabilities in our attempt to protect the entire country. Thanks for being here. The job, 

though complicated, is one that has to be done and we are sure 

that you will lend excellent leadership to it. 

Ms. MENCER. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Levin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

First, let me welcome our nominee. We congratulate her, and we 

look forward to her speedy nomination. 

Our Chairman has raised a number of issues with you which are 

very important issues which I think all of us have a great interest 

in, including the question of the administration of Fire Act grants, 

and I understand that your answer to that is that they will continue to be administered in the same way even though they are located in a different place. Does that mean that the Fire Act grants 

would still go directly to fire departments? 

Ms. MENCER. Just to clarify, I believe, Senator, it is Secretary 

Ridge’s intent to maintain them as they are. I am, of course, not 

privy to those discussions, have not been to this point, so that is 

something I think I will be looking forward to working with and 

to looking at that issue if I am confirmed. 

13

Senator LEVIN. Is it your belief, then, from what you know and 

have been informed of that the Fire Act grants would still go directly to fire departments? 

Ms. MENCER. I think, presently, that is the intent. I, of course, 

again, am not privy——

Senator LEVIN. As far as you know. I understand. 

Ms. MENCER. As far as I know. 

Senator LEVIN. OK. That is fair enough. On the one-stop shop 

issue, I again congratulate and commend our Chairman because 

she has been a leader in this effort to try to get the Department 

to have an 800 number, to have a one-stop shop, because there is 

a huge amount of confusion and uncertainty out there and they 

need our local communities, fire departments, responders, they all 

need to have one place, one number where they can go and get information and find out where applications are going to be filed. I 

know it is forthcoming and I would hope that, when confirmed, 

that you would speed up that process. 

Ms. MENCER. I think that Secretary Ridge has expressed that he 

is also looking for a one-stop shop to enable the States to have a 

central location to refer all their questions, all their grant information to, and I believe that is his intent. 

Senator LEVIN. What we have seen, I am afraid, so far, however, 

is some real storm clouds here in terms of funding. As I read the 

numbers, the administration has actually requested less for first 

responders in the 2004 budget than in the 2003 budget when we 

add together the Office of Domestic Preparedness budget with the 

fire grant program budget. In 2003, the total of those two programs 

was $4 billion plus, and it is $3.5 billion, slightly more than $3.5 

billion in the 2004 request. And that, it seems to me, is a real 

underfunding. 

We will have the debates over formulas, which are perfectly normal around here and understandable, but it seems to me when it 

comes to the overall funding of first responders, that we are way 

underfunded. There was a report issued by the Council of Foreign 

Relations detailing the inadequacy of Federal funding for our first 

responders entitled, ‘‘Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded and Dangerously Unprepared.’’ It concluded that an additional $20 billion is needed to adequately fund first responders, and 

that is $16 billion more than is being provided in the 2003 budget. 

I am wondering whether or not you will be weighing in on that 

issue. Do you have any feelings on that issue? 

Ms. MENCER. I think it is always a concern, how safe is safe 

enough and how much money do you need to do what you have to 

do to protect the country, and I think that will always be an ongoing debate. 

I think we have seen in the State of Colorado more money coming in than we have ever seen, and it has made a tremendous difference and will continue to make a tremendous difference. And 

yes, I would be committed to working to try to determine how safe 

is safe enough. 

Senator LEVIN. And would you be committed to trying to obtain 

adequate funding for our first responders? 

14

Ms. MENCER. I think we absolutely have to ensure that we put 

the money where it can do the maximum benefit and make sure 

we are efficiently and effectively doing that. 

Senator LEVIN. And that we have adequate funds to do that? 

Ms. MENCER. I think that is part of the whole interpretation of 

that, is to make sure the funding is adequate to protect our citizens. 

Senator LEVIN. Now, on the formula issue, obviously, there are 

some differences depending on what States we represent, but there 

is a common theme, I think, which is that funding ought to go 

where there are vulnerabilities and threats. There are States with 

small populations which have greater threats than some States 

perhaps with larger populations. The Chairman’s State, with a long 

seacoast, for instance, that is a real vulnerability. The other 

vulnerabilities and threats that she has identified in Maine are 

real. The other small States have their own vulnerabilities. Delaware is frequently mentioned. It has vulnerabilities. 

If we allocate funds based on vulnerability and where threats 

are, I am happy. The problem is when we go beyond that and have 

an arbitrary formula, that is where we get into difficulty. Now, traditionally, we have done that. We have had a so-called small State 

minimum that has been guaranteed to every State, separate and 

apart from what vulnerabilities and threats will be. That doesn’t 

mean there are no vulnerabilities and threats, it just means as a 

base, that we have provided funding to all States. 

Traditionally, it has been somewhere between half of one percent 

guaranteed to each State and zero, and there are dozens of programs, over 50, where that formula is being used, up to half of one 

percent, down to nothing. 

In this particular program, it is three-quarters of one percent, 

which is, I think, unique except perhaps for one other grant program. And so the issue is whether or not there is going to be that 

kind of an arbitrary allocation not based on specific threats or 

vulnerabilities and that is where there are obviously differences 

here between us. 

I would like to read to you the Federal Funds Information for 

States, which is a leading organization that analyzes State grants, 

Federal grants to States, which says that the structure of the 0.75 

minimum as a base represents a departure from the traditional 

small State minimums, which are typically 0.50 or less, in other 

words, half of one percent. And so that is what I hope the Department is going to be looking at when they decide what they are 

going to do. In fact, I think we have on record a statement previously by the governor that he is going to be looking at this whole 

issue and, indeed, is going to try to make a rational allocation of 

funds which is based on vulnerability, based on threat to the maximum extent possible. We are going to rely on him and you to do 

just that, because a minimum State formula just means one that 

is in keeping with traditions around here to the extent that we 

have one. But to the extent possible, maximally, based on our 

vulnerabilities and based on threats. 

By the way, under the current formula, just to give you one example, Texas receives $4.50 per capita. Wyoming receives $32 per 

capita. I don’t think it ought to be per capita distributed. I happen 

15

to agree that that is not a rational system, either, because of the 

need to distribute based on threat rather than on some arbitrary 

formula. But that is the result. It is kind of hard to think that Wyoming has got greater threats than Texas. Maybe, but it doesn’t 

jump out at me that way. 

And finally, on this same point that the Council for Foreign Relations writes that Congress—well, I think I just quoted that, should 

work to establish a system for distributing funds based less on politics and more on threat. I just mentioned a few minutes ago that 

Secretary Ridge has stated he has got problems with the current 

formula and is working on a better way to allocate ODP dollars for 

2004. 

So I think we all want to feel comfortable that we can count on 

you to the maximum extent possible to be looking at a formula 

here which does provide some funds for all States, because all 

States have some threats and all have administrative costs. But to 

the maximum extent possible, it is based on where the maximum 

vulnerabilities and threats are. Can we count on you for that? 

Ms. MENCER. Yes, sir. 

Senator LEVIN. Madam Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Levin. 

As you can see, Ms. Mencer, it is going to be a challenge to be 

head of the ODP, but it is an extremely important position. 

In view of the hour, I am going to just submit some additional 

questions for the record for you to answer. 

I do want to make just one final point on the funding issue, not 

to get into a big debate with my distinguished colleague, but that 

is as you tackle this issue, I think it is very important that you 

look at all of the sources of homeland security funding and how 

they are allocated. And to give you an example, for the funding for 

fiscal year 2003 that was included in the omnibus bill, just two 

States, California and New York, received half of all the highthreat funds. 

So as you review these issues, it is important that you look at 

all of the funding and how it is allocated. The high-threat urban 

area funding obviously benefits only a handful of States, but that 

has been set aside to deal with large urban areas. But only two 

States get more than half of that funding. So I think it is important to take a broad look. 

And the final comment I would make is that Secretary Ridge has 

testified both before this Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee that he supports a base-level of funding for every State 

because we want to make sure that every State meets a certain 

baseline level of capacity, and I would assume that you would 

agree with the Secretary’s position on that matter. 

Ms. MENCER. Yes, ma’am. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

I would like to thank you for not only appearing before the Committee today, but also for being willing to take on this task. You 

really have the ideal background, your many years as an FBI 

agent, your work at the Department of Public Safety at the State 

level, and the work that you have done as a private consultant in 

training local law enforcement in antiterrorism efforts. It gives me 

16

great confidence that you are the ideal person to head this very important agency. We look forward to working very closely with you. 

Without objection, the record will be kept open until 5 p.m. tomorrow for the submission of any additional questions from Committee Members or statements for the record. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(17)

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR NORM COLEMAN 

This hearing marks another important step in the creation of the Department of 

Homeland Security. The creation of the Department represents one of the largest 

management challenges in our Nation’s history. It is important that we move expeditiously to approve the President’s nominees. 

We all know that much of the responsibility for protecting our Nation falls on the 

State and local officials who live in each community. The Office of Domestic Preparedness plays a vital role in making sure that these jurisdictions have the equipment and training they need to do their job. It is also responsible for ensuring that 

Federal dollars are spent wisely according to a coordinated State plan. 

Ms. Mencer seems to be well qualified for the post to which she is nominated. Her 

experience in law enforcement gives her a good appreciation of the challenges facing 

our Nation. Her experience in State Government should make her more appreciative 

of the need to make it easy for State and local governments to work with the Federal Government. 

Today’s hearing also gives us an opportunity to address the operation of the State 

and local grants program. This committee has already passed legislation sponsored 

by Senator Collins that would give the Department more guidance in how to distribute the grants to first responders. This same legislation would require the Department to implement changes that would make it easier for local governments to 

identify and apply for grant programs that would meet their needs. I hope that the 

Department will begin working on these initiatives immediately.

PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA 

Thank you very much Madam Chairman. I would like to welcome Ms. Mencer and 

her family this morning. 

Ms. Mencer, as the former Executive Director of the Department of Public Safety 

for the State of Colorado, you appreciate that homeland security policies must address specific needs to States and municipalities to be effective. 

The Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) is in the process of working with 

States to assess and improve preparedness. However, a number of concerns have 

been expressed, which lead me to believe that more needs to be done to ensure that 

ODP grant programs address the homeland security needs of each State. 

Homeland security grant allocations should fully account for all who are present 

within a State. Grants are currently based on population data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau. With respect to Hawaii, the high military and tourist populations in the 

State are not counted for grant allocation purposes. 

As a result, Hawaii does not receive full funding for the entire population the 

State must protect. In fact, Hawaii has the largest per capita population of military 

service members of any State. As the Department of Homeland Security develops 

its strategy to revise the current grant allocation process, it is imperative that Hawaii and other States’ military and tourist populations are included in any new 

grant formula. 

ODP grant programs also must ensure maximum flexibility for States to address 

unique homeland security needs. States are currently required to budget for grant 

aid in advance and wait for reimbursement once Federal funding is received. This 

is a considerable burden which diverts State resources and prevents effective program planning. 

Federal assistance should be tailored to meet each State’s homeland security 

needs. For example, Weapons of Mass Destruction training grants are often only 

available for preparedness and awareness training, whereas in some States like HaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:29 Feb 25, 2004 Jkt 090234 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\90234.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
18

waii, officials have already received initial training and require advanced operational guidance. In another example, requirements for grant funding to be allocated solely to support interoperable communications systems results in barriers for 

basic equipment upgrades to ensure reliable communications among first responders. We need to ensure that States have the flexibility to sue these funds as needed. 

In an effort to address many of my concerns, I am pleased to join Chairman Collins in seeking enactment of S. 1245. 

Ms. Mencer, thank you for being with us. I look forward to working with you to 

ensure that Federal homeland security policies administered by ODP fully meet the 

unique needs of each State.

19


90234.001
20


90234.002
21


90234.003
22


90234.004
23


90234.005
24


90234.006
25


90234.007
26


90234.008
27


90234.009
28


90234.010
29


90234.011
30


90234.012
31


90234.013
32


90234.014
33


90234.015
34


90234.016
35


90234.017
36


90234.018
37


90234.019
38


90234.020
39


90234.021
40


90234.022
41


90234.023
42


90234.024
43


90234.025
44


90234.026
45


90234.027
46


90234.028
47


90234.029
48


90234.030
49


90234.031
50


90234.032
51


90234.033
52


90234.034
53


90234.035
54


90234.036
55


90234.037
56


90234.038
57


90234.039
58


90234.040
59


90234.041
60


90234.042
61


90234.043
62


90234.044
63


90234.045
64


90234.046
65


90234.047
66


90234.048
67


90234.049
68


90234.050
69


90234.051
70


90234.052
71


90234.053
72


90234.054
73


90234.055
74


90234.056
75


90234.057
76


90234.058
77


90234.059
78


90234.060
79


90234.061
80


90234.062
81


90234.063
82

Æ


90234.064