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

88–248 PDF 2003

S. Hrg. 108–83

INVESTING IN HOMELAND SECURITY: CHALLENGES

FACING STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 15, 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, Delaware

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

TIM RADUCHA-GRACE, Professional Staff Member

JOYCE RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Minority Professional Staff Member

DARLA D. CASSELL, Chief Clerk
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Opening statements: Page

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 4

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 11

Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 29

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 36

Prepared statement:

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 43

WITNESSES

Hon. Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Michigan ........................................................................................................... 7

Hon. Mitt Romney, Governor, State of Massachusetts; on behalf of the National Governors’ Association .............................................................................. 8

Hon. Kwame M. Kilpatrick, Mayor, City of Detroit, Michigan ............................ 13

Arthur W. Cleaves, Director, Maine Emergency Management Agency .............. 16

Mark J. Stenglein, Commissioner, Board of Commissioners, Hennepin County, Minnesota ........................................................................................................ 19

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Cleaves, Arthur W.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 16

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 60

Kilpatrick, Hon. Carolyn C.:

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

Kilpatrick, Hon. Kwame M.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 55

Romney, Hon. Mitt:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 45

Stenglein, Mark J.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 19

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 63

APPENDIX

Questions and Responses for the Record from:

Hon. Romney ..................................................................................................... 70

Hon. Kilpatrick ................................................................................................. 72

Mr. Cleaves ....................................................................................................... 76

Mr. Stenglein .................................................................................................... 79

City of Detroit Action Plan for Homeland Security, Background Paper, April

4, 2002, submitted by Senator Levin .................................................................. 90

Mayor Dick Murphy, City of San Diego, California, prepared statement .......... 103

Larry Naake, Executive Director, National Association of Counties, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 106

County of Arlington, Virginia, prepared statement .............................................. 115

(1)

INVESTING IN HOMELAND SECURITY:

CHALLENGES FACING STATE AND

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m., in room S–

128, The U.S. Capitol Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, Chairman

of the Committee, presiding.

Present: Senators Collins, Coleman, Lieberman, Carper, and

Levin.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. Somehow

pounding the gavel very loudly when you are right across from me

seems redundant this morning.

I want to welcome everybody to the Committee on Governmental

Affairs as we continue our efforts to strengthen homeland security

grant programs for States, communities and first responders. This

is third in a series of hearings that the Committee has held as we

seek to craft legislation to make sure that we have the right process and procedures in place to help our States, communities and

first responders respond to the challenges of homeland security.

This hearing originally was scheduled to be held in the Dirksen

Building in our Committee Room, but late last night, in a stroke

of bad luck for us, the Senate scheduled 12 back-to-back votes, so

the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee was kind enough

to let us use this magnificent room. As Governor Romney has

pointed out, this is a room where money decisions are made, so

perhaps it is appropriate that we meet here today.

Much of the burden for homeland security has fallen on the

shoulders of State and local officials across America, especially our

first responders, the firefighters, police officers, and ambulance

crews on the front lines. They are meeting this challenge and responding with innovative strategies. Instead of facilitating these

new ideas, however, the fragmented Federal Homeland Security

grant programs and their confusing regulations are a maze in

which innovation often gets stifled.

Hearing the experiences of State, local and county leaders here

today will help the Committee better understand the size and complexity of this maze. Listening to their ideas will help in our efforts

to straighten it out and make a reasonable path.
2

Earlier this year I met with officials of Maine’s Emergency Management Agency, including Director Art Cleaves, who joins us here

today. Time and time again I heard from Mr. Cleaves, as well as

from others, that the rigid structure of many homeland security

grant programs frustrates their efforts to help first responders secure communities across our States. I believe that all States should

have more flexibility in how they spend Homeland Security dollars

to make sure they are designated for where they are most needed.

To allow flexibility in Homeland Security funds that have already been appropriated but remain unspent, Senator Lieberman

and I, along with other Members of the Committee, have introduced legislation that authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to grant waivers, allowing States to use funds from one category, such as equipment, for training or other purposes. I am

pleased to be joined in this effort not only by the distinguished

Ranking Member of this Committee, but by several other of my colleagues.

The current lack of flexibility is not the only confusing path that

State and local officials are forced to navigate; for lack of coordination among the various Federal grant programs is another. At our

last hearing with Secretary Ridge, I announced a series of principles for legislation that I will introduce to provide a map that will

better connect our front line protectors with the funding they need.

Today, Senator Russ Feingold and I are introducing another key

piece of our effort to streamline the process. Our legislation will

create an inter-agency committee that will be charged with eliminating duplication in planning requirements, simplifying the application process, and helping States and localities promote interoperability of their equipment.

Federal programs both within and outside of the new Department of Homeland Security provide much-needed support. Unfortunately, these programs often have overlapping goals, requirements,

and regulations. Our legislation will promote better coordination

among these programs and eliminate these redundant requirements.

I do have a lengthy statement this morning that in the interest

of time and given the unusual circumstances we find ourselves in,

I am going to submit for the record, so that we can hear from our

important witnesses today.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Collins follows:]

OPENING PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS

Today, the Governmental Affairs Committee continues its efforts to strengthen

homeland security grant programs for States, communities, and first responders. I

welcome our distinguished panel of State, local and county officials who will discuss

the challenges they face as they work to protect our communities.

Much of the burden for homeland security has fallen on the shoulders of State

and local officials across America, especially our first responders—the firefighters,

police officers and ambulance crews on the front lines. They are meeting this challenge and are developing scores of innovative strategies. Instead of facilitating these

new ideas, however, the fragmented Federal homeland security grant programs and

their confusing regulations are a maze in which innovation often gets lost.

Hearing the experiences of the State, local and county leaders here today will help

the Committee better understand the size and complexity of this maze. Listening

to their ideas will help in our efforts to straighten it out.

When I met with officials of Maine’s Emergency Management Agency, including

Director Art Cleaves who joins us here today, they told me that the rigid structure
3

of many homeland security grant programs frustrates their efforts to help first responders secure communities across our State. I believe all States should have more

flexibility to spend homeland security dollars where they are most needed.

To allow flexibility in homeland security funds that have already been appropriated but remain unspent, I have introduced legislation that authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to grant waivers allowing States to use funds from

one category, such as training, for another purpose, such as purchasing equipment.

I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Carper, Senator Lieberman, Senator Voinovich, Senator Coleman, and many others who serve on this Committee.

But the current lack of flexibility is only one confusing path that State and local

officials are forced to navigate—the lack of coordination among the various Federal

grant programs is another. At our last hearing with Secretary Ridge, I announced

a series of principles for legislation that I will introduce to provide a map that will

better connect our front-line protectors with the funding they need.

Today, I am introducing another key piece of that legislation. It will create an

interagency committee that will be charged with eliminating duplication in planning

requirements, simplifying the application process, and helping States and localities

promote interoperability of their equipment.

Federal programs, both within and outside the Department of Homeland Security,

provide much-needed support to ensure a basic level of equipment and training

among first responders. Despite having overlapping goals, these Federal programs

lack the very coordination that we ask of our States and communities.

For example, communities can access funding for interoperable equipment—from

computers to fire hoses—through five different Federal programs, including the

FIRE Act, COPS, the bio-terrorism program, FEMA’s Emergency Management Performance Account, and ODP’s State homeland security grant program. Despite the

unified goals of these grants—to purchase interoperable eqipment—Federal agencies

are under no requirement to coordinate the grant process. As best as I can tell, for

the most part, they have not.

My legislation will make sure that Federal agencies help, not hinder, State and

local efforts to promote interoperability by collecting information regarding State

and local initiatives and developing coordinated plans to provide needed technical

assistance.

Compounding the problem, within the maze of Federal programs there is a mountain of paperwork. State and local officials are forced to complete separate emergency plans for different Federal agencies and redundant application forms for the

fragmented grant programs. Many States have been forced to complete more than

five separate homeland security plans. While the information requested by each

homeland security plan is similar, States and communities are often forced to reinvest the wheel from one emergency plan to the next.

Maine, for example, at the request of the Department of Justice and the Centers

for Disease Control, undertook a coordinated emergency preparedness assessment in

2000. In 2002, Maine updated its assessment of both its emergency management

structure and its bioterrorism preparedness.

Despite this comprehensive assessment, I am told that Maine will not be able to

use this information to satisfy requirements of the upcoming Homeland Security

Plan requested by the Office of Domestic Preparedness. They will be forced to complete yet another assessment answering many of the same questions phrased in

slightly different ways.

Answering the same question five different ways does nothing to protect against

weapons of mass destruction. Filling out paperwork five different times takes resources that could be used to hire more first responders. More paperwork may make

Washington feel safer, but it does nothing to protect Maine’s cargo ports, its borders

or its people.

My legislation will promote the same kind of coordination among Federal agencies

that we often require of our States and localities. It will require Federal agencies

to build a clear, well-marked path that will lead our first responders to the funding

that enables them to do what they do best: Prepare for and respond to emergencies.

Today’s hearing will provide the Committee with information to better assess

whether the current structure of grant programs is getting the job done. The witnesses will describe the obstacles in our grant programs that my legislation seeks

to remove.

I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses here today, so we can build

a stronger and better homeland security partnership in the months and years

ahead.
4

Chairman COLLINS. I now will turn to the distinguished Ranking

Member of the Committee for any comments he might wish to

make.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins, Madam Chairman. Thank you for holding these very valuable hearings on how

we can reform and re-engineer the Federal Homeland Security programs to meet the needs of States, localities and the first responders and preventers, who protect us.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate what I would describe as your

characteristic leadership and nonpartisanship in focusing the Committee on how we can improve programs that really are vital to the

security of the American people.

I also want to thank our distinguished witnesses, and thank you

for calling Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick of Detroit as one of the witnesses. As the presence of Congresswoman Kilpatrick attests to,

Mayor Kilpatrick, one might say, comes to public service genetically, and with a proud family tradition. He has done a great job

in the early chapters of his service as Mayor of Detroit, and is really a rising star among America’s mayors, so I want to welcome both

the Congresswoman and the Mayor.

Earlier this week, our Nation was reminded that despite the success of the war in Iraq, the war against terrorism has not been

won. All Americans, of course, pray for the families of those killed

and injured by this latest act of cowardice and evil in Saudi Arabia.

These terrorists will never relent in their hatred for America, and

so we must never falter in our fight to defeat terrorism overseas,

and to protect our people from it here at home. The attacks underscore the fact that the Federal Government’s first responsibility

under the Constitution is to provide for the common defense.

Today in the face of this terrorist threat, that means more than

building a mighty, well-equipped and well-trained Army, Navy, Air

Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. It means strengthening the

shared security of our 50 States and their counties, cities, and

towns, as well as our territories. Today the readiness of our firefighters, police officers, and public health professionals is every bit

as important to the national security as the readiness of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen. Homeland security cannot be done on

the cheap. It takes serious money to employ, train, and equip topflight first responders, to buy new biometric security systems, install information-sharing networks, develop biological and chemical

testing, and treatment capabilities, to improve security around

water plants and airports, to revamp aging seaports and protect

chemical and nuclear plants. These tough jobs and countless others

cannot be accomplished with wishful thinking or a magic wand.

They cannot be accomplished by placing an unfair share of the burden on State and local governments who are already facing the

worst fiscal crisis in decades without helping our State and local

leaders.

And, Madam Chairman, I know you agree with me that we, in

the Federal Government, have to do more to fulfill our responsibility, and that challenge we face is clearly to improve the way we

distribute funds to the State and local governments. We need to
5

make them flow faster. We need to cut unnecessary red tape and

provide greater flexibility and make sure that the programs are

adequately coordinated. That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor

with you of the legislation to provide State and local officials with

some of the ability to move Federal funds between accounts when

it is necessary.

I want to talk very briefly about the money that flows to the

State because I do believe we are inadequately responding to State

and local needs now. I am going to put my full statement in the

record, but I have submitted a proposed budget increase of $16 billion for next year for homeland security, much of which would go

straight to States and localities, and that is after review and consideration by State and local officials and others. This included

$7.5 billion above the President’s $3.5 billion for first responders,

including $4 billion in funding to ensure that our first responders

could do something as basic as communicate with one another in

a crisis, which we saw they were unable, tragically, to do on September 11.

I also believe that we, in the Federal Government, need to help

pay salaries and overtime for local first responders, who are carrying out now a national responsibility. The fiscal crisis facing

State and local governments has forced one in four cities, I am informed by the National League of Cities, to lay off police officers

in the past year, which creates, of course, a double danger, threatening our homeland security and the fight against domestic crime

at the same time.

I am proud to stand with a bipartisan coalition of Senators,

which I am pretty sure includes the Chairman, to support the

SAFER Act, which would help communities across the country hire

some 70,000 firefighters nationwide over the next 7 years. We are

in a war, and we should be strengthening our front line troops, not

eroding them. So this is a very important hearing which underlines

the fact that fixing the way these programs operate is critically important. But then we have also got to fund them adequately, and

that is what it means today to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to both provide for the common defense, ensure domestic

tranquility and build a more perfect union.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for holding these very valuable

hearings on how we can reform and reengineer Federal homeland security programs

to meet the needs of States, localities, and the first responders and preventers who

protect us. Madam Chairman, I appreciate your leadership and bi-partisanship in

focusing the Committee on how we can improve programs that really are vital to

the security of the American people. I also want to thank our distinguished witnesses for being with use today.

Earlier this week, our Nation was reminded that, despite the success of the war

in Iraq, the war against terrorism has not been won. All Americans pray for the

families of those killed and injured by this latest act of cowardice and evil in Saudi

Arabia. These terrorist will never relent in their hatred for America—so we must

never falter in our flight to defeat terrorism overseas or in protecting our people

here at home.

The attacks only underscore the fact that one of the Federal Government’s first

responsibilities under the Constitution is to provide for the common defense. Today,

in the face of the terrorist threat, that means more than building a mighty, well-
6

equipped, and well-trained Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. It

means strengthening the shared security of our 50 States and their cities and

towns, as well as our territories. Today, the readiness of our firefighters and police

officers and public health professionals is every bit as important to our national security as the readiness of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

And homeland security cannot be done on the cheap. It takes serious money. To

employ, train, and equip top-flight first responders. To buy new biometric security

systems, install information sharing networks, and develop biological and chemical

testing and treatment capabilities. To improve security around water plants and airports. To revamp aging seaports and protect chemical and nuclear plants. These

tough jobs and countless others can’t be accomplished with wishful thinking or a

magic wand. And they cannot be accomplished by placing an unfair share of the

burden on State and local governments who are already facing the worst fiscal crises in decades.

Madam Chairman, I am convinced that we in the Federal Government have to

do much more to fulfill our responsibility.

One challenge we face is clearly to improve the way we distribute funds to State

and local governments. We need to make the funds flow faster, cut unnecessary red

tape, provide greater flexibility, and make certain that programs are adequately coordinated. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to co-sponsor your legislation to provide

State and local officials with some of the ability to move Federal funds between accounts when it is necessary. That’s a smart and long-overdue reform.

But this is more than just a red tape problem. It’s also a red ink problem.

Across the country, States and localities are being spread thinner than ever at

the moment they can least afford it. Homeland security and healthcare costs are rising. Deficits are growing. But the economy isn’t. I must say, it makes no sense to

me that, as we lose jobs and struggle to meet our national needs, the Bush Administration’s top priority is to push for billions of new tax cuts that won’t improve the

economy but will shortchange homeland security and other urgent needs.

I have called for $16 billion in funding for homeland security in the next fiscal

year above and beyond the President’s request, much of which would go straight to

States and localities. This includes $7.5 billion above the President’s $3.5 billion for

first responders, including $4 billion in funding to ensure that our first responders

can do something as basic as communicate with one another in a crisis.

It is simply unacceptable that in most States and regions, including right here

in the Washington, D.C. region, local police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, and

other emergency personnel responding to an attack cannot talk to one another.

America has some of the most advanced communications technology on the planet,

yet 20 months after September 11, we’re still struggling with something as urgent

and basic as this. That doesn’t speak well to the administration’s priorities.

I also believe that we in the Federal Government need to help pay salaries and

overtime for local first responders. The fiscal crisis facing State and local governments has forced one in four cities to lay off police officers in the past year, according to the National League of Cities. That is creating a double danger—threatening

our homeland security and the fight against domestic crime at the same time.

I am fighting to restore law enforcement grants cut by the Bush Administration,

and am proud to stand with a bipartisan coalition of Senators to support the SAFER

Act, which would help communities across the country hire some 70,000 firefighters

nationwide over the next 7 years. We are in a war. We should be strengthening our

frontline troops, not eroding them.

Those are just two critical priorities among many. And both underline the fact

that fixing the way these programs operate, while important, is just one part of the

solution. Our States and localities also need more support. More funding. And more

leadership from the President on down. That’s what it will take to fulfill our Constitutional duty to provide for the common defense and build a more perfect union.

Thank you.

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.

I now am going to turn to our colleague, Congresswoman Carolyn

Cheeks Kilpatrick, who represents the 15th District in Michigan.

She is here in a dual capacity today, and we are very pleased to

ask her to introduce one of our distinguished witnesses, who happens to be her son. I know the Congresswoman is on a tight schedule, so I am going to turn to her first so that she can excuse herself

and return to the other body.
7

TESTIMONY OF HON. CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Ms. KILPATRICK. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for your leadership and your colleagues’ bipartisan spirit as we rebuild and secure

our Nation together. Thank you very much for your leadership.

And, Mr. Ranking Member, always on point. Thank you for all

that you do as a team, as a Senate, as the upper body of our Congress.

Senator LIEBERMAN. You are on record now.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Every now and then we say that when we want

something and come to you to ask. [Laughter.]

So I certainly want to acknowledge your hard work. Thank you,

Senator Lieberman, for helping to get us on the agenda. I think it

is most important that we, as policy makers, listen to people out

in America, so that we actually do what is right to best serve them,

and thank you very much.

I additionally want to thank you for our working together. Last night Secretary Ridge announced $700 million in his next round of

grants. We are very happy that the City of Detroit was able to get

a portion of that. I want to thank everyone for our bipartisan effort.

It is my distinct pleasure to present to you a gentleman who

needs no introduction, who is certainly known by all of you, and

a new energy, a new source in our part of the world to rebuild the

City of Detroit and its nearly million people.

This young man I have known before he took his first breath. He

is a young lawyer, and former Democratic leader of the Michigan

House of Representatives, now the Mayor of the City of Detroit, let

me present my son, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much. We are going to start

with the Governor, but I did want to give you the opportunity to

introduce your son.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Thank you very much.

Chairman COLLINS. I would note that I think as a result of our

last hearing with Secretary Ridge, that both Boston and Detroit got

funding this round, so I think we have had an impact.

Senator LIEBERMAN. What about New Haven? [Laughter.]

Chairman COLLINS. We are working on Portland and New

Haven, right.

First today, as I introduce our distinguished panel, and it really

is a great panel that reflects the perspectives of State, county, city

and emergency management officials. I think this diverse panel

will give us the broad range of perspectives that we are looking for.

First I want to welcome Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. His experience as CoChair of the National Governors Association Task Force on Homeland Security will certainly provide a valuable perspective to this

Committee. As the former President and CEO of the Salt Lake

Olympic Organizing Committee, he will also assist our Committee

in learning about what is perhaps the most effective Federal, State

and local homeland security effort in recent memory.

We have already had the Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick,

introduced to us by his distinguished mother, and we are very

much looking forward to hearing the perspective of a mayor of a
8

1The prepared statement of Governor Romney appears in the Appendix on page 45.

major city. We thank you for being here too. I know that you have

done a lot of work on the issue of homeland security and we look

forward to hearing your testimony.

It is always a pleasure for me to extend a warm welcome to Art

Cleaves, who is the Director of Maine’s Emergency Management

Agency. One of my colleagues on this Committee has commented

that somehow I manage to have a witness from the State of Maine

at virtually every hearing, but that is because the State of Maine

has so much to offer to the rest of the Nation.

I have relied on Art’s advice on numerous homeland security

issues. In fact, it was he who first pointed out to me the lack of

flexibility in States being able to transfer funds from one category

to another. He has been down there on the front lines and really

understands the nuts and bolts issues that are facing officials at

the State, local and county level.

Finally, since I was in Minnesota just Monday with our colleague, Norm Coleman, for a field hearing on homeland security,

it is a great pleasure to introduce Mark Stenglein, who is a Commissioner from Hennepin County, Minnesota. Did I pronounce that

correctly? I learned how when I was out in Minnesota.

I am very happy today that we will hear from a county official.

A lot of times we focus on the local and State level, and do not pay

enough attention to the counties, so we appreciate having your perspective as well.

Governor, we are going to start with you, and again, thank you

for your effort to be here today.

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. MITT ROMNEY,1 GOVERNOR, STATE

OF MASSACHUSETTS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION

Governor ROMNEY. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman. It

is good to be here with you, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Levin.

I feel like it is coming home for me because I have my neighboring

States to the north and south represented, and the State of my

birth also represented, so I am very comfortable here.

Let me begin by saying thank you for the work which you are

doing in crafting legislation, filing legislation, which brings as the

Chairwoman has indicated, greater flexibility to the process of the

grant system in our homeland security effort, and also a streamlining of the grant process which is being provided by the Federal

Government. That flexibility and streamlining I believe is key.

As you have noted, I come on behalf of the National Governors

Association and my Co-Chair, Governor Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware. We have been working together over the past several weeks

as we have taken on this new responsibility, and look forward to

working with you.

I think this morning, rather than reading through my testimony,

I might ask that you include my written testimony in the record,

and I might summarize for you some thoughts that are taken from

that.

First, I think there are two key points that I would like to provide, and that is that in our view, investing resources in homeland
9

security based upon a comprehensive and integrated plan is essential. Second, perhaps drawing on the comment that was made by

Senator Lieberman with regards to a term I had not heard before,

but not just first responders, but preventers as well, maximizing

our investment in the prevention of terrorist acts is also something

which I think should be a high priority in thinking about how we

allocate our resources. We think about prevention. We think about

intelligence, gathering intelligence communication. We think about

as well hardening the various targets that might exist in a locality

or in a State, and we also think about operational security.

So I would like to focus a couple of thoughts with regards to

those two issues, maximizing the efforts going to prevention, as

well as investing our resources based upon a comprehensive and

unified plan.

I had the experience, Madam Chairwoman, as you indicated, to

have spent some time helping to organize the Olympic Winter

games. I recognize that by virtue of doing so, that security and terrorist issues were going to become a major part of that task. I had

not recognized how large a part of that task they would be. More

than 15 percent of the budget of the Olympic Games was spent on

security, some $300 million, actually more than that, was associated with our security program at the Olympic Winter Games.

That spending was overwhelmingly directed based upon a comprehensive plan. The planning process literally took years. In

checking this morning with my colleague, our estimate was that

some 5 years were spent by law enforcement professionals putting

together a comprehensive plan to secure a number of venues, not

even an entire city or State, but just a number of venues, against

terrorist attack. Of course, the Olympics had been the target of attacks in the past. And by applying those resources against a comprehensive plan, we were able to, I believe, provide a much higher

degree of security from potential terrorist acts than if we had just

sent money out to the various localities, communities, States, and

counties that were associated with the Olympic Games. The alternative to allocating resources by plan is to provide resources by

population or by geographic territory or something of that nature.

I am just fearful that the differences between municipal needs,

municipal responsibilities are so dramatic that if we allocate money

based on population or based on geography, as opposed to being allocated based on a formulated plan, that we will severely restrict

our capability to provide for the security of our citizens.

I look at my own State, and just thought this morning I have a

large number of cities and towns in Massachusetts. We have 351

cities and towns in a relatively geographically small State, and

they are very different. Even though the populations for several

might seem the same, the needs from a security and terrorist prevention effort are dramatically different. One of our towns—I will

take three that are about the same size—one has a nuclear power

plant in it. Obviously, that presents a degree of difficulty that is

different from another that is just a simple residential community.

And another, which houses two LNG tanks and a tank farm for jet

fuel and other sources of fuel. So the needs of those different communities are quite dramatically different. At the same time, one

might say: Gee, given all of these differences and needs, perhaps
10

the Federal Government could allocate money, not to States, but

rather allocate directly to these different municipalities and make

its own assessment of the needs of each one of these different cities

and towns. But with 351 different cities and towns, the process of

literally scoring on the Federal basis, not just the differences between States, but the differences between all the cities and towns,

would become an overwhelming responsibility. I believe therefore it

is critical for us to allocate the funding to the States and task the

States with the responsibility of not only creating a unified plan,

but making sure that it involves the participation of all those who

have stakes in the outcome of that effort.

Let me also note that with regards to this planning process, that

my experience with the Olympics is that it is only effective if it involves the widest range of people who are helping prepare it. Yes,

we have professionals who knew something about planning, but

our effort was led by Federal participation, State involvement and

local participation as well. Working together, a plan was created

that had a high degree of credibility and support across the widest

range of participation.

Let me also turn for just a moment to the topic of prevention,

and making sure that as we think about allocating our resources,

that prevention is very high on our list. Thinking about response

and first responders is of course critical. Senator Lieberman’s comments about thinking about preventers, I think, is just as critical.

When we think about the funding that we allocated through our

Olympic experience, the overwhelming majority was allocated towards the effort of assuring prevention of a terrorist act of one kind

or another.

The heart of that is intelligence. In our case the FBI led the

State and local efforts with regards to intelligence. State and local

authorities were given primary responsibility for gathering information and gathering data, but surveillance and analysis was held

by the FBI. As they managed that process and worked with us,

they were able to assign responsibility so that we didn’t have duplication across the three levels of government or four levels of government, including our counties, and at the same time were making sure that the party responsible for the particular action had the

highest degree of expertise in carrying out that function. I note the

FBI played a superb role in managing our intelligence effort at the

games and continues to play a very critical role in the work which

we do now. As a governor, I could not be more pleased than I am

with the work of the FBI in helping coordinate the efforts in planning and the intelligence work which goes on to protect our Commonwealth.

Let me note second with regards to my experience there, that

training played a key role in the prevention programs, training to

help, if you will, first preventers know how to gather intelligence

and what they were looking for, perhaps with the license of a person who they stopped on the highway, and looking at that license

in a way that would assess potential terrorist implications, understanding how to communicate with one another, how to survey potential threats.

Let me go from training to the area of hardening sites and operational security. In that regard the Secret Service played the key
11

role. It led in the effort of looking at each one of our venues and

aspects of our community and found ways to secure those venues,

to harden those venues, if you will. Their expertise in providing to

us templates, suggesting distances for barricades, fencing options,

gating options and so forth, were absolutely essential. If we had instead relied upon our expertise as Olympic planners or local law

enforcement, we would not have begun to have the kind of capability that the Secret Service provided to us. They were again key

to our being able to create the kinds of robust and complete plans

that we were able to put together.

I would therefore continue to urge that our focus remain on prevention, and that we draw in Federal, State and local authorities

in creating these prevention plans, that we also allocate resources

largely based upon those plans, and that we assure that the dollars

are going against the targets and the efforts that are integral parts

of the plan which have been created on this local, State and Federal level.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Governor.

I am now going to ask my colleague, Senator Levin, to call on

the mayor from the largest city in—I think Detroit is the largest

city in Michigan.

Senator LEVIN. By far.

Chairman COLLINS. By far. While I go vote, and I will return

shortly.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN

Senator LEVIN. It is a joy to recognize my mayor, and recognize

his mother. We talk about the mayor’s energy. We, who have

served in the Congress, who have served with you, know where he

gets a great deal of that energy and vision from. So, welcome to

you, Congresswoman Kilpatrick.

Mayor Kilpatrick.

[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN

I am pleased to welcome to the hearing today the Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, and I thank the leadership of this Committee for inviting him and for holding this hearing. Prior to my Senate days, I was a member of the Detroit City Council so I know firsthand how hard it can be to deal with the Federal bureaucracy;

to get the information needed to apply for funds; and then to be denied the funds

you asked for when you need them.

In my travels around Michigan this year, a number of local officials have described difficulties in dealing with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Recently, the Mayor of Adrian, Michigan, Samuel Rye, spoke of problems he was having both in reaching and obtaining information from the DHS. At a May 9th meeting of city and town managers in the Upper Peninsula in Michigan, the manager

of Sault Ste. Marie, Spencer Nebel, asked which of those in attendance had actually

received homeland security funds. The answer he got was no one, despite the Upper

Peninsula’s great need for communications equipment. As a former city official, I

understand the frustrations of these local officials, and I share with them the frustration that the DHS isn’t making it any easier for them.

For 6 months now, I and others have been urging DHS to set up an 800 number

for grant information as well as a one-stop grant process for State and local officials.

There is still no 800 number and no one-stop grant process. At the May 1 hearing,

Secretary Ridge admitted that the DHS Office for State and Local Coordination

could and should, but still does not, provide local officials with a single point of

entry for obtaining DHS grant information. That central clearinghouse for grant information needs to happen. In addition to a central grant office, the Michigan Home-
12

land Security Director, Col. Mike McDaniel, wants to hold a series of forums around

the State of Michigan to educate local fire and police departments on available

grants. This is another area where the DHS Office for State and Local Government

Coordination could provide assistance, and I hope it will join in this effort.

A related issue is making sure that, once allocated, Federal dollars flow quickly to the States. In the FY 2003 budget, Michigan is supposed to receive $42 million

overall and another $15 million from the 2003 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, but so far, 8 months into fiscal year 2003, Michigan has received only $15

million. Those funds need to get where they are supposed to go.

Additional frustration relates to the funding formula now used in allocating the

basic Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) grants issued by DHS. The current formula does not distribute money to localities with the greatest needs. Instead, the

ODP grants are distributed under a formula that provides a mandatory minimum

amount of funds for every State and, only after that minimum is met, provides additional funds to States facing the greatest terrorist threats. The result is that the

formula disproportionately funds smaller States at a higher per capita rate than the

larger States. For example, why should Wyoming receive more funding per capita

than New York for first responders? Experts have indicated that this funding formula is flawed, and Secretary Ridge has said that he is working on altering it.

Hopefully, he will act soon and prior to the distribution of 2004 funds.

And then there are the new special DHS grants to high risk urban areas. These

grants are also funded out of ODP, but they are not distributed according to a fixed

formula. Instead, they are awarded at the discretion of the Secretary based, in part,

on classified information. The first round of these grants doesn’t add up in terms

of threats. Detroit is the largest U.S. border crossing for trade with Canada or Mexico. In fact, Canada is our largest trading partner with over $1 billion worth of

goods and services crossing the border every day. More than 40 percent of that trade

passes through the Michigan-Ontario border. Detroit has already been the site of

several anti-terrorism probes, and it is a microcosm of all the complex issues that

require a balancing of civil liberties and security needs. Detroit produced in April

2002, a Homeland Security Strategy that laid out the city’s vulnerabilities, provided

a 10-point action pan, and won praise from Secretary Ridge as a model for other

cities.

But a good action plan is not enough to get the job done. Detroit needs resources

if it is to protect its population. Yet, much to the dismay of Mayor Kilpatrick and

myself, when the DHS issued the first round of grants to protect high risk urban

areas, Detroit wasn’t on the list. That exclusion is difficult to understand in light

of Detroit’s vulnerabilities and concrete plan to move forward. At a Committee hearing on May 1, Secretary Ridge said that DHS had decided to disperse the highthreat urban area grants in larger sums to fewer cities instead of smaller amounts

to more cities, and that more at-risk cities would be getting these funds. Governor

Ridge offered to share the classified threat analysis information used for the grants,

and I look forward to reviewing it.

On top of all this, there is another problem that is also briefly referenced in the

Mayor’s testimony—the fact that the Administration’s 2004 budget request is actually providing lower overall amounts of funding to first responders than last year.

Let’s take a look at the big first responder picture:

First Responder Funds

Program FY 03 FY 04 Admin

Request

FY 04 Senate

Budget Resolution

ODP Office of Domestic Preparedness (DHS) ............................................... 3,289 3,558 3,558

Fire Grant Program (DHS) ............................................................................. 745 0 0

Total ..................................................................................................... 4,034 3,558 3,558

The primary first responder programs are ODP and the Fire Grant Program that

funds local fire departments. When you add the totals, the result is a 1-year funding

decrease of $476 million. When I asked Secretary Ridge about this at the May 1

hearing, he admitted that there was an overall decrease.

On top of that decrease, the Administration is proposing huge cuts to our tried

and true local law enforcement programs. Three grant programs for local police

show what’s happening: In 2003, the COPS program—the same program about

which Attorney General John Ashcroft, said ‘‘Since law enforcement agencies began

partnering with citizens through community policing, we’ve seen significant drops
13

1The prepared statement of Mr. Kilpatrick appears in the Appendix on page 55.

in crime rates’’—was funded at $929 million, but in 2004 the Administration requested just $164 million for this program, an 82 percent decrease. In 2003, the

Byrne Grants for first responders were funded at $651 million, but in 2004 the Administration requested zero; and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program

was funded at $400 million last year, but in 2004 the Administration requested zero

dollars. The question is how and why the Administration is requesting less funding

for first responders at a time when the same Administration insists that communities like Detroit gear up to defend the homeland.

All today and all this week, the Senate is voting on proposals for billions of dollars

in tax cuts, most of which go to the upper 10 percent of citizens. To pay for its tax

program, the Administration has proposed to cut government funding, including for

much needed programs like homeland security. It’s a mistake. To prevent or react

to a terrorist incident, our government personnel need resources. Our first responders need radios that can communicate with each other. Our hospitals need medical

training, supplies, and data systems to track injuries. Our cities need well-thought

out plans to protect citizens. None of that can happen if homeland security needs

are shortchanged to pay for tax cuts.

Local officials are on the front lines of homeland security. Recently, I took part

in a Detroit town hall meeting that examined the complexities involved with homeland security issues, and at which Mayor Kilpatrick greatly enhanced the dialogue

between the community and its elected officials about what needs to be done. The

Mayor showed not only his knowledge of the city and the careful balancing of interests that need to take place, but also a determination to meet the homeland security

challenges facing his city. The experiences of local officials like Mayor Kilpatrick in

working with the new DHS can help show us the gaps in the programs and begin

to get them working. I look forward to hearing about his experiences on the front

lines.

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. KWAME M. KILPATRICK,1 MAYOR,

CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN

Mr. KILPATRICK. Thank you. Madam Chairman, thank you very

much and thank you Ranking Member Lieberman, and Senator

Levin, my main man. People talked about feeling at home—and I

heard the Governor say that he feels at home here. There could not

be anyone who feels more at home than me because my mommy

is here. [Laughter.]

But I do want to talk about homeland security from two different

perspectives, one as the Mayor of the City of Detroit, and the other

as a member of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Advisory Board and

Co-Chair, along with Betty Flores of Laredo, Texas, of the Cities

and Borders Task Force.

Detroit is the largest city in Michigan. I want to give a couple

specifics about Detroit before I go into the homeland security issue.

The city is on a major waterway and comprises 40 percent of the

border between U.S. and Canada. It is the global headquarters of

the largest corporation in the world (General Motors sits right on

our international waterway) and the other two large auto makers

also have homes there, Ford and Daimler Chrysler. We have one

of the largest convention facilities in the country and several professional sports arenas right in the downtown core area. We have

a regional airport to which we just added a $1.4 billion new terminal, and Detroit faces some serious security concerns with all of

these.

Some believe that to attack domestic issues and domestic problems, we need to have a one-size-fits-all approach. I want to wholeheartedly disagree with that view. I believe that we need to look

at the uniqueness of each city and really target that uniqueness

and figure out how we can fund the things that cities need. While
14

LA may need one thing or Chicago may need one thing; Detroit

may need another. One city may need HAZMAT equipment or gas

masks, while the City of Detroit may need a technology foundation

or telecommunications dollars.

I believe that Detroit was the first city in the Nation to deliver

a comprehensive strategic homeland security package and plan to

then-Governor Ridge, now Secretary Ridge. And since the release

of that strategy, we have worked to implement each one of the 10-

point items we identified as essential to protecting the citizens of

Detroit.

One was to appoint a full-time local Homeland Security director.

We have done that, and now he is partnered with all of our agencies inside the City of Detroit, and has developed a full homeland

security plan. Our focus and mission in the City of Detroit is to be

able to respond to every day activities in public service, so we are

able to respond to an emergency, a chemical or biological weapon

threat, or weapons of mass destruction threat. We believe that our

health departments, for instance, need to be able to counsel people

for drug intervention as easily as they need to be able to counsel

people in the event of a large emergency. So, we need to make sure

that those systems actually work.

We have also begun to do incredible work on our radio systems

interoperability, and we do not believe that should be done in a

vacuum. We hear often of counties wanting to do their own system

or States wanting to do their own systems. We believe now, more

than ever, that efforts need to be coordinated so all of us are able

to talk to one another in the event of an emergency. I applaud the

efforts of some counties taking the lead and some States taking a

lead in those efforts. It has to be done in the era in which we are

living so all of us are able to talk to one another. Detroit has done

a lot of great work in upgrading our system and we will be fully

operable by the end of this year.

Detroit is a very diverse community, as many of you know. We

have the largest Arab population anywhere outside of the Middle

East. We have the largest Iraqi population anywhere outside of the

Middle East. I believe that Detroit is a microcosm of what people

can do when we do communicate. Many of the people in this Nation

did not even know that because we did not have many of those

large problems that people saw across the country. But we did have

the sweeps and we did have the opportunity to share information

among our local police officers, our local firefighters, all the Federal

agencies that were working inside the City of Detroit, and the

Iraqi, Arab and Caribbean communities. We believe that is something that we can learn from.

Additionally, we established a citizens corps in Detroit, which is

a volunteer program, and we asked people to submit their names,

numbers, addresses, so that they can volunteer in the event of

emergencies. Thousands of people have called and registered for

this. We held a town hall on March 24, 2003. More than a thousand people came to that meeting. We wanted to show them the

homeland security outfits of our police department. Senator Levin

and Senator Stabenow both participated in that town hall meeting.

It was an excellent opportunity to alleviate some of the fears that

were in our community. We conducted a poll after the town hall
15

meeting, and Detroiters felt more comfortable. A thousand people

came to the facility at the State fairgrounds, and many more saw

it live on television and felt so much better after that opportunity.

From a national perspective, I agree with many things that the

governor said in his comments, but this is one place where governors and mayors actually differ in how homeland security is

funded. I wholeheartedly agree that cities need to sit at the table

with their State Governments and figure out how we coordinate

homeland security funding. But when an emergency happens, there

will be a local police officer and a local firefighter, who will be the

first in and the last to leave. I want to make sure that point is

strongly made and emphasized. The dollars need to follow where

the activity is. We can no longer politicize this issue, especially on

a State level, and if this has to have some legislative debate, then

it becomes partisan, and homeland security dollars cannot become

political and partisan, and often that is what happens in State capitals around this country. On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, we are advocating that uniqueness is looked at on the local

level and in funding in that manner.

So in closing—and this is a long closing—I am not a Baptist

preacher, but I do have long closings. The City of Detroit, as I mentioned before, we are on an international waterway and local police

officers have been protecting that border for a long time. As a matter of fact, between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2001 we

spent nearly $3 million in overtime reassigning officers. In 2002,

we spent just over $10 million with the local police officers reassigned to patrol our borders and to deliver national security to all

of us in the United States of America. With the efforts of Senator

Levin, Senator Stabenow and the outstanding leadership of Congresswoman Kilpatrick, through the Omnibus Appropriations Bill,

we were able to receive some funding to be reimbursed for that activity. But, we are constantly running up those bills as well to continue to provide that security.

We need help from the Federal Government. Obviously, any decision made at the border has a direct impact on the economic well

being of my city and this country. In Detroit we are the home of

just-in-time delivery for the manufacturing industry. Many of us

remember after September 11 the two- and three-mile backups at

the border that essentially stopped the American economy. We

need your help. And that is why State and local governments need

to be included in planning future border security efforts.

I want to stress once again, as I finish my remarks, that local

police officers, local fire departments, will be the first to arrive and

the last to leave.

I thank you for this enormous opportunity to speak directly to

you today, and I look forward to working with the Chairman and

Ranking Member of this Committee, Senator Levin, and all of the

distinguished Members of the Governmental Affairs Committee.

Thank you.

Senator LIEBERMAN [presiding.] Thank you very much, Mayor

Kilpatrick. I am delighted that you could be here. I said some great

things about you before you came in. Somebody said to me, in

Washington that you know you are doing well when people say

great things about you when you are not in the room. [Laughter.]
16

1The prepared statement of Mr. Cleaves appears in the Appendix on page 60.

And you are doing very well, and your testimony has been very

helpful today, and I look forward to the question period.

Mr. Cleaves, it is an honor to call on you and welcome your testimony now.

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR W. CLEAVES,1 DIRECTOR, MAINE

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Mr. CLEAVES. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. Senator Levin,

and distinguished Members of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I am Art Cleaves, Director of Maine Emergency Management Agency. Our office is also the Homeland Security Coordination Center for the State of Maine.

In addition, our office administers all FEMA grants in the State

and all Office of Domestic Preparedness grants beginning with the

program’s inception under the Department of Justice.

Maine is largely a rural State and may be thought of less at risk

from terrorist activities than the more urban areas. However, our

long coastlines and international border have unique

vulnerabilities. We have a great responsibility in the State for ensuring that our citizens remain safe. We have a unique opportunity

and a responsibility that we feel keenly about, to act as a sentinel

for our neighbors to the South and to the West. We will never forget that two of the September 11 hijackers began their deadly journey in our State.

Since before September 11 those of us in the profession of emergency management have been working closely with the Federal

Government on fielding terrorism preparedness and weapons of

mass destruction preparedness programs. On September 11, however, awareness was tragically awakened of the critical need of

these programs. Our office, as I am sure every Member of Congress, was overwhelmed with requests for funds to support planning, training, equipment, and personnel costs.

In addition, there were requests to reimburse States and communities for what were perceived as national security costs, dollars expended by the States and the local governments to help respond to

a national threat.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank

the Congress for the passage of the 2002 State Homeland Security

Grant Program Part II. This is a giant step forward, not just the

resources it provides the States, but also for the flexibility in the

implementation it gives us. In addition to our ability to reimburse

cities and towns for actions taken during Operation Liberty Shield

and in future events is something I think we have collectively

wanted to do since September 11. It will be with great pleasure

that Governor Baldacci is able to distribute these funds to the local

communities.

With the package just fielded, we are afforded flexibility in the

amount of the award that can be used for equipment, planning,

training, exercise, or administration. We are also permitted to use

the training dollars, if needed, to reimburse overtime personnel

costs required for successful training and exercise. This flexibility

is welcome beyond words, and for more than what it will do in al-
17

lowing us to achieve preparedness goals. It demonstrates how responsive this Committee and the Congress, as a whole, has been

to the feedback on the effectiveness of these grant programs. It

bodes well for our collective ability to be able to serve our citizens

well into the future. We must always be willing to look at what is

working and then fix what is not working.

We also appreciate and support S. 838, introduced by Senator

Collins, which creates a process whereby the States can request to

reallocate funds received pursuant to appropriations of the State

Homeland Security Grant Program among all four categories of

equipment, training, exercise, and planning. This will give us the

opportunity for flexibility in all the grants we are currently administering, and in Maine’s case it will allow us to use all of our allocation and not have to return a portion that will otherwise remain

unspent.

I am totally supportive of the guidelines that dictate 80 percent

pass through of the ODP grant funds to local communities. It is

after all the local communities who bear the brunt of that first response. We have not adequately addressed their needs, and we

must do so. But without reducing direct aid to the communities, I

think in the future we will need to look at those cases where supporting programs at the State level will benefit communities in an

efficient and cost effective manner. Let me reiterate. I do not support sacrificing any direct pass through programs in order to increase State capability, but there are times when increasing these

capabilities achieves a direct benefit for the local communities. As

we look at the structure of future fielding possibilities, I think we

need to be able to identify and support those opportunities.

Please allow me to address a couple of other concerns we have,

one being the efficient coordination or grants from the Federal

level. In Maine, when we first began to administer the FEMA’s

Terrorism Consequence Management Planning Assistance,

TCMPA, that is 100 percent terrorism funding program that started before September 11, and the Department of Justice, now the

ODP funds, it was immediately obvious that we needed to supply

an in-state coordination that was not present within the Federal

Government.

We put together an interagency team of county and local members to develop our homeland security strategy and to guide the

grant-making process.

Today, a number of funding streams are gathered at the mantel

of the Department of Homeland Security. But there are others that

are not. There are funds available from HHS, CDC, EPA, Department of Transportation, and probably other Federal sources of

which I am not yet aware. We could create 50 full-time jobs across

the States, tracking Federal homeland security grants. How much

more efficient it would be if the Federal Government agencies could

better coordinate their grant opportunities, ensure that there was

no redundancy in these precious resources, and even support each

other in publicizing these opportunities.

I think we are doing a good job in Maine coordinating our State

agencies and using the grants to complement each other, not duplicate each other’s efforts. And I could stop being concerned right

now. But as a taxpayer, I think we could do a better job at coordi-
18

nating that can be done from the top. I am not advocating that all

funding opportunities be relocated to the Department of Homeland

Security. It is absolutely appropriate that Federal agencies with

particular missions work directly with their State. But the Department of Homeland Security and other Federal departments can use

the bully pulpit afforded them as sources of funding to encourage

States to coordinate all efforts of all State departments involved in

homeland security. The best bang for the buck can be achieved by

building capability for homeland security incidents on the backbone

of all-hazard emergency management capability, which has as a

basic tenet cooperation and coordination among all agencies.

Last, I would like to address the grant application process itself.

My agency administers the Emergency Management Performance

Grant, EMPG, and the Office of Domestic Preparedness grants. We

find that both models have merits. The EMPG model is one that

we find extremely flexible and easy to work with. Annually, we

submit a strategic plan containing long-term goals and objectives

and broad strategies that we use to achieve these goals. We also

submit detailed work plans we use to track annual activities, and

FEMA approves that plan, as well as the budget we submit. We report quarterly on our spending activities and the achievements at

the strategy level. With our final report, we compare our accomplishments with our goals of the year. We identify our significant

accomplishments and those areas that remain to have more work

done. We are held accountable both fiscally and programmatically,

but we are allowed flexibility in the design of the overall program.

And that is for the whole State.

We use a similar process to manage EMPG grants at the county

level, and we monitor their progress against their goals. This is the

model we would like to see all grants follow. Indeed, we could envision an EMPG program platform expanded not only to include

matching funds that would help us build our base emergency management capability, but also the 100-percent grants made available

to address homeland security.

With the Department of Homeland Security now in place, we

have a great opportunity to improve program coordination. With

the all-hazards approach that has been the foundation of emergency management and the existing programs in the mix, we have

the people and experience in administering grants effectively and

efficiently and the infrastructure to support them. The relationship

is already in place that connect Federal, State, and local governments in preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation, and

that is working every single day. As the Department continues to

evolve, we have a solid base to build on.

Senator Collins, I thank you very much for this opportunity to

testify today.

Senator COLLINS [presiding.] Thank you very much, Mr. Cleaves.

First, let me apologize to the mayor for missing his oral testimony, but I did read your written testimony and I look forward to

asking you questions. As you can see, we are doing a tag team here

to try to keep the hearing going. So we are taking turns voting and

chairing.

Commissioner, we look forward to hearing your statement.
19

1The prepared statement of Mr. Stenglein appears in the Appendix on page 63.

TESTIMONY OF MARK J. STENGLEIN,1 COMMISSIONER, BOARD

OF COMMISSIONERS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA

Mr. STENGLEIN. Well, thank you. Thank you, Chairman Collins.

And I am very far from home, but everybody has made me feel

quite at home. The table I am used to sitting around has a 7-, 5-

, and 4-year-old, so it is quite a different atmosphere here. But I

bring you greetings from the State of Minnesota, the Upper Midwest.

I would also like to thank Senator Lieberman and the two Senators from my State, Senator Dayton and Senator Coleman, and

Members of the Committee where they may be.

My name is Mark Stenglein, and I am a county commissioner

from Hennepin County in Minnesota. Hennepin County is the most

populous county in Minnesota with over 1.1 million residents. Hennepin County is charged with helping to maintain the health, safety, and welfare of one-quarter of the State’s population, and I am

honored to have the opportunity to testify before you today. I will

also note that the National Association of Counties has submitted

testimony for the Congressional Record as well. I would also like

to personally thank Senator Coleman for his invitation to testify

this morning.

Since the attacks of September 11, Hennepin County has been

preparing for the day that everyone hopes will never come again.

We have begun the difficult task of assessing our current preparedness planning and assets. We have continued to seek cooperation

and collaboration with other units of government. And, finally, we

have sought the resources necessary to achieve our goals.

First, I would like to give you a brief summary of where we currently stand in our assessment and planning stages.

Hennepin County has assessed our vulnerabilities at all levels.

We have upgraded our emergency preparedness plans, reassessed

our evacuation procedures for all county buildings. We have made

structural improvements to ‘‘target harden’’ our facilities and infrastructure and added additional security measures at our citizen

service centers to enhance the safety of our employees and the public.

Hennepin County is the keeper of records for millions of Minnesotans. We issue everything from birth certificates to death certificates, passports, and driver’s licenses. We must provide access

for our citizens so they may conduct their business in a convenient

and safe manner. County facilities that were once designed for easy

public access must now be reconfigured. Security measures must be

retrofitted to ensure safety for our employees and citizens—all

while keeping the delicate balance between safety and service.

Another area of intense focus is our hospital. Hennepin County

operates the Hennepin County Medical Center, known as HCMC.

HCMC is the only public hospital in the metropolitan region and

the only hospital in the downtown core with a Level I trauma facility. When it comes to serving the citizens in a time of crisis, we

are it. It is a tremendous responsibility that we take very seriously.

That is why HCMC has been leading the smallpox vaccination program for area hospitals and is also the lead agency for biological
20

and chemical decontamination units. We have also developed a mutual aid compact involving 22 hospitals in the metropolitan region.

HCMC is also a global admitting hospital designated by the CDC.

We have begun planning for continuity of government and the

continuation of operations in the event of a tragedy. The continuity

of government and the continuation of operations is essential.

Clearly identified roles and responsibilities allow our first responders, emergency coordinators, and administrators to carry out emergency plans with precision and without hesitation.

Hennepin County has not focused all of its efforts internally. We

have also sought to partner with the Federal Government, the

State of Minnesota, neighboring counties, and municipalities. These

partnerships define where we are headed in preparing for an emergency. One example of this cooperation was a joint venture with

the City of Minneapolis on an emergency preparedness training

program, sponsored by FEMA, at Mount Weather, Virginia. City

and county leaders, including myself, along with emergency personnel at all levels, conducted training operations under differing

scenarios. This hands-on approach to learning highlighted our

strengths and outlined our weaknesses, providing us with a blueprint for improvement.

Our cooperation does not end there. The Hennepin County Sheriff continually meets with city police chiefs, State and Federal law

enforcement officials, emergency management planners, and other

security first responders to share information. Firefighters meet

with EMS personnel to discuss tactics and scenarios to ensure that

emergency plans are developed consistent within all disciplines.

Another example of cooperation is the county-wide advisory

group formed to recommend and prioritize how to best use scarce

economic resources. Representatives from police, fire, EMS, sheriff’s office, public health departments, and the hospital meet to provide information and insight related to emergency preparedness

planning. Each representative knows how her or his respective

agency needs to respond in a moment of crisis. The challenges to

respond in a crisis increase under the threat of terrorism or biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

Hennepin County has also partnered with local entities such as

the Minneapolis Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Council on the preliminary design study of a secure cargo facility near

our international airport located within our county. We believe that

a consolidated regional distribution center for air cargo will streamline the security screening process of the thousands of tons of cargo

leaving Hennepin County and Minnesota each year. This regional

distribution center will also impact the local economy and maintain

the balance between security and the economic impacts of delay.

Working together, we are able to share ideas and concerns. We

have worked hard to identify and prioritize equipment and training

needs. Most importantly, we have moved from an independent approach to a shared, regionally-centered approach. We are breaking

down many of the old barriers to cooperation. We have made tremendous progress in uniting behind best practices and ensuring

that we are doing all we can to protect and serve our residents.

Last, I am going to talk about the kinds of help we need in order

to be successful.
21

We need money.

Should I say that again? We need money.

We lack the training and equipment to prepare or respond to a

radiological attack. A ‘‘dirty bomb’’ would have a devastating impact. We agree with the Hennepin County Sheriff that the concept

of a regional law enforcement response team may be necessary to

effectively operate in hazardous or contaminated areas. Resources

are required to coordinate such an endeavor.

More funding is needed for specialized equipment. There is virtually no capability in Hennepin County or the State of Minnesota

for heavy urban search and rescue. It would take nearly 48 to 72

hours to call in such equipment. By then it may be too late.

We require funding so we can prepare, so we can plan, so we can

train, so we can test ourselves, so we can assess and reassess, and

so we can repeat the process until we have got it right.

Thus far, Hennepin County has received supplemental funding

for the county and local communities to update plans for terrorism.

We are currently utilizing a grant from the Department of Justice

for first responder equipment. Resources have been slow to reach

local governments, and we are just now in the process of applying

for the 2003 Homeland Security grant intended for equipment and

exercises.

Hennepin County strongly supports the current formula of the

Homeland Security Department, Office of Domestic Preparedness

grant program. That formula requires 80 percent of the money

awarded to States be directed to local units of government.

Hennepin County also believes that the Emergency Management

Performance Grant, EMPG, program funding needs to be increased.

This is the program that facilitates and coordinates emergency

planning and exercises. EMPG funding is essential for all local

emergency planning programs. Local planners need the flexibility

offered through the EMPG program.

We must keep in mind that disasters originate at the local level.

Local responders are the first to arrive at a disaster scene. Those

horrific first hours of September 11 are etched in our memories forever; local responders bore the brunt of that horror.

Counties are willing participants in emergency preparedness. We

pledge to work with all agencies on a national, State, and regional

level. Hennepin County is staffed with hard-working, dedicated individuals willing to do all they can to ensure the health, safety, and

welfare of our citizens. We ask that you help provide us the tools

necessary to make that a reality.

Madam Chairman, Members of the Committee, I sincerely thank

you for the opportunity to testify here.

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Commissioner.

The commissioner put it very bluntly. He said, ‘‘We need money.’’

Mr. STENGLEIN. I said it twice.

Chairman COLLINS. I would like to ask all of our witnesses today

your advice on how best to allocate that money. Regardless of the

level of funding for Homeland Security, if the funds aren’t getting

to the people who need them most, if they aren’t based on a formula that takes into account the threat, whether a State is a border State, whether it has major institutions or nuclear plants, etc.,
22

then no matter how much money we invest, we may not accomplish

the goal of making our Nation safer.

And you represent four different perspectives, so starting with

the Governor, I would like to ask your advice, as the Committee

drafts legislation, on the issue of how do you best and most effectively allocate the funding?

Governor ROMNEY. Well, the funding, I think we would all agree,

should go to the individuals who are the first-line preventers and

first-line responders. That is going to be overwhelmingly at the city

and town level. Some States have counties and, therefore, county

government may participate in that, may have law enforcement;

other States don’t, therefore they would not. Some States have very

extensive involvement of the State police in this effort; others don’t.

So you would have a wide range of differences between who those

first responders and first preventers might be, but that is where

the money ought to go. And that is why I think the direction that

has been pursued in the past, which money is flowing through to

those first responders and first preventers is the right way to go.

I would underscore what the Chairman has said, however, which

is that money ought to go not just based on how many people there

are in a location or what the geographical size is but, rather, what

is the potential risk in a particular area. What kind of targets are

there? What kind of access and availability is there to terrorist infiltration in the area? What kind of threat might exist from other

sources, whether domestic or foreign, is something which has to be

considered in where the funds would flow.

And it would be conceivable for the Federal Government to say

we are going to do that kind of scoring, if you will, on the unique

qualifications, I think as the mayor indicated, or the unique circumstances of each city and town in the country. But you would

have tens of thousands that would have to be scored that way. I

think the preferable matter would be to have the respective States

carry out that scoring and do that on the basis of the integrated

plan which they and the localities would create.

I mentioned that we have a city that has a nuclear facility in it,

and one might say, oh, they obviously should get a lot of money

then in that city to take care of that nuclear facility—except in our

case the nuclear facility is not protected by the city or town. The

protection entirely comes from the State Police and the National

Guard. So, according to our plan, the funds should flow there.

On the other hand, the city I mentioned that has the LNG tanks

and the jet fuel tanks is entirely protected by local law enforcement. The State Police plays no particular role in that community.

And, therefore, the funds should flow in that direction in that particular community.

So I would underscore, let’s flow the money where it is needed,

that is, to the first responders and the first preventers. That is

overwhelmingly going to be the cities and towns and counties, depending on the nature of the structure of the governmental entity

in a particular State. But let’s make sure it flows in a way which

is consistent with a plan which has been created by all of those

parties, Federal, State, and local working together, and then make

sure that the individual uniqueness, as the mayor has indicated, of

a particular community is factored into that assessment.
23

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Governor.

Mr. Mayor, I know in your written testimony you have said that,

until very recently, Detroit had received very little by way of homeland security funding. What is your advice to us on allocating the

funding?

Mr. KILPATRICK. Well, thank you for asking that question,

Madam Chairman. I would say I agree almost in whole with the

Governor. I think we all agree that the money should go directly

where it is needed most, and it should be based on a needs assessment, not based on population. And we should talk about where

the health labs are that are doing the testing for the chemical or

biological weapons. We should talk about where the Level I trauma

centers are in our State. We should talk about the border security

in a city like the City of Detroit and look at those unique qualifications of cities and towns and figure out how that money is allocated.

I think that is where the big debate comes and how it comes to

those cities. I think mayors in this country have to have a direct

relationship with the Federal Government. Being a former legislator, I truly agree that if all things were equal, and there was a

fair assessment of scoring, and things went into our State capitals

and came out fairly, that would be the best way to do it. But we

all know, just like Portland in Oregon and Detroit in Michigan and

Boston in Massachusetts, we are the giant sucking sound. And oftentimes we are politicized when we are trying to do good things

for our city that also protect the entire State. Detroit is 46-plus

percent of the GDP of the State of Michigan, and a lot of people

don’t like that. You know, it gets political in State Houses, State

legislatures, and even many governors’ offices.

So cities and mayors across this country in the 319 metro areas

that make up 86 percent of the gross domestic product of this country are saying we need the money to come directly to cities because

those local firefighters—I mean, when we have to pick up the

phone and say there is an emergency, we don’t call the county fire

department or the State fire department.

On the border every single day are our Detroit police officers,

and that money is coming directly out of general fund dollars that

would pay for more crime fighting in neighborhoods. So we need

that money to come directly to the city. Legislative bodies represent

people all over the State and they are there to fight for their constituencies. Oftentimes they don’t look at the direct issue of how we

protect our entire State. It is more of how do I get money to my

hometown.

So I think the dollars should be allocated directly to cities based

on a needs assessment put together by the Federal Government’s

relationship to those cities. I said in my testimony, Los Angeles

may need something different than the City of Detroit. In the City

of Detroit, we have gone out and purchased a thousand HAZMAT

outfits because we thought that would be a concern. We don’t need

any more of those, so we don’t need money for HAZMAT. We need

flexibility in spending so we can go out and say what we need is

technology infrastructure; what we need is to do some work on our

tunnel or our bridge crossing; or we need to improve our seawall

so there is better access and better security measures there.
24

So we need a direct relationship with the dollars, or it will be politicized in a State like Michigan. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much. Mr. Cleaves.

Mr. CLEAVES. Thank you, Senator. I wouldn’t dare to sit here

and disagree with a governor or a mayor at all. [Laughter.]

But I would stress a couple of points, I think, that are very important.

To this point, there hasn’t been any money distributed to the

States that we could get to the community except for the supplemental that just went through. That is the first money we have

seen at the State level that can actually be flowed down to the local

communities. And the other thing that I would underscore is that

at the State level we have visibility of all the planning, and in

order to coordinate it so that one city, one community doesn’t duplicate what the next community has, i.e., I would point out that

Portland, Maine, doesn’t have its own HAZMAT team today and it

relies on volunteers from four neighboring communities. They are

building that capability, but we see at the State level all of this regional planning coming together so we could put together one strategic plan for the whole State.

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Commissioner Stenglein.

Mr. STENGLEIN. Well, it is very difficult, Madam Chairman, to

come at the end of such esteemed and honored people who have

some very good answers. Each unique community has their own

needs, and the reality is that the people that sent us here are just

counting on government to do it: ‘‘They will take care of it.’’ We are

the ‘‘they.’’ And in Hennepin County, as an example, our hospital

is a public hospital. There are hospitals that are private hospitals.

They don’t operate on capacity, they don’t worry about capacity.

They are always filling it up all the time, where our hospital, we

have to maintain capacity all the time.

So, again, the uniqueness of each area—and as Governor Romney

pointed out, depending on how difficult an area is to secure, could

mean various parts of a problem that hopefully our elected people

are coming to you and bringing the wants and needs.

Senator Lieberman was very accurate when he said that the war

is within our borders now. The next 101st Airborne could be the

Detroit Fire Department. It is very true, and they need those resources right away. Not saying that everything needs—it is incumbent upon us to coordinate all things. If the National Guard has

a lot of HAZMAT suits in a locality, they should become available

without question.

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you.

Governor Romney, you mentioned the importance of a plan, and

that is an issue that the Committee is also looking at. I wonder if

you could share with us more about your experience in coordinating in your role with the Olympic Committee. It is my understanding that you came up with a single plan. I would like to know

how important that was to the success of your effort and how you

involved Federal, State, and local officials. Because, really, what

you have done in many ways in that capacity is a model for what

we need to do, in my opinion, for Homeland Security.

Governor ROMNEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It was a very

interesting experience because, initially, as you might imagine,
25

with the award of the Olympic Games and the prospects of literally

billions of dollars coming to the State of Utah, there were a number of law enforcement agencies that thought this was going to be

the Holy Grail. We would have all the money necessary for equipment, for communications, and for security, and so we had police

departments, city police departments, county sheriff’s police, as

well as the State Police, all creating their own plans. And much as

planning has been done so far in our Nation, for many States planning is every city puts together their own plan, we staple it all together and bind it and say here is the statewide plan.

That would have not held us in good stead. I remember early on

in my experience receiving a visit from the State Police, suggesting

that they really needed an additional helicopter and couldn’t we

make that part of the security program for the Games. There was

a sheriff in one of the rural counties that said they would love to

have a mobile command center and couldn’t we make that part of

the overall plan.

And what we found is that the cities and towns, the county, and

the State each had their own vision of what they needed. But the

only security program that was highly effective was one which was

planned together with the cities, the towns, the county, looking at,

if you will, a theater-wide strategy for providing security.

I don’t know as much about all the communities seated at this

table as I do about the one in Salt lake City, Salt Lake City itself

is a relatively small population and geographic center with many,

if you will, suburbs around it. Having a plan for Salt Lake City

alone, without encompassing those communities around it, wouldn’t

have been effective. And having each one of them develop their own

plans with their own communications systems, their own mobile

command centers and so forth would not have been efficient or effective. That is what happened in the Atlanta Games. That is how

the Atlanta Games were planned, and we had a terrorist incident

there.

What we moved toward was a program where the local authorities, the State authorities, and the Federal Government sat down

and worked together on a multi-year basis to create a truly comprehensive plan with no holes, where assignments were made, and

where we said, for instance, OK, we only need one mobile command

center, not one for each community. We need a communications

system which is interoperable, and, therefore, cities and towns, we

are not going to give you the money to go out and buy whatever

you want. We are going to create a systemwide setting, and we put

in place with Senator Bennett’s help—a Member of this Committee—a communications program that covered all of the police

and fire in the greater community.

This kind of interoperability was only possible given the fact that

there was a statewide plan and a theater-wide plan that was developed.

Chairman COLLINS. Pardon me. I have to go.

Governor ROMNEY. That is fine. Thank you.

Chairman COLLINS. Please complete your comment.

Governor ROMNEY. You have to go vote. That is fine. Thank you.

I would note that what we have found as we have gone about the

work of planning for our own community—and I have here with me
26

today my Secretary of Public Safety, who was formerly the police

chief in Arlington County, the home of the Pentagon, who is experienced in saying how do you create a plan which is robust enough

to prevent terrorism and also to respond to terrorism, unless you

do so on a regional basis where interoperability and efficiency are

high priorities. And that is something which we are increasingly

able to do on a State basis. This stapling together of all the cities’

and towns’ plans and calling it a State plan just doesn’t make

sense. And, therefore, it has been critical from our standpoint to insist on the monies we have received—we have now passed through

the State Government more than 95 percent of the homeland security funds that have been appropriated since 1999. But when people came to us and said, gee, we would like this project, we said

we will only approve projects that are part of a regional plan. With

351 cities and towns, we don’t want 351 plans. We want

regionality, with the City of Boston working together with the City

of Chelsea and the City of Revere, which are right next door, which

happen to house these LNG and volatiles tanks, making sure that

we have a system that encompasses both.

So I am, following on the Chairman’s question, a strong believer

in creating that plan with all parties and making sure that the

funding is being allocated according to that plan. And I agree with

the mayor. We don’t want to have this as a political process,

whether at the Federal or the State or the local level. It really has

to be a plan based upon the specific needs and roles of the different

parties.

Senator LIEBERMAN [presiding.] Thank you. I was thinking I feel

like I am in the old Johnny Carson show where you hear the answer before you hear the question. [Laughter.]

It was a good answer.

Governor ROMNEY. Senator, I was asked with regards to the

Olympic experience the nature of the planning process that we had

undertaken and how that worked. And just to repeat a small piece,

we began with each locality putting together their own plan and

trying to cobble them together, and it was impossible. What we

ended up with was a planning process which was city, State, and

Federal, where the Federal played a very important role in helping

us to build templates to tell us what needed to be done area by

area. And that is really what made all the difference.

Senator LIEBERMAN. I appreciate your answer, Governor. I thank

you.

Let me raise another question going to the relationship between

the Federal Government and the local governments with regard to

funding, and it is the question of whether because of your efforts

in response to the terrorist threat or a response to a national problem, whether we should be directly funding personnel at the State,

county, and local level?

Now, to some extent in a different context, the domestic anticrime context, we made this decision in the 1990’s when we created

and funded the so-called COPS program, but this proposal which

I mentioned, which Senator Collins and I and others are cosponsoring, called the SAFER Act, would basically take the COPS idea

and move it to firefighters, and we would fund, directly fund additional firefighting personnel based on the conclusion that fire de-
27

partments are being required to bring on and train additional personnel to deal with terrorist threats.

There is some disagreement about this. Governor Ridge was before the Committee a couple of weeks ago and said that he thought

there was—I believe I am doing him justice, that he thought there

was probably an argument for funding overtime of personnel, particularly based on Federal determinations of higher alert levels, but

not to pick up personnel costs.

So I wonder if I could ask you how you feel about us assuming

some personnel costs at your levels of government based on a conclusion that those costs are necessitated by the national threat of

terrorism. Yes, Mayor, do you want to start?

Mr. KILPATRICK. Yes. Senator, that speaks directly to the individual uniqueness of each community in this country. And on behalf of Detroit, the only time we have received any homeland security money has been directly from the Federal Government. The

supplemental appropriation gave our State $15.9 million. The City

of Detroit was provided $369,000 of that—2.5 percent. It was given

out in a way that everybody gets some money instead of a real

needs assessment on what is needed in our State.

When you have $1.4 billion of trade coming across your waters

every single day; when you have the largest corporation in the

world sitting on your riverfront, when you have local police officers

performing the job of national security; there has to be another

conversation.

So I believe that the COPS program, and additional personnel

are things that we should look at. But it should be done on a formula basis even from here. The individual COPS grants just allow

local communities to hire police officers or firefighters. On behalf

of Detroit, I am willing to submit what we actually need as far as

homeland security, so that we can be evaluated fairly in a way

where we get exactly what we need. I know mayors across the

country would do the same.

We put together this homeland security plan. We have outlined

from each department what they actually need to deliver public

service, every single day, because I don’t believe that emergency response will ever work unless you are delivering services that way

every day. If you are trying to jump into a good communications

system when an emergency happens, it won’t work. If you are trying to energize your health department when an emergency happens and it doesn’t work on a day-to-day basis, it won’t work.

So we have spent a lot of time really getting our house in order

to make sure that we can deliver basic public services, communicate with our citizens and bring our telecommunications and

interoperable systems together with everyone so it works every

day.

I agree wholeheartedly with the governor—the comments he

made when he spoke about the Olympics. These plans can’t be

piecemeal, and that is why I believe that so much money is being

wasted when it comes to our State, because we want to give money

to this plan or to that plan instead of forcing the regions around

the State of Michigan to get together and deal with this in a comprehensive form. When you have a million-plus people in downtown

Detroit for the fireworks display, those are Detroit police officers
28

there. We get mutual aid from county sheriffs for those events.

When the Red Wings—not this year—win the Stanley Cup (but

that is a usual happening around the City of Detroit), and a million

people come downtown, those are local police officers.

So, we have these agreements where we can work out regional

things on a fund basis, and we want to drive everyone to sit down

and talk about a real comprehensive plan. And I believe that with

a direct relationship with local governments, an allocation of COPS

dollars or COPS-formula-type dollars in homeland security would

especially work for cities like Detroit that have become so politically charged in legislatures, in our legislature in Michigan. But it

is always the big city—New York in New York, L.A. in California—

it is always that big political thing that prevents the dollars from

doing the most good for the citizens of that State.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mayor, for that thoughtful and

helpful answer.

Mr. STENGLEIN. Just briefly, Senator?

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. STENGLEIN. On the surface, that sounds like a great idea because, you are right, the police and firemen are the first line of defense. But we have to be very careful, because when the police dollars went away, it was devastating to some cities because cities relied on those dollars and spent money that should have probably

gone into public safety elsewhere.

So my only caution is, if that happens, to be very careful in how

it is allocated to the cities.

Chairman COLLINS. Governor or Mr. Cleaves, would you like to

answer that question?

Governor ROMNEY. I would be happy to. I will need to speak on

my own behalf as opposed to the National Governors’ Association.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Sure.

Governor ROMNEY. Because I am sure that from their standpoint

any money would be greatly appreciated. [Laughter.]

So I don’t want to draw them into my own remarks, but I would

say that certainly there is justification for the Federal Government

playing an ongoing role in funding virtually any effort it wished to

fund relating to homeland security. The Federal Government has

a responsibility for defending the homeland, for national security,

for national defense, and this clearly falls within that range.

I would note, however, that our own experience at the Olympic

Games was that the Federal Government rule, if you will, that we

applied was that the funding would be provided for overtime only

and that Federal support came for overtime, not only for those officers involved in the direct security effort but for those officers who

were left at home that had to carry out overtime responsibilities

because of those officers we had drawn away. So it was a pretty

robust program.

In this circumstance, I think we have an unusual setting, and

that is that the homeland security challenge has been unanticipated and unplanned for. And cities and towns and the States have

not put in place a structure for being able to deal financially with

this sudden post-September 11 financial crisis. And, therefore, the

prospect of receiving some support or reimbursement for not only
29

equipment but also personnel I think is appropriate in these kind

of unplanned, unanticipated emergencies.

Going forward, that is an issue that we will be happy for any largesse that comes our way.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Mr. Cleaves.

Mr. CLEAVES. My answer will be very brief.

Senator LEVIN. May I interrupt you just one second? Mayor Kilpatrick has to leave because of his schedule this morning and he

is late for an appointment at HUD. And I am wondering whether

or not we could excuse him, unless there is a question that any of

us have—and I know I have a quick one, too. Senator Coleman I

guess is our acting Chairman, so I will look at Senator Coleman.

But if we could excuse the mayor, it would be very helpful, after

a question or two. And I would ask the understanding of our other

witnesses.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Mr. Cleaves, did you want to finish briefly?

Mr. CLEAVES. Yes, sir. Very briefly.

Senator LIEBERMAN. People from Maine are very much to the

point. [Laughter.]

Mr. CLEAVES. We absolutely need funds with training flexibility

because we don’t have the police officers or the fire officials to adequately train today. So we can’t even cover shifts. So, absolutely,

money with flexibility for their training.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Did you want to ask a question?

Senator LEVIN. I think Senator Coleman is probably our acting

Chairman, so let me ask Senator Coleman——

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN

Senator COLEMAN. Well, as an ex-mayor, I did want to get the

mayor’s response, and actually from others. But while the mayor

is here, I was always a great believer in direct funding to the cities

and was oftentimes concerned as dollars went to the States that

they never found their way down, and you have indicated that in

your testimony about the supplemental.

My concern, though, is that not every city needs to have a robot

bomb dog. Small cities don’t. Have you thought about a regional

approach? What do we do to make sure dollars get to you that you

need in a more focused way, and whether at the State level that

works fine, or a regional approach? How should we look at this?

Mr. KILPATRICK. I believe that there are several things that you

should force us to do regionally, and when I got into office, Detroit

had always been—had friction regionally. We brought everyone to

the table. We now for the first time, I believe, in Detroit’s history

have a great working relationship with Oakland County and with

Macomb County. We have brought all of our hospital systems in

the entire southeastern Michigan region together. We meet about

our planning now, and we are doing exactly what the Governor outlined.

It has taken us a while to get here. People are still scrambling

because, yes, this is new. Homeland security is new. You still have

some people saying they want their own interoperable system,

which is kind of oxymoronic, you want to have your own interoperable system. But we are working out some of those issues.
30

1 City of Detroit Action Plan for Homeland Security, Background Paper, April 4, 2002, submitted by Senator Levin, appears in the Appendix on page 90.

But you are right, there are some cities that receive funding from

the State that absolutely cannot use it to do any furtherance of

homeland security or hometown security for us in Michigan. So, I

believe that there should be some parts that come directly to the

local government. We are kicking up people to supervise now, and

you are taking them out of the line ranks because you have got

your good people leaving.

So that is a big issue, but there are some concerns—the hospital

funding, health care funding, Trauma I centers—where are they in

the region? That should be regionally allocated, I believe, and there

are some places that we should sit down and talk about how we

deliver applications here together.

I think that the perfect example is transportation funding when

you talk about bringing together regional systems around this

country to get the biggest bang for transportation funding. I think

something like that can happen when we talk about homeland security.

Senator COLEMAN. I will hold off in getting a response from the

others, and I will recognize Senator Levin.

Senator LEVIN. Just one question. First of all, the mayor has

made reference to the action plan that he and the city have adopted relative to homeland security. And, Mr. Chairman, this is really

a very visionary plan. It was done I think perhaps first in the country, and I would like this to be made part of the record of the hearing today.1

Senator COLEMAN. Without objection.

Senator LEVIN. And my question is basically this: I also am a

former local official. I was president of the City Council in Detroit,

and we had——

Mr. KILPATRICK. I wish you were there now, Senator.

Senator LEVIN. And I understand the local perspective, too. It is

essential, as the mayor said, that we not only have this regional

effort put together to avoid handing out money to local communities that might not need it and to avoid duplication and waste,

but you have got to have the local input at that table, as the mayor

said. You have got to have a seat at that table. And it seems to

me that is the challenge for us, to guarantee the local input at the

same time we try to achieve the regional output or the regional

outcome.

So I don’t know if the mayor has a comment on that, but I just

want to thank the mayor for this visionary plan, and I thank all

of our witnesses for allowing me to interrupt you so I could get our

mayor out of here to the commitment he has. Thank you.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Senator Levin. And, Mayor, if you

have to leave, you are excused, we appreciate your testimony.

Mr. KILPATRICK. Well, thank you, Ranking Member Lieberman,

Senator Coleman, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I

apologize for having to leave, but as a mayor, HUD just threatened

us for taking $46 million from us for something that happened in

1988 when I was a senior in high school. [Laughter.]
31

So I have to go over to HUD to try to save $46 million so I can

keep my job. I apologize, but thank you for the opportunity.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Mayor, thanks for being here. I just think

not only based on your ability, your intelligence, your commitment,

but on your size, I would never threaten you. [Laughter.]

Mr. KILPATRICK. Thank you very much.

Chairman COLLINS [presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for being

with us today.

Mr. STENGLEIN. I think regionalism is—you are absolutely right,

Senator Coleman. As you well know, Minneapolis and Hennepin

County, the county has a crime lab, the city has a bomb squad, and

we share, we interact. I don’t know if other major metropolitan

areas have a Met Council type planning agency, but regionalism

like that on a seven-county—because we are within a compressed

area enough that we can share resources, and it is absolutely incumbent upon us to work on sharing resources.

Senator COLEMAN. Madam Chairman, if I can continue?

Chairman COLLINS. Yes.

Senator COLEMAN. The question I had asked, I would actually be

interested in—and I appreciate that. One comment, by the way, before the other responses, and I want to make it—Commissioner

Stenglein, it is a pleasure to have you here. We talked about the

COPS program and the money going away. The ‘‘going away’’

doesn’t mean it is because the program is gone. The ‘‘going away’’

is because the money is phased to go away.

Mr. STENGLEIN. Right.

Senator COLEMAN. And what we are seeing in Minneapolis, Minnesota, right now is a situation where, because of financial difficulties of the city, we have the prospect of potentially laying off cops.

In St. Paul, I hired ten folks in the COPS program, but had a longterm payment plan. And if you don’t, that is the danger that you

face. So I presume when you said going away——

Mr. STENGLEIN. Exactly. It is important that those positions are

guaranteed or the payment stream like you did to keep them going.

Senator COLEMAN. I appreciate that.

Governor, I would be very interested in your perspective on regional approaches.

Governor ROMNEY. Thank you. I think Mayor Kilpatrick and myself would underline the same observations. One is that each city

and town has a very unique circumstances or set of circumstances

that they have to deal with as it relates to terror and security and

that assessing those is essential to deciding what level of funds and

what level of resources are necessary in a particular area.

Second, the only effective plans can be done on a regional basis.

You can’t put plans together on a citywide basis. Now, perhaps in

some States, they only have three cities and that encompasses the

entire population, you could do that. In our State, we have 351 cities and towns, so you can’t do that. It has to be done regionally.

And I don’t know how you do something on a regional basis which

takes into account the unique differences between cities and towns

unless it is being done by the State. I don’t know how you encompass regionality and pulling together regions unless the State is

playing a lead role in doing so.
32

We could say we would like the Department of Homeland Security to create regions across the entire country, but the Department

of Homeland Security has enough difficulty just dealing with 50

different States and their differences. But to say now you are going

to take States apart and figure out their regions and get them to

work together, put together plans, I just don’t think is possible.

That is why I look to our Secretary of Public Safety, as a former

police chief, and say let’s make sure and create plans that are regional, that account for the differences and the unique elements of

the respective communities within that region, and let’s remove the

politics. And I guess that was the question, I think, that the mayor

had said, gosh, this could be political. You could have a State Government decide to hang onto the money or give it to their friends

instead of the communities that need it.

I don’t know how much that occurs in his State. I certainly don’t

believe it happens in our State. I believe this is an issue, homeland

security, which is amenable to pretty clear objective criteria of targets and risks and who is playing which responsibilities, and the

money should flow on those bases.

If someone really felt that the process had become too political,

I guess one could ask the Department of Homeland Security to review the plans of the respective States to make sure that they are

comprehensive and are fairly scored and are fairly encompassing

the risks of the communities within that State. That is if someone

felt it were out of bounds. But I do believe that regionality and

uniqueness of circumstances forms the basis of how we have to

carry out our homeland security effort.

And I would note again, just underlining that Olympic experience, that something that Senator Levin mentioned was that we

have to have the localities as part of this process. You don’t want

to have a group of State employees and appointed officials putting

together the plans of security. My experience, again, with the

Olympics was that when we asked the State folks to come up with

a plan, it wasn’t right. When we asked the Feds to come up with

a plan, it wasn’t right. When we asked the localities to come up

with a plan, it wasn’t right.

The way the plan worked is by having all come together on a

multi-year basis to create a unified plan where, in fact, the FBI

played a lead role in intelligence, the Secret Service a lead role in

terms of operational security and the hardening of our sites, and

that kind of comprehensive planning process involved localities is

an essential part of creating a regional plan which recognizes those

uniquenesses.

Senator COLEMAN. Mr. Cleaves.

Mr. CLEAVES. Senator, I couldn’t say it any better than Governor

Romney just did. Maine built its strategy around regionalization,

and it involved paper companies with HAZMAT teams, and we continue to do that. And the only way you can achieve true efficiency

and effectiveness is through regionalization. We stress that from

the State level. We have got the emergency management grant

process that we could follow that teaches building that, and an emap, an assessment through emergency management that allows

you to measure the progress of each of those regions as you build

them.
33

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you for that response.

Mr. Cleaves, I want to follow up with you on a point that you

made in your testimony. You talked about that you receive homeland security funds from a variety of different agencies and that

each agency requires a separate emergency management plan and

each has a separate grant program that requires a separate application.

I assume that that paperwork involves duplicating work that you

have done for one agency but doing it on a new form and responding in little different ways. Is that correct?

Mr. CLEAVES. Absolutely, Senator.

Chairman COLLINS. Is that a problem? Does that divert time

away from higher priorities? Do we need to try to streamline the

process so that you have one plan?

Mr. CLEAVES. Yes, please. Senator, we have to give plans to

FEMA currently, and the Department of Justice or ODP grants,

each one containing different strategies, slightly different. Same

overall strategy for the State of Maine but different forms to fill

out.

Shortly after September 11, we had to divert our crews to finish

the ODP grant that we were working on so we could get at the

money for the first responders to provide equipment for them. So

we diverted help from one area in order to fill out these grants. So

if we could have one strategic plan for the whole State, and as a

matter of fact it would be ideal if it encompassed the Bureau of

Health so CDC and HRSA money would also be under one total

plan for the State. That would be ideal for us. One time and one

computer input, please.

Chairman COLLINS. In view of the circumstances today I am just

going to ask one final question but we may have some additional

ones for the record, and I am going to give Senator Levin an opportunity to see if he has some additional ones. I do want to say that

all of your written testimony will be put in the hearing record as

well.

My final question, and I will start with you, Governor, is would

it be helpful to have a single entity within the Department of

Homeland Security that is knowledgeable about all the homeland

security grant programs both inside and outside of the Department,

so that you could have a single point of contact, sort of one-stop

shopping, if you will, for homeland security?

Governor ROMNEY. I think that principle is so attractive that I

wish it could apply to all agencies of the Federal Government. I

think one of the great challenges we have at the State, and I am

sure at the municipal level as well, is trying to find where to go

to obtain support or financial help as necessary to carry out the

missions of State Government. And particularly in an area as important as homeland security, having a place where one could

apply for help and guidance would be remarkably valuable.

I salute the work of Secretary Ridge. He is creating a remarkably

successful program. We have had a chance to meet on a couple of

occasions now and each time I am impressed with what is being

accomplished there. The work to create some templates, if you

will,—and by that term I mean some guidance as to what types of

action we might want to carry out at a particular threat level for
34

a particular type of potential target. Those kinds of templates are

highly valuable to us.

So, likewise, receiving support for making a single point of access

to homeland security for grant purposes as well as for other informational purposes would be highly valuable.

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. Cleaves, would that be helpful for a

small State like Maine to have that single point of contact?

Mr. CLEAVES. Yes, Senator, I certainly do agree with that. That

would be very helpful to us. I would suggest that if that were to

occur that the individual or individuals would be located at the one

homeland security center where the governor has access to that.

That, in our case, is Maine Emergency Management. It would be

collocated so that we could more effectively work all the programs.

Chairman COLLINS. Commissioner?

Mr. STENGLEIN. Madam Chairman, echo 100 percent. Yes, it

would be. It would be wonderful.

Just to follow, when I first became a commissioner—and I am a

business guy—to follow Federal health care funding is an absolute

maze. Hopefully we do not get into that problem with security

funding because, the bottom line is, our residents depend on us to

keep them safe. So the most we can streamline this with one entity, one agency here, the better off for everybody.

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Levin.

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. This seems to be

4M day here. We have got Massachusetts, Michigan, Maine, Minnesota. I do not know how Delaware got in here?

Governor ROMNEY. Governor Minner.

Chairman COLLINS. Very good.

Senator LEVIN. On this issue that Senator Collins has raised, I

have raised this central point question in a slightly different way

with Governor Ridge a number of times. In Senator Collins’ bill is

a very important provision about that central point of contact. It

should be presumably, or what it is going to be is the office for

State and local coordination in the Secretary’s office. But that has

not been done and the bill is very helpful in that regard to promote

it.

But I would also urge Governor Ridge to have an 800 number

where State and local governments can call in the meantime. Just

one place where you can call for information. He is committed to

creating that number. It has not yet been created, but I want to

let you know that Senator Collins and all of us here are very conscious of the dispersal or the dispersion of information even about

grants and other needs at the department. So the 800 number commitment has been made by Governor Ridge.

My second point really is a question. Is there any overall number

in your States, dollar figure, for the extra cost of homeland security

since September 11? Would you be able to tell us in your States

or your local communities—does a number exist in any of your

States or local communities, this is what you were spending on security prior to September 11. This is what our expenditures are

since September 11. Governor, let me just ask you first, perhaps.

Governor ROMNEY. Let me respond to your first point first, the

800 number, and then the second. I would note that our ability to

access information from homeland security has been remarkably
35

good, both through the White House, Ruben Berellas, who does

intergovernmental affairs in the White House, gets us to the right

place quickly. We likewise, through both of undersecretary contact

and through Governor Ridge himself have been able to get superb

information. I have no complaints there. I do not always like the

answer, but I love the communication and we have been very

pleased there.

Senator LEVIN. I do not think that is true with a lot of local governments. It is shared more so with State Governments.

Governor ROMNEY. I am sure that is the case. I cannot possibly

read all the figures to you, but I have just been handed here a

summary of our spending on security associated with preventing

terrorism and responding to potential terrorist acts since September 11. That is something we will be happy to provide to the

Committee in great detail.

Senator LEVIN. The extra amount——

Governor ROMNEY. The extra amount of spending. I am given a

total here of approximately $53 million is the cost to our State and

municipalities associated with additional spending post-September

11.

Senator LEVIN. Per year?

Governor ROMNEY. That would be in total since September 11.

The numbers are getting better and better. When Secretary Ridge

contacted us with the most recent declaration of the Orange level

of threat he said, I would like you to collect community by community and statewide what your true incremental costs are.

For instance, in the community I mentioned that has the LNG

facilities, I spoke with the mayor there. He said, we would like to

consider putting on—and I will not give you the exact number, but

we would like to consider putting on additional patrols to circulate

in that area. I said, what will it cost? He said, it is $100,000 in

additional overtime to protect that, per week. I said, go ahead. We

will stand behind you on a State basis. We did that with a number

of localities, again, according to our statewide plan. We add those

numbers up and can look on a weekly basis. At the State police

level we were spending about $250,000 incremental overtime during Code Orange that we do not spend otherwise. This was to protect our tunnels, our bridges, and certain other key targets.

So we calculate the number, gather the number and $53 million

is the round figure. We can provide that on a pretty detailed basis.

Senator LEVIN. Does Maine have a figure?

Mr. CLEAVES. I cannot give you that figure, Senator.

Senator LEVIN. For the record, if you could try.

Mr. CLEAVES. What I can tell you is that from the Maine Emergency Management agency, we have chased the figures every time

and there is a difference between should have and could have.

What the folks want to do, municipal officials wanted to do, they

were not able to do, so many of the communities ran a great risk.

We went from Portland, Maine all the way to Caribou and Fort

Kent trying to assemble those costs, but all we got back was a lot

of, this is what we would have done. So a lot of holding our breath

out there right now.

Senator LEVIN. Madam Chairman, that is a very important point

and I would ask the governor also to submit the need figure as well
36

as what you actually spent above your previous amount, because

Mr. Cleaves’ point is critically important in that regard, too.

Mr. STENGLEIN. I could not agree more. There is a need level

that everybody will say, oh my gosh, I cannot believe you did not

do that even though you should have done that but you did not

have the resources. In Hennepin County it is in the low millions.

That may be a small number for the folks who deal with numbers

out here, but for us it is a large amount. The exact number will

be forthcoming.

Our courthouse was built to access the public. There are 32 entrances and it is very difficult to screen 32 entrances. Then there

was the cost of closing down a public garage which generated revenue for us too. We had that closed down for 8 months. Now it has

reopened again.

Senator LEVIN. Which is a cost.

Mr. STENGLEIN. Sure it is. If opportunity cost.

Governor ROMNEY. Senator, might I add a comment as well with regards to our spending and the $53 million? Following September

11, a significant portion of our security spending was designed to

reassure the public that we were doing something. But not all of

that spending was really essential to actually securing various

sites. We had, for instance, State troopers at the entrance to major

tunnels, the entrance to which was a 55-mile-an-hour, eight-lane

highway. There is not much the trooper was really going to be able

to do if there were to be some kind of a terrorist attack at that tunnel other than to communicate to the public that we were there

and caring.

So we spent a lot of money to be visible and to show that we

were concerned. How much was absolutely essential to protecting

that asset is something which we would also need to calculate.

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. I am going to pass on my other questions just because of the circumstances.

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Carper.

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. To our witnesses,

welcome.

Where are you from, Mr. Stenglein?

Mr. STENGLEIN. Minneapolis, Hennepin County.

Senator CARPER. Welcome. Maine; is that correct?

Mr. CLEAVES. Yes, sir.

Senator CARPER. And Massachusetts?

Governor ROMNEY. Correct.

Senator CARPER. As an old governor, I welcome you. I have not

had the privilege of meeting you, but welcome today. I always

thought it was a privilege to be Governor of Delaware and I wish

you great success in your responsibilities.

Senator Collins, who usually leaves the room when I am about

to speak—— [Laughter.]

Thank you for carrying on while I go vote.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER

Senator CARPER. Senator Collins and I introduced legislation last

month—we try to introduce a bill a month. We introduced a bill

last month that says, let us address a little bit the flexibility of the

first responder monies as they come to States. I think there are
37

four categories that you can be spend your first responder dollars

in.

I think one is for planning, one is for training, one is for exercises, and I think the other is equipment purchases. The current

program is rather restrictive as to how those monies can spent. The

bill Senator Collins and I have introduced gives States the option,

if they want to, to ask for a waiver from the Secretary of Homeland

Security that would allow them to spend their first responder

money more flexibly. Not to create a fifth or sixth or seventh pot,

but to move money back and forth between those four.

I do not know if you are aware of that legislation, if you have

any thoughts as to whether it might be a good or a bad idea. I do

not know if any of the organizations that you are part of, including

the National Governors Association might have a view on it that

you could share with us.

Governor ROMNEY. I cannot share the National Governors Association view of the specific legislation because I am not really authorized to speak on behalf of all the governors on that matter. I

will speak as one of them, however, and anticipate that the other

governors would agree. That is that the principle of flexibility is

something which they would very much applaud.

The constraints occasionally of programs or funding which come

from Federal programs can be challenging and can suggest that

money needs to be spent in a way that may not be consistent with

the comprehensive plan which has been developed by the State, the

region or the municipality. Being able to have a mechanism to approach the Secretary of Homeland Security and ask for a waiver

to spend money in the four categories but according to our plan I

think would be a very positive step.

I am concerned about the fact that municipalities and State Governments facing tough economic circumstances will look to take

money to solve budget problems elsewhere. Homeland security

money should, of course, be directly towards solving homeland security needs. So there need to be strictures and guidelines which

are applied. But the principle of flexibility within those different

categories is one which I think is consistent with safeguarding the

public’s money and providing for homeland security.

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Mr. Cleaves.

Mr. CLEAVES. Senator, very specifically, in our State, under the

ODP grant process that we are currently working with, we are allocated $1 million in exercise money for this year. We cannot train,

we cannot exercise, so I cannot get from point A to point B. So

what Maine is facing is the return of $1 million unspent and still

leaving needs that are unmet in terms of training. It is the cost for

overtime, flexibility is what we really need.

Senator CARPER. Thank you.

Mr. STENGLEIN. Senator, I think the need for flexibility is pretty

obvious. Earlier, the Mayor of Detroit brought up an excellent situation in that if they have a bunch of HAZMAT suits and they get

money to buy HAZMAT suits, it is unfortunate that they do not

need any more HAZMAT suits. So we need the ability to move the

money around.

Senator CARPER. What we have in mind is permission to move

money from one of the four categories to another. It would be in
38

order to allow them not just to meet their individual needs but to

be consistent with their emergency management plans. There

would have to be some rationale to the movement.

All right, good. Thanks. Thanks very much. Is anyone in the

room from the National Governors Association? Do we have anybody who is from the NGA? Welcome. I thought if the NGA could

share with this Committee, with Senator Collins and myself, a

view of the legislation that would be most appreciated. Thank you

very much.

Senator COLEMAN. Senator Carper, Senator Levin asked the

question—I did not hear all the answers but I would direct it to

you, governor, about increased homeland security costs post-September 11. I was a mayor on September 11, and afterwards with

the whole set of things we had to do. But one of the things that

troubled me as a Mayor was that I would have my department

heads and fire department come in, and I would have a list of all

sorts of needs. I did not need to increase the number of firefighters

in St. Paul in order to deal with September 11.

So as that question is asked, the question I have, again, wanting

the money to be well spent, and wanting to be focused, who should

assess the needs? Who assesses whether Bangor, Maine needs certain equipment, whether Minnetonka, Minnesota, a small town,

has needs? How do we do that so in the end when we get a response as to here are the increased security costs, we have a sense

of confidence that the security costs are in fact September 11 related in different perspectives, not simply, we have a lot of needs

and in this environment, this is an opportunity then to have all

those needs met? Who should be responsible for that kind of assessment? I will start with you, governor.

Governor ROMNEY. Thank you. I would not have an answer for

that had I not gone through this experience with the Olympics.

Here we had a setting where we knew we were a potential target

for terrorism. The Olympic Games have been terrorized at least

twice before resulting in a loss of life. So we began a process several years before the games beginning to plan for what the security

would be at our various venues and so forth.

The legislation which created the designation of a national special security event came very much to our benefit. That is that the

Federal Government was tasked with providing specific guidance in

helping us construct a security plan for the Olympic Games and for

the community in which the games were being held.

What that meant was that, for instance, when it came time to

decide what we are going to do at our basketball arena, that instead of asking the local Salt Lake police or the sheriff of Salt Lake

County or the State police to develop a plan to protect the basketball arena during the Olympic Games, instead we were able to

work with the Secret Service and they said, these are the parameters. This is a template, if you will, of how to protect a facility

which is a potential target, which will potentially be hosting heads

of State, against a terrorist attack.

They provided us with the specifics; the number of feet we needed to have barricades, distance from the facility. How we dealt with

the media trucks and cables and so forth that might be in the facility. The level of search that would be necessary for people coming
39

in the facility. They really provided the guidelines. Then we at the

local level and the State level, working with them, applied them to

the specific circumstances of the physical plant we were looking at.

So in creating those plans on a regional basis or a city basis, I

look to a similar model, which is the Department of Homeland Security, which now I understand has the Secret Service within it,

provides to us a series of, if you will, broad guidelines or templates

saying that when you reach a Code Orange state, or a Code Red

state, or a Code Yellow state, then these are the parameters that

we think should be applied for a nuclear facility, these are for a

major tunnel, a major bridge, these are for major buildings, these

are for gatherings of individuals. These are the types of things that

you should have in place. This is the amount of HAZMAT capacity

you should have based on population. So they provide, if you will,

some overview guidelines.

We take those guidelines and on a State basis, working with our

localities, we apply them region by region, city by city, town by

town. I would then anticipate that the Federal Government will

look at those and say, yes, looks like you did a pretty good job. You

are not over-politicizing, you are not taking care of your friends,

you are doing the right job statewide, and now we have a plan

which is consistent not only within our State but consistent across

the Nation, and has associated with it the funding requirements of

that plan as well.

Senator COLEMAN. So you see a very clear Federal role providing

some kind of template, almost so that the specifics get dealt with

at the local level?

Governor ROMNEY. Exactly. We do that, for instance, with nuclear facilities today. Prior to the September 11 circumstance, as I

understand it, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission lays out, if you

will, a series of guidelines for how a nuclear facility is to be protected. Those guidelines are interpreted and managed differently in

different States. But the Federal Government does provide some direction.

With regards to our planning for the Olympics, the help of, in

this case the Secret Service in laying out the protection of physical

facilities was very helpful. The help of the FBI in giving us direction on intelligence and who should play which role, and how the

local authorities would gather data and funnel that to the Federal

authorities or State authorities was something they had done before, they managed for us. So they played a very important role in

doing that.

Had we been left to our own devices we might have cobbled

something together in the manner that it happened in Atlanta,

where there were gaping holes between plans of the different municipalities and the State and the Federal Government. So a far

more comprehensive plan was established by having all parties

work together with extensive Federal involvement.

Senator COLEMAN. I would be very interested in the other—particularly a more local perspective coming from the commissioner,

but Mr. Cleaves.

Mr. CLEAVES. Senator, thank you. I am concerned about a template that you describe from the Federal level because it cannot be

a cookie-cutter approach. All local municipalities need to know
40

what mutual support is available left and right, and they know

that. So the planning group needs to include the local, then a regional level, and State level, and then not to forget the Federal

partners. In Maine we have formed an antiterrorism task force——

Senator COLEMAN. You actually have a joint Federal task force,

you have that model in Maine?

Mr. CLEAVES. Yes, we do. We have a model that the U.S. Attorney chairs along with us at the emergency operation center. We

meet frequently to look at the plans and pull—one of the things

that we found most out of sync was that the Federal departments

that support our coastline or our borders were not interwoven on

a daily basis with the State departments or the local government

entities. At meetings sometimes, but not interwoven so that you

know operational details on a daily basis. It also includes the FBI.

So that is working well for us. But it has got to include from the

local level up so they know what both Federal and State capabilities are, so you will know what that response is. That is the most

effective and efficient way to do it.

Senator COLEMAN. Commissioner Stenglein.

Mr. STENGLEIN. Senator, are you asking with specificity what

person would be in charge of that? I think that is what you are

looking for.

Senator COLEMAN. I am trying to figure out who should do the

assessment. I am sitting at my level and we hear that—the question from Senator Levin was, tell us about your increased cost. We

have to assess. Folks need more money. My concern is, who is assessing whether those are truly homeland security costs? I need to

have more confidence based on my own experience as a mayor

where a fire chief coming in wanting increased firefighters, increased all this stuff and I am sitting there—I have got to tell

them, that is not related to September 11. So who should do that

kind of assessment that will allow policymakers at this level to

have confidence in needs so that we can make judgments about

needs?

Mr. STENGLEIN. Senator, speaking from the perspective of Minnesota and the county form of government we have there, St. Paul

has different needs than White Bear, as you well know. White Bear

does not have a River Centre or an Excel Center. The person closest—I believe firmly in keeping those decisions and those realizations as close to the residents as possible. The elected sheriff in

each town, in each county, is a good person to turn to for that. As

you well know, back in Minnesota with the 800 MHz communication process, those sheriffs and the counties have gotten together.

CRIMNet is another great example, taking a front end device of

technology through joint powers boards and pulling it together to

understand that.

The exact assessment needs to come from as close to the people.

I think the elected sheriff in each county is a good person to turn

to.

Senator COLEMAN. And the Federal role in that?

Mr. STENGLEIN. The Federal role in that, clearly we definitely depend on the Federal role to give us guidelines on how to protect

a power plant, how to protect a tunnel, how to protect bridges, air-
41

ports, these sorts of things. The expertise coming from the Federal

level, we should not duplicate that at the State level at all.

Senator COLEMAN. The question, I think was a very good comment made about the joint task forces, which I know in Minnesota

are very strong. Do they have a role to play in this?

Mr. STENGLEIN. Yes.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Senator Coleman.

You have been very interested in this issue and I was pleased to

join you earlier in the week in Minnesota where we could hear

from other officials and that was very valuable as well.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for their extraordinary patience with the unusual circumstances of this hearing today. It was

very valuable to us. And I want to thank my colleagues for keeping

the hearing going. Last night, at one point we thought of trying to

postpone the hearing, but then we realized we could not find you

to tell you that. I am glad that we decided instead to go forward

because we do want to act on legislation within the next few weeks.

I am sure that we will be in touch with you for drafting the bill

to get additional advice, but your testimony today has been extraordinarily helpful. Again, I want to thank you for your patience

as we have run back and forth from the floor to vote. So thank you

very much.

The hearing record will remain open for 15 days. I want to thank

my staff for their hard work on this hearing as well. We look forward to working with you to strengthen the partnership among the

Federal, State, county and local governments as we all work toward the goal of strengthening our homeland security. So thank

you and this hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(43)

A P P E N D I X

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH

Good morning and thank you, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I commend you for your continued leadership and dedication

to ensure that our State and local governments have a forum in Congress to discuss

the challenges they face in securing our homeland. Protecting Americans from further acts of terrorism is the top national priority. It is an enormous task that involves the cooperation of hundreds of thousands of dedicated local, State, and Federal employees who guard the ports and borders of our country, gather and analyze

intelligence, investigate leads, make arrests, and respond to assist the victims of terrorist attacks.

It is clear that terrorism has changed the way we govern at the Federal, State,

and local levels. As a former mayor and governor, I understand what it takes to

make hard choices in tough economic times. Therefore, I am extremely attentive to

the fact that our States are facing their worst economic crisis in 50 years. State legislatures across the country are attempting to balance their budgets through challenging and unpopular mechanisms, such as raising taxes or cutting services. Unfortunately, the Federal Government is not in the position to offer a great deal of financial assistance, as we are faced with our own tough budget decisions.

However, Madam Chairman, I strongly believe the Federal Government could

offer better structural solutions to help the States and localities improve the delivery of homeland security services. For instance, there is one homeland security

grant program, administered by the Office of Domestic Preparedness, which is based

on a pre-determined formula that does not provide the States any flexibility when

disbursing funds.

Furthermore, the General Accounting Office recently noted that there are at least

16 different grant programs for the Nation’s first responders. These grants are currently provided through two different directorates of the new Department of Homeland Security, and through the Department of Justice, and the Department of

Health and Human Services. This is a clear example of how fragmented the homeland security grant process is. Madam Chairman, I am afraid this fragmentation is

causing confusion and an administrative burden for State and local officials, a situation Congress specifically intended to avoid in creating the new Department. One

of the main reasons for creation of the new Department was to consolidate, coordinate, and streamline homeland security functions and to provide for homeland security more effectively.

Fortunately, Senator Collins introduced two legislative solutions to alleviate these

problems and I am pleased to co-sponsor both bills. The first bill would give States

the flexibility to use Office of Domestic Preparedness grant money from one category

of funding, such as training, for another purpose, such as equipment. The second

bill would move the Office of Domestic Preparedness from its current location in the

Border and Transportation Security Directorate to the Office of State and Local

Government Coordination. This organizational shift should establish a centralized

location within the new Department of Homeland Security to help our first responders identify and apply for important grant funding.

At the Federal level, we also must make a concerted effort to ensure that funds

are distributed to the States and localities in a timely manner. In fact, I recently

discussed this issue with the Dale Shipley, Director of the Ohio Emergency Management Agency. I was astounded to learn that Ohio did not receive the FY 1999 and

FY 2000 funds for homeland security until March 2002. Remarkably, as of April 17,

2003 only 88 percent of the FY 1999 funding was spent.

In May 2002, my State of Ohio received the FY 2001 funding and as of December

2002, just 49 percent of those funds were spent. Unfortunately, the process did not

improve for FY 2002, as funding was not distributed until October 2002, one year
44

after the beginning of the fiscal year. As of December 2002, only 11 percent of the

money was spent.

Today, I am interested in hearing if our witnesses are encountering similar problems and, if so, what solutions they propose. At the end of this process, I am hopeful

that we can ease the strain caused by the disjointed homeland security grant process. My goal is to go back to Dale Shipley, and the Mayors of the six largest cities

in Ohio, who recently contacted me about their homeland security challenges, and

tell them that we are making the grant process clear, efficient and responsive to

their needs.

Madam Chairman, thank you for your leadership on this issue, and I look forward

to an engaging discussion with our witnesses.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126

Æ