[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3266, FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS ACT OF 2003
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
of the
SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 16, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-31
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Homeland Security
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-511 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�0900012005
SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
CHRISTOPHER COX, California, Chairman
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington JIM TURNER, Texas, Ranking Member
C.W. BILL YOUNG, Florida BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi
DON YOUNG, Alaska LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Wisconsin NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
DAVID DREIER, California JANE HARMAN, California
DUNCAN HUNTER, California BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER,
SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, New York New York
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania NITA M. LOWEY, New York
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
PORTER J. GOSS, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DAVE CAMP, Michigan District of Columbia
LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas
PETER T. KING, New York BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
JOHN LINDER, Georgia DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN,
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona U.S. Virgin Islands
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada KEN LUCAS, Kentucky
KAY GRANGER, Texas JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
PETE SESSIONS, Texas KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida
JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York
JOHN GANNON, Chief of Staff
UTTAM DHILLON, Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director
DAVID H. SCHANZER, Democrat Staff Director
MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk
______
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response
John Shadegg, Arizona, Chairman
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania, Vice Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Chairman Jane Harman, California
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland
Christopher Shays, Connecticut Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Dave Camp, Michigan Nita M. Lowey, New York
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Florida Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Peter King, New York Columbia
Mark Souder, Indiana Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Islands
Kay Granger, Texas Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Pete Sessions, Texas Ken Lucas, Kentucky
Christopher Cox, California, ex Jim Turner, Texas, ex officio
officio
(ii)
CONTENTS
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable John B. Shadegg, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness and Response...................................... 1
The Honorable Bennie Thompson, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Emergency Preparedness and Response............................ 2
The Honorable Christopher Cox, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Chairman, Select Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 4
The Honorable Jim Turner, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas................................................. 6
The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Maryland..................................... 14
The Honorable Bob Etheridge, a Representative in Congress from
the State of North Carolina.................................... 38
The Honorable Barney Frank, a Representative in Congresss from
the State Massachusetts........................................ 10
The Honorable Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada................................................ 10
The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey................................... 12
The Honorable Christopher Shays, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Connecticut.................................. 11
The Honorable Curt Weldon, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania.......................................... 8
WITNESSES
The Honorable James A. Garner, Mayor of Hempstead, New York,
President, The United States Conference of Mayors
Oral Statement................................................. 15
Prepared Statement............................................. 18
Colonel Randy Larsen (Retired), Founder and CEO, Homeland
Security Associates, Former Director of Institute of Homeland
Security, Former Chairman of Military Department at the
National War College
Oral Statement................................................. 19
Prepared Statement............................................. 22
Mr. Robert Latham, Director, Mississippi Emergency Management
Agency
Oral Statement................................................. 24
Prepared Statement............................................. 26
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Record
Questions and Responses from the Honorable James A. Garner....... 49
Questions and Responses from Colonel Randy Larsen (Retired)...... 49
Questions and Responses from Mr. Robert Latham................... 50
H.R. 3266 FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS ACT OF 2003
----------
Thursday, October 16, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness and Response,
Select Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 4:05 p.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John B. Shadegg
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Shadegg, Tauzin, Shays, Diaz-
Balart, Gibbons, Cox [ex officio], Thompson, Cardin, Norton,
Pascrell, Etheridge, Lucas, and Turner [ex officio].
Also Present: Representatives Dunn and Frank.
Mr. Shadegg. The committee will come to order.
I want to welcome our witnesses. I understand one is still
downstairs, but in the interest of proceeding in a timely
fashion, I think we should get started and begin with opening
statements.
Today our subcommittee will be examining the Faster and
Smarter Funding for First Responders Act, which has been
introduced by full committee Chairman Cox.
I think there has been a high level of frustration among
members on both sides of the aisle about how long it has taken
for the large amounts of money which we have appropriated here
in Congress for our Nation's homeland security needs and first
responders to end up in the hands of those who can put it to
its intended use. The States claim they have allocated the
money, but many cities claim they have yet to see a penny.
Clearly these mixed messages send a message themselves to us in
Congress that it is time to look at changing the homeland
security grant-making process to hopefully make it smoother,
smarter, and more agile in responding to new and different
threats that arise.
As we examine changing the homeland security grant process,
it is clear that we need to take a look at both regional
approaches and at threat-based formulas, two of the major
components of H.R. 3266. We can neither afford from a financial
perspective nor a public policy perspective to provide new
equipment for each and every fire and police department in the
country. Communities are going to need to cooperate in their
war on terrorism by working together to pool resources and to
regionalize plans. Unfortunately, politics has long stood in
the way of such cooperation at the local level. As Kwame
Kilpatrick, Mayor of Detroit, testified at a Senate Government
Affairs hearing, quote: These plans can't be piecemeal, and
that is why I believe so much money is being wasted when it
comes to our State, because we want to give money to this plan
or that plan instead of forcing the regions around the State of
Michigan to get together and deal with this in a comprehensive
form.
We also need to look at making sure that we are devoting
this homeland security money in a smarter way so it actually
gets to the areas facing the largest threat.
I was shocked, as I am sure many of you were, to read in
USA Today, in an article from July, in which we learned that an
Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts harbor master claimed, quote: Quite
honestly, I don't know what we are going to do, but you don't
turn down grant money.
That is not a good indication that the system we have in
place is working well.
Last week, our full committee received testimony that
epitomizes how, under the current grant formula, we are likely
sending money to areas where there is little or limited risk of
a terrorist attack. Michele Flournoy from CSIS stated: Without
a regular, disciplined, and comprehensive threat and
vulnerability assessment process that considers both the
probability of various attacks and the severity of their
consequences, decisionmakers will have little analytic basis
for making tough strategy choices about where to place
emphasis, where to accept or manage the degree of risk, and how
best to allocate resources to improve America's securities.
We need to determine the actual risk involved and figure
out how our funding choices will either eliminate that risk or
mitigate it to the greatest degree possible. We have to be
smarter than our adversaries and capitalize on our
intelligence-gathering capability and technological advantages.
I commend Chairman Cox for this forward-thinking section of
the bill. We look forward to learning more about the proposal
today, and I look forward to input from our excellent panel of
witnesses. It seems to me that it is absolutely essential that
Congress spend these monies wisely, and that we get them into
the hands of the first responders who need those monies, and
that we prioritize and allocate them as strategically as
humanly possible. And so I think this legislation and this
discussion, which will go on regarding this legislation and
other pieces of legislation that address the same topic, is
critically important for this Congress to act on and act on
very quickly. And I am pleased the issue is before the
subcommittee.
It is now my pleasure to turn to the gentleman from
Mississippi, the Ranking Member of this subcommittee, Mr.
Thompson, for his opening statement.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like
to welcome Mr. Robert Latham, the Director of Emergency
Management for the State of Mississippi, for joining us today.
And I look forward to his perspective on the preparedness needs
of my home State which includes a diverse urban, suburban,
rural, and agricultural community.
But, Mr. Chairman, I must express my disagreement with the
focus of this hearing. As the majority is well aware, Democrats
on the Homeland Security Committee have introduced
comprehensive first responder legislation entitled the Preparer
Act. This legislation, introduced on September 24th, and now
co-sponsored by 141 Members of Congress including the Ranking
Members of the 10 standing committees of the House, addresses
issues similar to those in Chairman Cox's bill. Although I
understand that next week's full committee hearing on first
responder legislation will be broader in scope, it seems to me
that the members of both sides of this subcommittee would be
better served by a hearing on both legislative proposals.
Having said that, I would like to point out some key
differences between the two proposals and explain why the
Preparer Act better addresses the needs of our first responder
community.
There are three key principles embodied in the Preparer Act
that distinguish it from Chairman Cox's legislation. First, the
Preparer Act protects all communities. Our legislation
recognizes that in the aftermath of September 11th, every
community must be better prepared for terrorist attacks. This
includes urban, suburban, rural, and agricultural communities.
Under Chairman Cox's proposal, it appears that we will
create grant winners and losers. Grant applications will be
submitted and grantees will have to depend on the strength of
their applications and the untested threat and intelligence
analysis capabilities of the Department of Homeland Security in
order to receive a grant. To me it sounds too much like buying
a lottery ticket and taking a chance.
Further, in 1995, did any of us consider Oklahoma City to
be under an extremist terrorist threat? If the Chairman's
proposal was in law at that time, I am not sure that Oklahoma
City would have received grant funds, but it is certain that
the city would have benefitted from enhanced preparedness
capability.
Second, the Preparer Act will result in more robust
planning and coordination within the States. In previous
hearings, we have heard testimony about neighboring communities
buying the same equipment, resulting in unnecessary expenditure
and duplicative requirements. By conducting bottom-up
assessments and coordinating preparedness needs at the local,
regional, and state levels, the Preparer Act will distribute
funding on a rational cooperative manner.
Under the Chairman's bill, any State or eligible region can
apply for grant funds. Our question is DHS's ability to process
a seemingly unlimited number of grant applications.
Further, how will be applications be coordinated? How does
the Chairman's proposal resolve the problem of overlapping and
duplicative capabilities?
Third, the Preparer Act recognizes that our first responder
community plays a most critical role in determining our
preparedness needs. That is why the legislation creates an
independent task force to develop and provide to our
communities the tools they need to determine what capabilities
they have today, what capabilities they need to be truly
prepared, and what resources are required to build these
capabilities. I can think of no better advisers on this issue
than our police, firefighters, emergency medical services,
hospital personnel, and others who face this problem every day.
There are some areas of agreement, Mr. Chairman, between
the Preparer Act and the Chairman's proposal, including
revisions to the homeland security advisory system and the
preservation of traditional first responder grant programs like
the fire grant. We will continue to work with the majority to
find other areas of agreement, and hopefully pass a bipartisan
bill that will enhance this Nation's preparedness for
terrorism. However, our efforts must enhance preparedness
throughout this Nation. We cannot shift resources from day to
day based on ever-changing threat information. The only way to
truly prepare this Nation is to recognize the need to build
capabilities in every town, city, county, and State. We owe
this to our emergency responders, and we need to move faster in
our efforts to do so.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman for his opening
statement and now call upon the Chairman of the full committee
for his opening statement. Mr. Cox.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Chairman Shadegg. And I assure the
Ranking Member that the majority and the minority will work
together. It is our aim to achieve bipartisan legislation.
The questions that the gentleman raises are legitimate
ones, and I believe that they can all be addressed. I also
think that it is a happy occurrence that the legislation
introduced separately by the minority and the majority are, for
the most part, complementary rather than outright contradicting
one another. And I think these pieces will fit together very
nicely, at least potentially; but it will require a fair amount
of work, and we are starting that process today.
I think that Congress has recognized, and certainly this
committee has recognized, the vital role that first responders
play from the moment of our horror at the events of September
11th. But in particular, this committee, through our hearings
in Washington and our field hearings around the country, has
heard the message loudly and clearly that the monies, including
over $20 billion that the Congress has appropriated since 9/11
explicitly for first responders, that we intend to benefit
firefighters, police, and emergency services personnel, medical
workers, paramedics and so on, that that money is not getting
to its intended destination, or at least it is not getting
there nearly fast enough. The more than 1,000 percent increase
in first responder funding since 9/11 evidently is not enough
to solve the problem. We have got to be smarter and faster
about getting money to first responders.
In the $30 billion appropriation that the President just
signed for the Department of Homeland Security, its first
appropriation ever, fully 4.2 billion is earmarked for first
responders. But it won't do nearly enough good if that money
gets stuck in the pipeline, if that money doesn't get to where
it is most needed. We have got to work harder to ensure that
homeland security grants are distributed quickly to the people
who need the most.
Our grant-making process for first responders, however, was
built before September 11th. It was built for a world where
traditional roles of first responders were more narrowly
defined and where they were not focused on counterterrorism.
The National Conference of Mayors, whose president, Mayor
James Garner, is here with us today, recognized this problem.
In the Conference's report titled ``Tracking Homeland Security
Funds Sent to the 50 States,'' the mayors note that 90 percent
of cities have not received funds from the country's largest
homeland security program. In addition, over half of the cities
either haven't been consulted by their state homeland security
agencies or haven't had an opportunity to influence state
decisionmaking about how to use and distribute funding.
I look forward to hearing Mayor Garner speak more about the
results of this survey. It is abundantly clear already that
much of the $20 billion that Congress has appropriated for
first responders isn't reaching them.
Federal funds need to be directed to areas where we are
most at risk, but today too much of the homeland security grant
monies are allocated by political formula, not by authoritative
risk assessment that matches threat with vulnerability.
Chairman Shadegg described the surprise of the harbor
master in Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts when he received $900,000
in homeland security grants and didn't know what to do with it.
A similar story was repeated in Christian County, Kentucky,
population 100,000, when they learned they were getting $36,800
for high-tech safety equipment. The local emergency services
director didn't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but
said that the high-tech equipment didn't particularly suit the
more routine needs of his small rural community. We need a
threat-based formula that will eliminate such waste and
potential abuse.
H.R. 3266, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First
Responders Act, addresses these problems. To expedite delivery
of funding, both States and regions could apply for grants.
When States receive Federal funds, the bill requires 80 percent
of the money to be passed to locals within 45 days. The bill
also builds in penalties to States that do not comply with
these requirements.
In allowing regions to apply directly for grants, we are
taking into account the fact that our country's artificial
State boundaries do not necessarily represent logical, sensible
homeland security planning areas. Evacuating the National
Capital Region, for example, would involve multiple States. A
grant under this legislation could be made to a multistate
region. As a result, we could avoid problems from money
trickling in from the Maryland and Virginia governments because
they and only they could apply for funds directly from DHS.
In California where we have 30 million people, the State
could apply for monies from regions within California. Los
Angeles and Orange Counties, for example, which already have an
extensive system of mutual aid agreements among the cities and
among the counties, could continue to build their partnership
and apply jointly for grants. When recently this committee
visited the Puget Sound area, we heard the same plea from first
responders there: Focus on regional solutions. Regional
cooperation is fundamental to the success of the President's
homeland security strategy. We must encourage it by ensuring
that funds earmarked for regions do not get bogged down in
layers of bureaucracy.
Today more than ever we must maximize the yield for every
dollar we invest in homeland security, and so this legislation
charges DHS to prioritize threat and vulnerability in
distributing grants to the exclusion of political formulas.
Since 9/11, we have identified serious problems with our grant-
making process, and with this legislation we move towards
solutions.
I look forward to hearing the thoughts of our witnesses on
this bill and on the minority bill, and to working with the
Ranking Members who have introduced separate legislation with
other members of this committee to ensure that we fix the
inefficiencies in our grant-making process and our funding of
first responders becomes both faster and smarter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shadegg. The Chair will now call upon Mr. Turner of
Texas, the Ranking Member of the full committee, for his
opening statement.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think it is clear to all of us that fighting and winning
the war on terror requires a strong and sustained effort both
overseas and here at home. Just 24 hours ago, I returned from a
visit with our troops on the front lines in Iraq, and I must
say that the commitment, dedication, and bravery exhibited by
those troops in the face of many threats was an inspiration to
me, and it would be to you as well.
Our troops in Iraq and in other places like Afghanistan
have been called on to fight on the front lines of this war on
terror. The effectiveness of our troops is the result of
decades of building capabilities. We buy them the best
equipment, we train them extensively, and they spend countless
hours planning and working to execute their responsibilities.
We are here today to ensure that those on the front line
here at home, America's first responders, are also fully
prepared to respond to and to recover from a catastrophic act
of terrorism. This is a new mission for first responders.
Billions of dollars have been spent since the Cold War on
building our Armed Forces. It will take time and focus to build
our capabilities for homeland defense.
Just a month or so ago, the Council on Foreign Relations
assembled a bipartisan, expert task force led by former United
States Senator Warren Rudman. They reported that America's
first responders were, and I quote, drastically underfunded and
dangerously unprepared.
After 18 months of listening to America's firefighters,
police, and emergency workers state and restate their need for
better training and better equipment, 23 members of this
committee and 142 Members of the full House introduced
legislation, H.R. 3158, the Prepare Act, to address the current
problems of our first responders. The legislation that we
introduced has four major goals.
First, we need to create a task force to identify what our
communities need across the country to prevent, prepare for,
and respond to terrorist attacks. This must be a bottoms-up
process involving local officials and local first responders.
Under our current system, we are spending an arbitrary amount
of money every year with no defined goals; no benchmarks by
which we can measure progress toward protecting our communities
both large and small.
Secondly, the Prepare Act seeks to move our entire country
forward by reaching a level of--a minimum level of preparedness
within a defined period of time. We recognize that areas that
face a higher threat of attack and have sustained or
substantial vulnerabilities should and must receive a greater
proportion of available funding. But we also recognize that no
community in America is as prepared as it should be to meet the
threat of global terrorism in the 21st century.
As Ranking Member Thompson mentioned, no one could have
foreseen that Oklahoma City would be targeted by a terrorist
act, and Oklahoma City is not likely to appear today on
anyone's list of high-threat terrorist targets. The Prepare Act
recognizes that terrorism by its very nature is unpredictable,
and therefore the legislation would seek to increase the
preparedness of every community in America.
Third, the Prepare Act requires planning and coordination
to ensure that every community in America has access to the
emergency response services they need, while at the same time
preventing duplication and waste. I commend the Chairman on his
vision for regional funding. I think it is an area of agreement
between the two of us and the members on both sides of the
aisle. Unfortunately, nothing in our current grant program
prevents neighboring communities from developing, for example,
two HAZMAT units when one will do. We need to ensure that
scarce resources are spent wisely by requiring, whenever
possible, services to be shared at the regional, State, and
even multistate level.
And, finally, the Prepare Act recognizes that difficulties
with the grant programs are not the only challenge facing our
first responders. Our legislation would address the problems of
interoperability of communications equipment, establish
training and equipment guidelines so that our first responders
know what to purchase, and would take additional steps such as
reforming the homeland security advisory system.
Chairman Cox has introduced H.R. 3266, the subject of the
hearing today, and I compliment the Chairman for his efforts
and look forward to working with him over the coming weeks to
develop a bipartisan bill. Both bills have the same ultimate
goal, to direct funding to our first responder communities as
quickly as possible and to direct resources where they are
needed the most. We go about achieving this goal in different
ways, which I hope we will be discussing today.
Chairman Cox's bill would base preparedness funding
exclusively upon a snapshot of the threat faced by the State or
region applying for the grant. While this is an interesting and
appealing concept, it also raises some difficult issues.
First, since all of our communities continue to have
preparedness needs, how can we attempt to meet their needs
while at the same time targeting directed resources to the
communities with the threats of the moment?
Second, threat information today may not be specific enough
to form the basis for a competitive grant program. I always
have admired Mr. Weldon's leadership in the fire grant program.
It has provided a basic level of preparedness to defend against
the threat of fires in communities all across America. But
predicting where those fires will occur would in fact be an
impossible task, and we may face the same difficulty in dealing
with the threat of terrorist attack. How can we, for example,
measure with precision whether Houston faces a greater threat
than Orange County? And won't this change from week to week or
from year to year?
The last three times the Department of Homeland Security
has raised the threat level, it has been in response to a
nonspecific threat. So because we do not know for sure where
terrorists intend to attack, doesn't it make sense to build our
capabilities nationwide in light of the threats and
vulnerabilities we face to protect all of our communities to
the best of our ability?
And, finally, how is it possible, with a grant program
based entirely on threat, to encourage and reward comprehensive
planning and coordination between neighboring communities to
maximize the value of taxpayer dollars and avoid duplication?
Mr. Chairman, our enemies in the war on terror plot and
plan every day. We could not have foreseen the depths of their
depravity in slamming airliners into skyscrapers and killing
thousands of civilians. Threats to our Nation do and will
continue to change daily. And so in pursuit of our mission to
protect the American people, we must ensure that first
responders have the capability and the flexibility to protect
our communities. What we have proposed in the Prepare Act is
that we must move faster and stronger to protect all of
America's communities from the threat of terrorist attack. We
must pledge that when it comes to protecting the American
people, no community will be left behind.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing today.
I look forward to working with you and Chairman Cox to ensure
that we accomplish the task that we all agree upon; and that
is, we must make America safe and secure from terrorist attack.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful
statement.
I would now call upon the Vice Chairman of this
subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon.
Mr. Weldon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to make it
brief and just congratulate both sides for putting in place
legislation that addresses an issue that this country avoided
and ignored for the first 225 years of our country's existence,
and that is our domestic defenders, our first responders.
Both pieces of legislation have good points and have areas
that we can focus on. I am particularly pleased with the
Chairman's mark. Both pieces of legislation specifically exempt
the assistance to firefighters grant program which was a
strongly bipartisan effort. Mr. Pascrell was a major leader on
this, as were a number of other members. And this was enacted
in the year 2000, before 9/11, to focus on the support for our
first responder community, and I would argue it is probably the
most successful program ever developed in the history of this
Congress. There are no middle people, there is no bureaucracy
at the State or country level; 32,000 fire and EMS departments
across the country apply directly on-line during a 30-day
period in April, and those applications when they come in are
evaluated by a board of their peers, not by politicians in
Washington, not by bureaucrats in Washington, but by a peer
review process of first responders from across America.
And, remember, 85 percent of those 32,000 organized
departments are volunteer, and, as a result of that effort and
the funding put forth in a bipartisan way, in the past 3 years
we have been able to put $1.1 billion on the streets of almost
every American city. And we have over 5,000 grants. The first
year we had over 30,000 applications from 20,000 departments.
And both pieces of legislation see fit to keep that process in
place because it is working, and I commend them.
In the process of putting together what Chairman Cox has
said is a key priority, we need to make sure that bureaucracies
at the State and Federal level, at the State and county, while
coordinating, are not taking away precious dollars that should
be going down to the first responders, the group that has to
respond to these incidents to make sure that we are not
building dynasties in our State capitol buildings or our county
courthouses, but rather getting the money down to where the
need really is.
The second thing I want to commend about the bills is there
a focus on each on the number one issue for our first
responder. The number one issue is a totally inoperable
communications system domestically. We have none. This is not
new after 9/11. Every disaster that I have been on in the past
17 years, communication has been the number one problem. Chief
Mars in Oklahoma City identified it in the Murrah Building
bombing; Fire Commissioner Safir in New York identified it in
1993; and we have given lip service to that problem up until
now. We have to deal with the ability of our first responder
groups to talk to each other when an incident occurs. And that
doesn't just mean money for equipment. It also means dealing
with the issue of frequency spectrum allocation.
Now, we tried to get this committee to deal with the Hero
Act, which is a bipartisan bill that commits Congress to make
available the 20 megahertz frequency spectrum to public safety
needs. But the Energy and Commerce Committee has exerted its
influence. Even though Chairman Cox has said he would work with
us to do it, they said they would raise an exception and would
block the process of this committee in dealing with this.
But the fact that we talk about it in both bills is very
important to the first responder. The only area, Mr. Chairman,
I think that I want to see us focus on is a new program that is
about to come out of the Armed Services mark conference report
which I hope will be on the floor next week or the week after.
Again, with bipartisan support, there is a brand-new $7.6
billion program over 7 years to fund the hiring of police or
firefighters and paramedics in cities across America. The key
question for us--and this new program has strong bipartisan
support and has passed with no objections in either the House
or the Senate and will be a part of the final mark--is how this
program will be administered and whether or not it will come
under the legislation brought before us by both sides today.
It is a vitally important program, and I would hope that as
we develop this legislation we can find a way again to come
together for the best interests of our firefighters and our
paramedics and our police officers.
So I want to thank both sides. I want to thank my
distinguished Chairman for working with us in crafting this
bill. I can tell you all the fire service groups are happy that
the approach you have taken has been inclusive.
And I want to thank Mr. Turner who has a track record of
also working very aggressively on his side with the national
fire and EMS groups around the country.
Thank you, and I look forward to working with you as the
bill unfolds.
Mr. Shadegg. The Chair would now call upon the gentleman
from Kentucky, based on the order of arrival, Mr. Lucas, for an
opening statement.
The Chair would call upon the gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will associate
myself with my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania and his
remarks, submit my opening statement for the record, and
hopefully get to the witnesses soon. Thank you.
Mr. Shadegg. The Chair would first ask unanimous consent
for Ms. Dunn and Mr. Frank to participate in today's
subcommittee hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
Then I will call upon the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
Frank, for his opening statement.
Mr. Frank. And thank you for the double courtesy, Mr.
Chairman.
I am glad we are here, and I appreciate the Chairman making
it clear that we are in fact dealing with both bills, that it
is a joint legislative hearing, and I think that is well.
Obviously, we are all chagrined, I think, and cannot deny
what Mayor Garner has said on behalf of the Conference of
Mayors, mainly that things have not worked as we hoped, that
the money hasn't gotten to where it needs to get. And I think
there is a genuine willingness to work together on this. We
have this continued State-versus-city problem, and I am very
much aware of that because at the last hearing of the committee
that I was able to attend, the Governor of Massachusetts
defended the notion that the money should all continue to go
through the States. And I think in the face of the evidence,
that becomes much harder to defend. It is important to get the
money out there and get it to the communities. And that is the
only other point I wanted to stress.
I want to make explicit something which we have all taken
for granted. We are talking about money. We have apparently
agreement that what we need to do to deal with this threat is
to tax people and then take the money that we get in taxes and
send it to the local governments. I know there are volunteer
fire departments, but they don't cover the whole country. There
aren't that many volunteer police departments. That is, we are
talking here about the use of Federal tax money. We are talking
about money that is collected through the Federal tax system
and then sent to local communities. And I say that, because we
have I think in this country a disconnect. Everybody hates
taxes, and it is always popular with a lot of people to talk
about cutting them. Most of the same people who dislike taxes
are quite fond of them once they are collected and distributed.
And the attitude here reminds me of what was once explained
to me by a politician in Boston in 1978 when I complained about
what I thought was an inconsistency. Everybody wants to go to
heaven, but nobody wants to die. People want to enjoy the
fruits, but they don't want to go through the process.
That doesn't speak for any level of taxation or not, but it
does for my people. That is what we talking about, tax dollars.
And we have this particular problem, because as we have been
trying to increase Federal funding to police and fire and
emergency personnel and others--and of course there are other
people on city payrolls--if you have explosions, if you have
disruption, the public works people have to get involved. The
people have to get out there and repair and fix things.
The problem has been that because of national fiscal
trends, the basic police and fire and other services have in
many cases been subject to a loss of revenue. And it does not
make sense on the one hand to see police and fire and other
departments eroded in terms of their number of people by
general fiscal problems that the States and cities are having,
that the States are having and then pushed on the cities, and
then say, oh, but look what we are doing on the other end.
There are not in my experience in any local or police or
fire department people who deal with the terrorism threat and
people who deal with the other parts of it. The police and fire
departments are seamless; they all work together. And if you
have a police department or a fire department that is reduced
in personnel because of a general fiscal crisis and a lack of
tax revenues sufficient to support them, you cannot make up for
that by a program that talks only about emergencies.
That is particularly the case, because I know in the
Chairman's bill, for example, there is a specific prohibition
against using these Federal funds to replace the local funds.
And, frankly, if the local funds are being cut and you get new
Federal funds, I wouldn't want to be the one to charge you with
enforcing that. I don't know how you would possibly do it. But
it does, I think, undermine the general principle.
There are, if we are to live the kind of lives we want to
live in this country, absolutely essential needs that the
private sector will not meet because it is not supposed to meet
them. The private sector has its job to do, which is to
generate wealth in the private sector. It is not charged with
police and fire and public safety in general. We can only do
those if we come together and have sufficient revenues through
the tax system and provide them. And I think this is a reminder
of them.
And, yes, we have now before us two bills, both of which
seem to me to say we need to send more tax money for the
Federal level to the local people to do this essential job. I
am all in favor of that, but I think it has to be set in
context.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shadegg. Mrs. Dunn would be next. Apparently she has
had to leave us momentarily, so I would call on the gentleman
from North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge.
Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Chairman, I will forego my statement and
insert it in the record.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you very much.
The Chair would then call on the gentleman from
Connecticut, Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, you
holding this hearing. In my capacity in the Government Reform
Committee as chairman of the National Security Subcommittee, we
have had a number of hearings on the whole concept of standards
and how we allocate resources to our first responders. In
response to the foreign affairs organization that hired Senator
Rudman to look at how we were allocating resources, we put in
the bill that said in 9 months we want standards. We want
standards to know how we allocate resources. And we tried and
we made it bipartisan with other members of the committee.
I think it is absolutely essential that we not give out
money before we know why we are giving out money and why they
need it. And I hope in the process--I know Mr. Turner has
introduced a bill that includes much more than we did--we
include some of the requirements, we include getting the
standards and doing it quick. And we have been doing this for a
year. This is nothing new. I mean, we have been trying to
determine what standards we should set up. So it is not like we
are starting from Ground Zero.
I hope our legislation will be looked at as well and
incorporated in, obviously, a much more comprehensive piece. We
need standards. We need it now. Otherwise, we are giving out
money to people who don't need it and we are not giving money
to people who do need it.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman for his opening
statement.
The Chair would next call on the gentleman from New Jersey,
Mr. Pascrell.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to something that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania started to talk about, because I
think it is important here. When we put the Fire Act together--
and we were very careful to wait until we reviewed every line,
myself and Curt, Mr. Weldon, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Hoyer--we made
sure that folks understood that that legislation and the
legislation that we would put forth was in response to the
basic needs of fire departments throughout the United States of
America. The bill was put together 2 years before 9/11, as Mr.
Weldon pointed out. The four of us struggled to get folks on
the bill. And when we finally moved forward on it, when
firefighters came to this great city, knocked on doors, we
wound up with 285 signatures on the legislation. It was totally
bipartisan, the entire political spectrum. No party had privy
to have virtue.
And I think it is important to understand that there were
defined basic needs in the community, and that the firefighters
and the emergency workers in this country had always been the
forgotten part of the public safety equation, and they would no
longer be. This comprehensive bill was in response to that, it
has been a tremendous success, And the peer review has worked.
There are many who doubted that it would.
I trust the greatest consultants in the world, and they are
the firefighters and EMTs. I don't know of any consultants that
we hired--do you, Curt? And we listened to them throughout this
Nation to discern what were their basic needs. And now we are
going to take the second step, not in this legislation, in
terms of personnel.
So we have come a long way, and there are many--there has
been a tremendous amount of distribution of need, response to
need. But we made very, very certain that the money would go
directly to the communities. No one, no one would be able to
take anything off the top. I don't know any other way to say
it, Mr. Chairman, and it has been successful for small
communities and towns out in the middle of Montana. And I
thought things were bad in the suburbs and the cities, and we
found towns that didn't have a fire truck, or if they had one,
had to push it to the fire. A very sad statement to make.
Again, our first responders and our first-to-leave tragic
situations.
I think that both of these, each of these pieces of
legislation can be melded together. I don't see why not. There
are two or three things in each of them that I think stands
out. The Cox legislation particularly makes it very clear that
this would not impact on five major grant programs that we have
voted upon, mainly--you know, not only fire grants, but the
COPS program. You know, here we are talking about getting ready
for emergencies, and we are standing by watching the COPS
program disintegrate in front of our eyes, a successful program
that has led to the decrease in crime throughout the United
States of America since 1992, 1993.
I think it is important that we preserve those programs and
that we not meld what we are talking about today with what
already exists, the Fire Act.
Having said that, I think that we need to work on how this
would be distributed and on what standards they would be
distributed. And as Mr. Shays has mentioned, I think it is
important, and I think the gentleman from Massachusetts has
made it clear that this is our responsibility in oversight,
much more than the States. The Federal Government has to
respond. We are primarily entrusted with the responsibility of
responding to emergency situations, and we will help the
communities out in that regard.
I think that we must work out a compromise, particularly in
the area of who are the winners and losers, or whether we will
respond more effectively to those communities who are at
greater risk. I think that is something that needs to be worked
out so that we don't go to the other extreme of a universal
plan that will provide dollars for emergency response where
there is no need. I think we need to be very, very careful
along those lines.
Forty-five percent of our firefighters lack standard
portable radios. Now, is that with regard to terrorism?
Absolutely not. That situation existed before 9/11. They now
have the bands to communicate. Now, what are we doing here? It
is 2 years-plus since 9/11, and our firefighters do not have
the ability to communicate, and we will string this out for
months and months and months in order to respond on the
terrorist issue. It doesn't make sense. Over 10,000 fire
engines in this country are over 30 years of age. And if you
think I was kidding when I said some of them had to be pushed
to the fire, I wasn't kidding.
This is serious. But these are basic needs. These are basic
needs beyond what we find ourselves in. And the world has
changed in the last 2 years. We are expecting them to do even
more with the little they have, and that is why the work of
this committee is so critical, Mr. Chairman.
I really appreciate the fact that you have brought these
up. We are ready to act, we are ready to move, and I don't
think we should hesitate too long, as long as we know, as long
as we have objectives, as long as we have standards, as long as
we can work out where we will send this money, whether it be
direct or through some other entity.
And I think the task force which Mr. Turner has suggested
to oversight--I mean, that really will guarantee the first
responders input so that they are not left on the sidelines;
the task force, I think as you call it, I think that is
important.
I see no contradiction in these two pieces of legislation,
and I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to their melding together and
getting something done. Thank you.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman.
I would now call on the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Cardin, for his opening statement.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just point out that we are very fortunate in this
country to have the career, volunteer firemen, our police, our
first responders. That certainly became evident to all of us
after 9/11. We have a network in place of first responders, and
they have carried on very well for our communities. 9/11 really
tested their capacity to carry on their traditional roles as
well as take on a new responsibility for homeland security.
It has become clear to me--and I think this hearing is very
important for us to try to bring some consensus among all of us
as to what the Federal role should be in funding and helping
our first responders. It became clear to me that we first have
to provide adequate resources.
Now, I have met with my local government officials on
several, many occasions since 9/11, and one thing that is clear
to me is that we need to do a better job. I agree with my
colleagues that it is a Federal responsibility on homeland
security. Every time we change the threat level on the coding
system, it costs our local governments money. It is more
overtime. It is more the use of our equipment. And there is a
cost associated with that, and yet that cost is borne locally,
not through the use of Federal resources. I think we need to
take a look at that.
I agree with my colleagues that I think the two bills that
are before us offer a lot of similarity, and I hope that we
will be able to work out the differences here. I do think our
funding formula needs to be sensitive to risk. I agree with
Chairman Cox in that regard. Communities have different risk
levels, and that needs to be sensitive in the funding formulas
that we use. However, I would hope that we would have
predictable funding to our local governments. I don't think we
should just do it on competitive grants. I think it has to be a
predictable funding source that takes into consideration the
risk levels of the different communities around the Nation.
And then I do think we need to work out this problem
between our State and local governments. I have met many times
with my State government and with my local governments, and I
have heard every complaint about it is a long time getting the
money through, et cetera, et cetera. And then I meet with the
State and they go through the process with me.
And I must tell you, in Maryland, our Governor is not
opposed to the money going directly to the local governments if
that will provide additional resources and help to our local
governments. And so I think that we should be able to figure
out a way that we can accomplish this in a way that we get the
money as quickly as possible to the people who need it, to the
units that need it, without the competition factor and worrying
about who controls the money. We need to do a better job in all
that.
And I think this hearing provides the framework for us to
come together as a committee. There has clearly been an
interest in this Congress among Democrats and Republicans to
support our first responders and to do it in the most effective
way. We are willing to use the resources that are necessary,
and I hope that this hearing will help us achieve those goals.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman.
Before we move to our panel of witnesses, I want to
recognize a group of students we have here. I think we have
some 40 students from Drexel University along with their
professor, Roy Kim. So welcome. We appreciate your being here.
We think it is an interesting hearing for you to be able to
attend.
Let me begin by introducing two members of our panel, and I
am going to ask the Ranking Member if you would introduce the
third. Our first witness is the Honorable James Garner, Mayor
of the Village of Hempstead, New York, and the current
president of the U.S. conference of Mayors.
Our second witness is Colonel Randall Larsen, CEO of
Homeland Security Associates, and former Director of the
Institute of Homeland Security. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I am happy to introduce Robert Latham,
who is our Mississippi Emergency Management Agency Director.
And on a scale of 1 to 50, in my book he is number one. Glad to
have you.
Mr. Shadegg. We appreciate all of your being here. Your
statements will be inserted in the record in their complete
version, and we would appreciate it if you would summarize your
testimony and try to squeeze it into the 5 minutes that the
clock will allow you. But we are not going to be real firm with
that gavel. We want to hear what you have to say. It is our job
to learn from you here today. So thank you for being here.
Mr. Shadegg. And, Mayor Garner, would you like to begin?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES A. GARNER, MAYOR OF HEMPSTEAD,
NEW YORK PRESIDENT, THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
Mr. Garner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. My name
is James A. Garner, and I am the Mayor of Hempstead, New York,
and the 61st president of the United States Conference of
Mayors.
I want to thank Chairman Shadegg, Ranking Member Thompson,
and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to
testify on H.R. 3266, Faster and Smarter Funding for First
Responders Act.
One month after September 11th, the Conference of Mayors
sponsored an emergency summit with more than 200 mayors, police
chiefs, fire chiefs, and emergency managers at which we
developed a national action plan. One of the key
recommendations was for a first responders block grant
containing direct funding to help prevent and respond to any
attack on our cities. But cities have not sat back and waited
for Federal assistance before working to secure our homeland.
Our national surveys have shown that cities spent billions of
dollars after 9/11 on equipment, training, and overtime,
numbers which increased during the war and periods of high
alert.
We also strengthened our regional partnerships and mutual
aid agreements, which is currently the case in Nassau County
where I live.
Mayors appreciate that Congress and the administration are
now providing significant funding intended to help first
responders. However, as we stated, when the program was first
proposed, we believed that monies intended for local first
responders should not be provided through the States. We were
concerned that the funding would not reach first responders in
a timely fashion, or be provided in a manner that promotes
prevention as well as response.
Unfortunately, we are finding this to be the case. On
October the 17th, the Conference of Mayors released a new
survey tracking homeland security funds sent to the 50 States.
The analysis surveyed 168 cities of all sizes, with at least
one city in every State. We found that over half of the cities
have either not been consulted or have had no opportunity to
influence State decisionmaking about how to use and distribute
fundings. The survey also found that 80 to 90 percent of cities
had not received funds from the country's largest Federal
homeland Security program, the State block grant.
I would ask that this survey be inserted into the record.
Mr. Chairman, I have a survey here it is entitled ``168 Cities
Out of 50 States,'' September 2003.
Mr. Shadegg. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
A Copy of the Report entitled ``The United states Conference of
Mayors Homeland Security Monitoring Center FIRST MAYORS' REPORT
TO THE NATION: Tracking Federal Homeland Security Funds Sent to
the 50 State Governments A 168 City/50-State Survey'' September
2003. Is maintained in the Committee files.
Mr. Garner. We note that while the law requires that States
suballocate 80 percent of the funding to local government, once
that funding is sent to counties or regional governments--which
is often the case--the deadlines end and there is no further
time requirement on getting funds to cities.
We also hear that some States may be planning to purchase
equipment they think local government needs and send it to them
without input.
We appreciate that Chairman Cox shared our concern that
funding be provided to communities at risk, and that it not be
stalled at the State level. One of the recommendations that
emerged from our homeland security task force was that if
States failed to meet deadlines, the Department of Homeland
Security should be required to develop an appeal system to get
funds directly to cities. We are pleased that the Department of
Homeland Security has taken administrative steps to make sure
that deadlines are met. We are very pleased that such a
provision is contained in H.R. 3266 and urge that the
requirement be made Federal law.
We also appreciate the support in the bill for existing law
and for the partnership programs such as COPS, local law
enforcement block grants, and fire grants. We also ask that
continued support be provided for the high-threat urban
security grant program that has been successful in moving funds
to cities and fostering regional cooperation. While H.R. 3266
does not contain direct funding for cities, as we continue to
call for, we recognize the efforts to move the funding more
locally by allowing regions to apply for assistance.
As this subcommittee moves forward with this proposal, we
would like to raise several issues:
First, it is not clear to us how a region would be defined
and to what extent individual cities would have a say in this
process. We would be very concerned if regional authorities
would have the ability to apply for funding on behalf of cities
without their consent or engagement in the process.
Second, we are not clear on what the requirements would be
for the Department of Homeland Security to approve regional
applications, or instead continue to send funding through the
States.
Third, we recommend that an increased focus be placed on
terrorism prevention. To do this, there simply must be funding
provided for overtime assistance at times of high alert or
special local concerns and for training.
There is no equivalent for more officers on the street
engaging with the community to provide local intelligence and
to prevent attacks.
I also want to comment on H.R. 3158, the Preparer Act,
introduced by Representative Turner and other members of
Congress. We appreciate that this bill works to develop
standards based on threats and vulnerability assessments,
foster statewide planning with local input, and provide for
personal reimbursement during elevated threat levels. However,
we remain concerned about the lack of direct funding and lack
of pass-through guarantees.
We are also concerned that the planning process contained
in the bill at both Federal and State levels could further
delay funding from reaching first responders.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, let me make two points.
Mayors believe that without some kind of predictable direct
funding, rather than year-by-year decisions made at the State
level, it will be difficult to budget for long-term homeland
security activities at the local level. After all, equipment
must be maintained, training must be continually enhanced, and
vulnerable infrastructure and public events must be secured,
especially during heightened alerts.
We also request work with the Department of Homeland
Security to closely monitor how first responder funding is
currently following through to the States. We would urge that
the Department of Homeland Security and the States be required
to provide very detailed information as to exactly which local
governments have received pass-through fundings and for what.
I want to thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to
testify on behalf of the U.S. conference of Mayors, and we look
forward to working with you as together we strengthen our
Nation's homeland defense. Again, I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank for your testimony.
[The statement of Mr. Garner follows:]
Prepared Statement of James A. Garner, Mayor of Hempstead, New York,
President, The United States Conference of Mayers
Good afternoon. My name is James A. Gamer. I am the Mayor of
Hempstead, New York and the 6151 President of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors.
I want to thank Chairman Shadegg, Ranking Member Thompson and the
members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on HR 3266,
the ``Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act.''
One month after September 11, the Conference of Mayors sponsored an
Emergency Summit with more than 200 mayors, police chiefs, fire chiefs
and emergency managers at which we developed a National Action Plan.
One of the key recommendations was for a first responder block
grant containing direct funding to help prevent and respond to any
attacks on our cities.
But cities have not sat back and waited for federal assistance
before working to secure our homeland.
Our national surveys have shown that cities spent billions of
dollars after 9-11 on equipment, training and overtime, numbers which
increased during the war and periods of high alert.
We also strengthened our regional partnerships and mutual aid
agreements, which is certainly the case in Nassau County where I live.
Mayors appreciate that Congress and the Administration are now
providing significant funding intended to help first responders.
However; as we stated when the program was first proposed, we
believe that money intended for local first responders should not be
provided through the states.
We were concerned that the funding would not reach first responders
in a timely fashion, or be provided in a manner that promotes
prevention as well as response.
Unfortunately, we are finding this to be the case.
On October 17, the Conference of Mayors released a new survey
tracking homeland security funds sent to the 50 states. The analysis
surveyed 168 cities of all sizes, with at least one city in every
state.
We found that over half of the cities have either not been
consulted or have had no opportunity to influence state decision-making
about how to use and distribute funding.
The survey also found that 80 to 90 percent of cities had not
received funds from the country's largest federal homeland security
program--the state block grant.
I would ask that this survey be made a part of the record.
We note that while the law requires that states sub-allocate 80
percent of the funding to local governments, once that funding is sent
to county or regional governments--which is often the case--the
deadlines end and there is no further time requirements on getting
funds to cities.
We are also hearing that some states may be planning to purchase
equipment they think local governments need, and send it to them
without input.
We appreciate that Chairman Cox shares our concern that funding be
provided to communities at risk and that it not be stalled at the state
level.
One of the recommendations that emerged from our Homeland Security
Task Force was that if states fail to meet deadlines, the Department of
Homeland Security should be required to develop an appeals system to
get funds directly to cities. Weare very pleased that such a provision
is contained in HR 3266, and urge that the requirement be made
mandatory.
We also appreciate the support in the bill for existing law
enforcement partnership programs such as COPS, Local Law Enforcement
Block Grants, and Fire Grants.
We would also ask that continued support be provided for the high-
threat urban security grant program that has been successful in moving
funding to cities and fostering regional cooperation.
While HR 3266 does not contain direct funding for cities--as we
continue to call for--we recognize the effort to move the funding more
locally by allowing regions to apply for assistance.
As this Subcommittee moves forward with this proposal, we would
like to raise several issues.
First, it is not clear to us how a region would be defined, and to
what extent individual cities would have a say in this process. We
would be very concerned if regional authorities would have the ability
to apply for funding on behalf of cities without their consent or
engagement in the process.
Second, we are not clear on what the requirements would be for the
Department of Homeland Security to approve regional applications, or
instead continue to send funding through the states.
Third, we recommend that an increased focus be placed on terrorism
prevention. To do this, there simply must be funding provided for
overtime assistance at times of higher alerts, for specific local
concerns, and for training.
There is no equivalent for more officers on the streets engaging
with the community to provide local intelligence and prevent attacks.
I also want to comment on HR 3158, the PREP ARE Act, introduced by
Representative Turner and other Members of Congress.
We appreciate that this bill works to develop standards based on
threat and vulnerability assessments, foster state-wide planning with
local input, and provide for personnel reimbursement during elevated
threat levels.
However, we remain concerned about that lack of direct funding and
lack of pass-through guarantees.
Weare also concerned that the planning processes contained in the
bill at both the federal and state levels could further delay funding
from reaching first responders.
To conclude, let me make two points.
Mayors believe that without some kind of predictable, direct
funding--rather than year-by-year decisions made at the state level--it
will be difficult to budget for long-term homeland security activities
at the local level.
After all, equipment must be maintained, training must be
continually enhanced, and vulnerable infrastructure and public events
must be secured--especially during heightened alerts.
We also request that Congress work with the Department of Homeland
Security to closely monitor how first responder funding is currently
flowing through the states.
We would urge that DHS and the states be required to provide very
detailed information as to exactly which local governments have
received pass-through funding, and for what.
I want to thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on
behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and we look forward to working
with you as together, we strengthen our nation's homeland defense.
Mr. Shadegg. Colonel Larsen.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL RANDY LARSEN , USAF (RETIRED), FOUNDER AND
CEO, HOMELAND SECURITY ASSOCIATES
Colonel Larsen. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Turner, and
Chairman Cox, thank you for this. I was asked here today to
comment specifically on H.R. 3266, and so my remarks will be
limited to that.
The framework I used for analysis of this bill is one that
I frequently use when asked by Congress, administration, or
members of the press or the general public about any sort of
homeland security legislation program or even commercial
products. I ask three questions, and I suggest you use the same
standard here: Will this make my family more secure? Can
America afford it? And, what will it do to my civil liberties?
Well, I looked at this legislation from various
perspectives also, as someone who has spent the last 10 years
studying homeland security, as a taxpayer, as the CEO of a
corporation, and as a father. I am pleased to report from all
perspectives I give H.R. 3266 a positive response to those
three questions. Certainly it is not a panacea to this complex
challenge, but it is a step in the right direction.
But I do have some points I would like to make.
First of all, the legislation calls for grants based on
threats determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security rather
than on population size, or what I call politics as usual. I
have worked with Representative Shays on this issue long before
9/11. It is the right thing to do, but certainly difficult. As
has already been noted here, we were designed as a free and
open society, and to use terminology I used as an Air Force
pilot, America is, unfortunately, a target-rich environment.
The Under Secretary for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection in DHS will require your support. And
this will require courage on your part, because when he has to
make tough decisions about facilities that are not in your
particular district, you will need to support those decisions.
All Americans, whether you are a Member of Congress, the
administration, Governors, State legislators, county
executives, mayors, and citizens, we must learn to think
nationally and regionally, not just parochially, about
defending our homeland.
I used to sit in this room in uniform. You know, it was far
easier when securing America meant buying another nuclear-
powered aircraft carrier; because, Mr. Chairman, that nuclear-
powered aircraft carrier protected Cave Creek, Arizona as much
as it did Boston, Massachusetts. But when we buy equipment for
Cave Creek, Arizona, it does nothing for the citizens of Boston
or New York or Washington. It is a more difficult challenge.
Second, that is why we have to establish priorities. We
just cannot afford to do everyone. I am sure we will get Boston
and Cave Creek, I understand.
Second, the legislation addresses the issue of
prioritization.
Colonel Larsen. Since November of 2001, I have repeatedly
stated to Congress and the administration that the greatest
threat to the American homeland is not nuclear weapons or
biological weapons or chemical weapons or large conventional
explosives or cyber weapons. The greatest threat, in my
opinion, is uncontrolled spending. We cannot afford to provide
every first responder with every piece of equipment or every
training program on their wish list. I was asked--I am a member
of the Council of Foreign Relations--and I was asked to be on
that most recent study. I disagreed with their methodology that
they approached with it, which is why I did not participate. I
liked Hart-Rudman 5 study that was sponsored by the Council on
Foreign Relations, but not the most recent one.
America cannot afford a chemical detector in every
government building or piece of critical infrastructure. We
cannot afford to guard every facility in this country the same
way we do this Nation's Capitol. We must establish priority.
And I agree with the priorities that were listed in 3266,
significant loss of life, risk of large scale denial of human
means of subsistence and risk of massive disruption of one or
more sectors of our economy. I have spent a lot of time in the
last 2-1/2 years working on those last two, when we did
exercises such as Dark Winter where Senator Nunn played the
President, and other participants included: Jim Woolsey, Bill
Sessions former FBI director, Governor Frank Keating of
Oklahoma. We looked at a small pox attack and what it would do,
and you know what the greatest damage was, it was the
disruption of our economy. We did one--I have been doing the
last 2 years working with Jim Moseley, the Deputy Secretary of
Agriculture, and Claude Allen, the Deputy Secretary of HHS,
about attacks on our food supply. One thing this committee and
subcommittee needs to be careful about is not preparing for the
last war.
I used to be chairman of the military department at the
National War College, and that was one of my concerns, we were
preparing our students to fight Desert Storm again. All I have
heard today for first responders is EMT, fire and police. They
are all important. But I tell you, if you look at where al
Qaeda will attack our economy and our food supply, there is a
lot of first responders out there that I haven't heard
mentioned today that are very important, and those traditional
first responders doing nontraditional roles.
I do a lot of executive seminars for the Sheriff's
Association of Washington State, the Sheriff's Association of
Illinois, new things that sheriffs and police chiefs would have
to do that are not part of traditional police work, and in some
cases firefighter work. But the most difficult one though that
I think that you owe to Secretary Ridge is defining what
significant loss of life means. Now a lot of these young folks
back here behind us don't remember this. I know everyone on the
panel up there does. Back during the Vietnam War, I was a 19-
year-old kid in Vietnam, and I used to read Stars and Stripes
and my mom read at home ``the casualties this week in the
central highlands were light.'' You know, that had a different
perspective for the families who were connected to those light
casualties.
What is it? Significant loss of casualties. What does that
mean to Secretary Ridge and what does that mean to governors?
In 2001, we had 3,000 Americans die from terrorism. We would
probably all say that was significant. In 2001, we had 5,000
Americans die of food poisoning. Did we have any hearings up
here? We had 35,000 die in automobile accidents. We had 90,000
die from improper medical procedures. In the summer of 2001,
just before 9/11, a study was released that said if all drivers
and passengers of automobiles wore NASCAR style helmets we
could reduce fatalities in the United States by 40 percent.
So I am sitting here right now and telling this panel how
you could save 15,000 lives next year. Is that not a
significant number? But I don't think that we are going to pass
that legislation. But what I am telling you is what does it
mean? It is a great term. Those are the right priorities, but I
think we need to have a discussion on what significant loss of
life means.
Now I don't know how many have been down to Oklahoma City
to the memorial. You know you walk into a small room and they
have the table sitting there where right across the street they
had the water board meeting and the water commissioner of
Oklahoma started the meeting right on time at 9 o'clock. And at
9:02 you hear the horrible explosion and people screaming and
then that room goes completely dark and there are 168
photographs that come up on the wall. Now I tell you in
Oklahoma City, that is significant. But is it 168? Is it 3,000?
Is it five? We lost five to inhalation anthrax and spent $5
billion on biodefense. It is a discussion you need to have and
it is something you owe Secretary Ridge.
Third, and something I really like in this bill is it
prohibits supplantation. I know, Mr. Frank, you made a comment
that you didn't particularly like that. But I tell you from the
homeland security perspective and as a taxpayer, I applaud you
for putting this in there. As a realist and an observer of how
the system works, I guarantee you you need more than one
sentence and one bill to fix this problem. If you would like a
real eye opener about how serious supplantation is, I recommend
you talk to Dr. Ellen Gursky from the ANSER Institute for
Homeland Security. Dr. Gursky recently finished a study funded
by the Century Foundation that examines the issue. The report
will be released later this month.
You will find it shocking to see how good intentions, good
ideas and significant sums of money that come from this
Congress get distorted, disrupted and diverted to the State
level. Supplantation is an issue that deserves its own bill and
something that must be corrected if we are going to see
improvement in homeland security. The flexibility that H.R.
3266 gives to the Secretary of Homeland Security is very
important, and I applaud your insight and flexibility.
And one last thing here. Regional funding, I think it is
the most important part of this bill. We cannot provide all the
equipment and training needed for every fire house, police
department and emergency room that is on their current wish
list. But if a major attack occurs in Washington, D.C., local
leaders and first responders must be prepared to accept major
assistance from surrounding communities and States. And to do
this effectively, we must conduct regional exercises and
training. And I think the only way that will happen is with
Federal funds. We cannot be exchanging business cards on the
first day of a crisis. And unfortunately that is what would
happen in many regions today. Thank you for the time.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you for your testimony.
[The statement of Colonel Randall Larsen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Colonel Randall J. Larsen,
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members, thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to provide my comments on H.R. 3266, Faster and Smarter
Funding for First Responders.
I am frequently asked by Members of Congress, the Administration,
members of the press, and the general public to assess homeland
security legislation, programs and commercial products. I always begin
by asking three questions:
Will this make my family more secure?
Can America afford it?
What will it do to my civil liberties?
From the various perspectives of someone who has spent the past ten
years studying the field of homeland security, as a taxpayer, as a
corporate CEO, and as a father, I am pleased to report that H.R. 3266
receives a positive response to all three questions. While not a
panacea to this incredibly complex and difficult challenge, this bill
is a step in the right direction.
First of all, this legislation calls for grants based on threats as
determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, rather than on
population size or ``politics as usual.'' This is an issue that
Representative Shays has advocated for several years. It is clearly the
right thing to do, but will be a Herculean challenge. America was
designed to be an open and free society. From a terrorist's
perspective, this makes our homeland a target rich environment. The
Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
will require your support, particularly when tough decisions are made.
Not every facility in every congressional district will make the list.
All Americans--Members of Congress, the Administration, Governors,
State Legislators, Mayors, County Executives, and citizens--must learn
to think nationally not just parochially about defending our homeland.
It was far easier when securing America meant buying another aircraft
carrier. An aircraft carrier protected the people of Cave Creek Arizona
as much as it did the citizens of New York City. The same will not be
true for all homeland security equipment and training programs provided
to local governments.
Second, it addresses the issue of prioritization. Since November
2001, I have repeatedly stated to Congress and the Administration that
the greatest threat to the American homeland is not nuclear weapons,
biological weapons, chemical weapons, large conventional explosives or
cyber weapons. The greatest threat we will face in the years ahead is
uncontrolled spending. America cannot afford to provide every first
responder with every piece of equipment or every training program on
their wish lists. America cannot afford a chemical detector in every
government building or piece of critical infrastructure. America cannot
guard every key facility in the manner that the nation's capitol is
currently protected. We must establish priorities and they must be
based upon the three factors listed in this legislation: risk of
significant loss of life, risk of large-scale denial of the means of
human subsistence, and risk of massive disruption to one or more
sectors of our economy.
The most difficult task will be to define significant loss of life.
During the Vietnam War, the government would report, ``the casualties
this week in the central highlands were light,'' but we all knew that
the families of those deceased soldiers had a different perspective on
the term ``light''.
America lost nearly 3,000 innocent civilians to terrorism in 2001.
On the other hand, America lost 5,000 citizens that year to food
poisoning, 35,000 in automobile accidents and more than 90,000 to
improper medical procedures. In the summer of 2001, a study reported
that if all drivers and passengers of automobiles wore NASCAR quality
helmets, fatalities would be reduced by up to 40 percent. In other
words, if this Congress passed legislation requiring every occupant of
every automobile in America to wear helmets, we could save more than
15,000 lives next year. Are 15,000 lives not significant? Why hasn't
Congress passed such legislation? How will the Secretary of Homeland
Security define significant loss of life? You should provide him
guidance.
Third, this bill prohibits supplantation. From a homeland security
and taxpayer perspective, I applaud this section of the bill. As a
realist and an observer of how the system works, I guarantee you need
more than one sentence in one bill to fix this problem. For a real eye
opener on the seriousness of supplantation, I recommend you talk to Dr.
Elin Gursky from the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security. Dr Gursky
recently finished a study, funded by the Century Foundation, that
examines this issue. The report will be released later this month. You
will find it shocking to see how good ideas, intentions, and
significant sums of money that come from this Congress get distorted,
disrupted and diverted at the state level. Supplantation is an issue
that deserves its own bill. It is something that must be corrected
before we can see significant improvement in homeland security.
Fourth, and somewhat related to issue three, is the bill's
requirement to push down ``not less than 80 percent'' of grant funds to
local governments and first responders. This has been a problem I hear
about frequently in my visits to those on the front lines of homeland
security, such as police officers, fire fighters, and emergency medical
personnel. In particular, I have heard this complaint from the public
health community in California. I recognize that there is a significant
budget crisis in that state, but money that is designated for front
line troops should not be disproportionately skimmed by state agencies.
H.R. 3266 provides penalties for failure to pass these funds down to
local governments and first responders, but I wonder if there is
sufficient manpower at the Department of Homeland Security to
adequately monitor these grants.
Fifth, the flexibility provided to the Secretary of Homeland
Security to transfer all or part of funds to a different project once a
grant has been made fits the title of Faster and Smarter Funding. I
applaud your insight and wisdom in providing such flexibility to the
Secretary.Homeland security is a rapidly evolving field. I have taught
graduate courses in Homeland Security since 1999, and find that I must
make major revisions to my syllabus each semester. Flexibility is
critical to success in homeland security, whether in the classroom or
on the front lines.
Finally, and in some respects most important, is funding for
regional programs. America cannot afford to provide every fire house,
every police department and every hospital emergency room with every
piece of equipment and every training program on their wish lists. We
must learn to leverage regional capability. If a major attack occurs in
Washington DC, local leaders and first responders must be prepared to
accept major assistance from surrounding communities and states. To do
this effectively, we must conduct regional planning, exercises and
training. Providing Federal funds for such activities is the best way,
and perhaps the only way, to ensure that these regional players will
not be exchanging business cards on the first day of crisis. Federal
funding for multi-jurisdictional planning, exercises and training is
critically important to making America more secure at price we can
afford.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on H.R. 3266 and look
forward to your questions.
Mr. Shadegg. I want to express my appreciation for your
mentioning Cave Creek Arizona, which is in my district. And in
fact, you make a good point about how an aircraft carrier
protects both Cave Creek and the rest of the Nation, but these
allocation of resources--.
Mr. Frank. If the Chairman would yield, I hope in Cave
Creek you are not going to be taking those Federal funds and
saving on your local stuff.
Mr. Shadegg. They don't believe in supplantation in Arizona
but I have heard it happens in other States. I also want to
mention, you made a reference to examining our food supply, and
my subcommittee indeed has a tentative hearing scheduled on the
threat to our food supply, because I think you point out there
are lots of vulnerabilities, and that is one of great concern.
Let me turn now to Mr. Robert Latham.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT LATHAM, JR, DIRECTOR, MISSISSIPPI EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Latham. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thompson, Chairman
Cox, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to testify before
you today and personally thank you on behalf of the citizens of
Mississippi for what you are doing to help secure our homeland.
The homeland security effort has required unprecedented
cooperation between disciplines and jurisdictions and the
building of coalitions and partnerships at every level of
government. There will never again be a routine call for our
first responders. Everyday they put their lives on the line.
Hundreds paid the ultimate sacrifice on September 11, 2001.
Thanks to the efforts of Congress, States and communities have
received millions of dollars to ensure that our emergency
responders have the resources that they need. I would like to
provide you with some issues highlighting some of the obstacles
the States and local governments are dealing with as we build
this capability together.
First the creation of the Department of Homeland Security
enabled the Federal Government to consolidate many agencies
forcing the elimination of turf battles that have existed for
decades. There are similar challenges at the State and local
level, but we are committed to building the relationships that
are critical in developing the multi-disciplined, multi-
jurisdictional capabilities we need.
Second, the outcome of our efforts will depend upon our
ability to build comprehensive and integrated plans at the
State and local level, plans that are based on vulnerabilities,
matched with local, regional and State capabilities. Every
community does not need a level A HAZMAT capability, but every
community must have a basic response capability. In
Mississippi, we have taken that approach and are seeing steady,
consistent progress. To continue this type of success, States
must have the lead role where management of these initiatives
to ensure plan uniformity and integration.
Third, our ability to share intelligence information must
continue to be improved. Every member of the law enforcement
community must have the ability to share real-time information.
Fusing this information at the appropriate level, analyzing the
information and using the most current technology for timely
distribution of this information with a cop on the street is
vital to this effort. Most of all, we should not forget the
role of the average citizen. As a Nation we can only be secure
when every community in every county in every State is secure.
Last but most importantly, we must sustain this planning
and capability for the long term. As States, we recognize our
role and responsibility and are moving rapidly to develop and
sustain this capability. Securing critical infrastructure and
developing a comprehensive response strategy is crucial. It
takes States working with counties and cities to build this
strategy.
I urge you to continue to provide the resources to the
States so that we can work with the communities to sustain this
effort. However, there are some issues that continue to affect
the State and local ability to develop and sustain this effort.
First I think it is important to recognize that ``one size does
not fit all.'' States should be allowed the flexibility within
DHS guidelines to utilize the funds to meet those needs. Things
such as; allowing the State administrative agency, designated
by the governor, flexibility within DHS guidelines; and
allowing the State administrative agency to approve local
changes to equipment requests as long as they fall within the
State strategy and meet ODP guidelines.
The evolvement of technology, change in vulnerability
assessments and improved capability justifies the need for this
flexibility. Minimize paperwork or on-line requirements for the
State administrative agency. Once the application is approved,
showing the 80 percent pass-through or grant distribution plan
in our formula, ODP should accept, approve and fund the
application. In Mississippi, we met the required pass-through
deadlines and actually exceeded the amount that was required to
be passed through to local governments.
Second, coordinate all homeland security grant programs
through the Federal Government to allow a coordinated
implementation by the States, counties and the cities.
Bioterrorism grants, fire grants and others intended to improve
the response capability need to be concurred with by the State
homeland security advisor to ensure that all initiatives are
supportive of the national and State homeland security strategy
and are not repetitive. There is only one strategy and all
initiatives to support this strategy.
Third, continue providing planning funds that will enable
the States to enhance existing, proven, comprehensive, all-
hazards emergency management plans. So far, planning funds have
been dedicated to updating vulnerability and capability
assessments, the State homeland security strategy and response
plans for the new threat.
Fourth, track support of first, second and other responders
by comparing improvements in capability as evidenced in annual
reports already required by ODP. Don't require additional and
redundant reports.
Fifth, remember that development of a capability is only
the beginning. Sustainment of that capability will be the
challenge. We need assurances of the Federal will to fund these
initiatives for the long-term. We need consistent and
predictable funding for equipment replacement and upgrades in
training.
In closing, I would like to address some issues that can
make homeland security programs more effective. Refine the
alert level warning system by targeting the warnings where
possible to a specific infrastructure sector or region of the
country. Enhance current proven warning systems such as NAWAS
and the Emergency Alert System to provide timely warning and
information to State and local governments as well as the
general public. Preserve pre-911 grant programs such as the
Emergency Management Performance Grant, Fire Grants, COPS
grants. These grants provide the funds necessary to sustain
valuable programs that have proven themselves in our States and
our communities. Grants such as EMPG are providing the
cornerstone for our State and local all-hazards capability.
State and local emergency managers are playing vital roles
in homeland security efforts to include vulnerability and
capability assessments, development of State and local
strategies and grant management. Loss of this grant will
undermine an all-hazards approach to preparedness, response,
recovery and mitigation. Those are already in place. Our
communities will continue to be ravished by floods, tornadoes
hurricanes and earthquakes.
An act of terrorism is another risk and threat that has
consequences that we must plan for and be prepared to manage.
Emergency management is the only nondiscipline specific,
nonjurisdictional specific element that can and has pulled the
various programs and disciplines together in times of crisis.
Homeland security should not come at the expense of these other
programs. We should build on what is already in place. Each and
every day, our communities become more secure and our emergency
responders are better prepared. Achieving our goal to make our
homeland secure will take time. This is a team effort with a
national will to succeed. States are committed to being a team
player.
Give us the resources we need to meet the challenge. Don't
tie our hands. Give us the flexibility. Hold us accountable,
but help us do the job we need to do. Ladies and gentlemen, I
appreciate this opportunity and submit my testimony for the
record.
[The statement of Robert Latham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert R. Latham, Jr.
``Investing in and Building a National Capability--A State and
Local Perspective''
Chairman Cox, Ranking Member Thompson and Distinguished Committee
Members:
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today
and personally thank you on behalf of the citizens of Mississippi. In
providing for you a state perspective, I hope I am able to aid you in
your efforts to better prepare our nation, make our communities safer
and provide our citizens with the security that they expect and
deserve. The homeland security effort has required unprecedented
cooperation between disciplines and jurisdictions and the building of
coalitions and partnerships at every level of government.The result has
been the recognition of the vast capabilities we have when we work
together, resulting in shared responsibilities and resources. This team
building, like never before, has opened the doors of opportunity to
help us achieve our goals.
Today, our firefighters, law enforcement officers, emergency
medical personnel and emergency management personnel now recognize that
there is NO such thing as a ``routine call''. Each and every day they
put their lives on the line to make our communities safer. The
sacrifice they make became evident on September 11,2001 when thousands
of innocent civilians lost their lives and hundreds of first responders
paid the ultimate sacrifice for their fellow man--just doing their job.
Since that horrendous act, thanks to the efforts of Congress,
states and communities have received millions of dollars to ensure that
they have the resources necessary to meet this new threat. On that
note, I would like to provide you with some issues that states and
local governments are dealing with to build this capability we all seek
to attain.
First, the reorganization of the federal government and creation of
the Department of Homeland Security, under the leadership of a Cabinet
Secretary, enabled the federal government to consolidate many agencies.
This alone has served to minimize and, in some cases, eliminate the
``turf battles'' that have existed at the federal level. While there
are challenges at the state and local level, we are committed to
building relationships that are multi-disciplined and multi-
jurisdictional. In Mississippi, working under a Governor's Executive
Order to standardize incident management, we are bringing down barriers
that have existed for decades.
Second, the outcome of our efforts will depend upon the state's
ability to build comprehensive and integrated plans at the state and
local level. These plans must be based on vulnerabilities, matched with
maximizing capabilities, and exercised and tested to determine
shortfalls. Plans should address local, regional and state
capabilities, utilizing and maximizing mutual aid built on a tiered
response plan recognizing that not every community needs a Level A
Hazmat capability, but EVERY community needs some basic response
capability. In Mississippi, we have taken that approach and are
building this tiered response plan that increases in capability at
every level. Funds from the Department of Homeland Security are
enabling us to build and enhance this capability. As a result, 81 of
our 82 counties and 178 of our 312 municipalities are members of a
Statewide Mutual Aid Compact. Development of this comprehensive
strategy supports the national strategy for homeland security and can
only be achieved through continued state responsibility for management
of this program to ensure plan uniformity and integration.
Third, just as we are building a team approach to preparedness, our
ability to share intelligence information must be based on team
building and mutual respect and trust between the various emergency
responders and law enforcement entities. Every member of the law
enforcement community from the federal, state and local level must have
the ability to share real-time information and receive critical threat
information as it relates to their jurisdiction. Fusing this
information at the appropriate level, analyzing the information, and
providing an assessment to state and local law enforcement is critical
to our success in this effort. Availability of the most current
technology to every level of law enforcement is vital to the timely
sharing of this information. However, in this process we must not
forget what could be the most important element of this process--the
average citizen. Recognition and reporting of unusual activities in our
neighborhoods and communities may very well be the one factor that
prevents future attacks. Public education and awareness to their role
is a major component of our efforts to secure our homeland, beginning
in every neighborhood.
Last but not least, we must ensure that we can sustain this
planning and capability for the long term. Development of this
capability is largely dependent upon our ability to build
relationships. It's happening every day in the communities and states
across this nation. As states we recognize our role and responsibility
and are moving rapidly to ensure we take the steps necessary to develop
and sustain this capability. As a nation, we can only be secure when
every community in every county in every state is secure. While we
recognize that we must prioritize securing our critical infrastructure
and developing a comprehensive response strategy to include local,
regional and state capability, we must not forget that every community
in our nation must be a part of this effort. I urge you to continue to
provide the resources to the states as we work with all of our
communities to ensure the security of our homeland.
Next, I would like to focus on the specific issues that adversely
affect the state and local ability to development and sustain a
comprehensive homeland security strategy.
First I think it is important to recognize that ``one size does not
fit all''. States should be allowed the flexibility, within DHS
guidelines, to utilize the funds to meet those needs.Such things as: .
Allow the State Administrative Agency (SAA) to sub-
allocate funds based on guidelines without requiring step by
step involvement of Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP),
i.e. equipment requests. Under the current process, states are
required to submit to ODP a sub-allocation plan. Once the state
receives ODP approval jurisdictions are then required to submit
an equipment list and submit to the state for approval. Once
the state completes the review process, each jurisdiction's
list is submitted to ODP for approval. Once the state has
received approval for the equipment list, the jurisdiction is
notified and then signs a sub-grant application and returns it
to the state. Once this has been done the jurisdiction is
allowed to purchase the equipment. This burdensome process
results in an increased work load for ODP, the state and local
governments and an unnecessary delay in our first responders
receiving the equipment they need to do the job we ask them to
do.
Allow SAA to approve local changes to equipment
requests. The evolvement of technology, changing vulnerability
assessments and improved capabilities justify the need for this
flexibility and supports our cities and counties in this fluid
environment.
Minimize paperwork or on-line requirements for the
SAA. Once the application is approved, showing the 80 percent
pass-through or grant distribution plan and/or formula, the
federal government should, accept, approve and fund the
application-don't keep asking for more information! In
Mississippi, we not only have met the pass through deadlines,
we exceeded the amount that was required to be passed through.
Second, coordinate all Homeland Security Grant Programs throughout
the federal government to allow a coordinated implementation by the
States, counties and cities. One example, the Bioterrorism Grants
provided from the Department of Health and Human Services to states and
Fire Grants to local fire departments need to be concurred with by the
States to ensure that all initiatives are supportive and not repetitive
There is only one strategy and all initiatives should support this
statewide strategy. Yet, the all-hazards approach must be maintained
along with traditional all-hazards capacity building programs.
Third, continue providing planning funds that will enable the
states to enhance existing, comprehensive, all-hazards emergency
management plans. Up to this point, planning funds have been dedicated
to updating vulnerability and capability assessments, the state
homeland security strategy, and response plans to the new threat
environment. Continuation of planning funds will allow states to take
the planning to the next level--the local level.
Fourth, track support of first, second and other emergency
responders by comparing improvements in capability as evidenced in
annual reports already requiring by ODP. Don't require additional
reports. This places an enormous burden on state and local governments
already operating with limited resources.
Fifth, remember that development of a capability is only the
beginning--sustainment of that capability will be the challenge. States
need to have assurances of the federal will to fund these initiatives
for the long term. With limited shelf-life of equipment, improvements
in technology and training upgrades states will need consistent and
predictable funding.
In closing, I would like to address some issues that I think
warrant comment as together we find ways to make the homeland security
programs user-friendly and effective.
Refine the Threat Alert level system by targeting the warnings to a
specific infrastructure sector or region of the country. Changing the
system at this point will only further confuse the public. Enhance
current warning systems that are proven such as NAWAS and EAS to
provide timely warning and protective measures to state, local
governments and the general public.
Preserve pre-9/11 Grant Programs such as the Emergency Management
Performance Grant (EMPG). These grants provide the funds necessary to
sustain valuable programs that have taken years to develop and have
proven invaluable time and time again. Grants such as EMPG provide the
cornerstone for our state and local all-hazards capability. Currently
state and local emergency managers are playing a vital role in homeland
security. Loss of this grant will undermine an all-hazards approach to
preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation. Our communities will
continue to be ravaged by floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and
earthquakes. Mississippi currently has 10 open disasters for which we
are managing recovery programs. Homeland Security is just another
threat that has consequences that must plan for and be prepared to
manage. Emergency Management is the only--non-discipline specific, non-
jurisdictional specific element that can pull the various programs
together. Homeland Security should not come at the expense of these
other programs. We should build on what is already in place.
Each and every day our communities become more secure and our first
responders better prepared. Achieving our goal to make our homeland
secure will take time. This is a team effort. States are committed to
being a team player. Give us the resources we need to meet the
challenge. Don't tie our hands. Give us the flexibility. Hold us
accountable, but help us do our job better.
I appreciate this opportunity and will be glad to answer any
questions you may have.
Mr. Shadegg. I want to thank each of you for your very
thoughtful statements. I want to advise the members of the
committee that the clock is accurately counting down time, but
the wire between here and the light out there is not connected
very well, and so half the time it does not reflect what the
clock reflects. So I did not count off any of these gentleman.
I thought their statements were useful, although all of them
went slightly over, but we will accept that. I will try to make
the clock connect as best as possible with the light out there
so you know where you are on our time. You already had a first
responder deal with the thermostat. Warm enough in here for
there to be a fire somewhere nearby, but we haven't got a first
responder to try to fix our clock. At least no one is here
cleaning our clock.
In any event, to begin with questioning, and I will try to
keep the wire connected so we can see how much time is left and
it is not now--I have a green light--let me focus first on one
aspect of H.R. 3266. As you know, H.R. 3266 preserves all of
the existing grant programs; an important first step. It also
preserves the ability of States to apply for homeland security
grants. But significantly, it opens up this concept of allowing
regions to apply. Mayor Garner, I know you addressed that issue
and expressed some concern and I think thoughtfully outlined
three different concerns you would have with the issue of
allowing regions to apply. But given that we have communities
not unlike the District of Columbia here where we have the
District, we have Maryland nearby and Virginia nearby, there
are clearly regions that cross State borders.
We have States across the country where major cities sit
literally on a State boundary. So if we could, I would like to
begin by asking each of you to respond as to that aspect of the
bill, if you believe it would be appropriate for regions to be
allowed to apply; if you think there should be conditions
allowing regions to apply, or if you think it is not
appropriate for Congress to take that step and the legislation
as H.R. 3266 applies. So I will throw it open to any of you.
Mr. Garner. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, the question I
guess again about--have the regional cooperation to control the
money, Let me say no. Clearly the States have funding needs
relative to homeland security and should have some Federal
money for those needs as we have always supported. And clearly,
there should be some moneys available to encourage regional
cooperation for funding going to counties as well, as we have
always supported. However, to assume that cities and counties
will not work together is simply wrong thinking. More to the
point, our surveys show that money sent to the States is not
reaching the cities.
And we need to act now to help prevent acts of terrorism
not simply prepare to respond after an attack. And prevention
is primarily a police activity and we are responsible for most
of the police in the Nation. Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, one
of the things that mayors across this Nation have consistently
have said, be that they are Democrat or Republicans, fact that
the money should come directly to first responders, which is
the mayors across this Nation. They also say we are stretched
to the limit, Mr. Chairman, with respect to our budget. As one
of the Congressman indicated in one of his remarks, that we
need predictable income in order to fix this budgetary problem.
In terms of inoperability, we work--before that lexicon came
about, we worked with each other, communities. We have always
done that in our States. But again, it comes down to a chicken
or the egg.
Mr. Shadegg. You don't oppose the inclusion of regions in
the legislation?
Mr. Garner. Again, I will always say, Mr. Chairman, that I
think the money basically should come directly to first
responders and that is the mayor. It seems though, Mr.
Chairman, that money goes to State House by way of Federal
Express, but it comes to us by way of horse and buggy.
Colonel Larsen. As I said, I felt the regional approach was
very important. How are you going to define that. Are you going
to use 10 FEMA regions and or are you going to just start
creating them across the country in certain higher threat
areas? I think that will be an issue that needs to be decided.
It is very important--I did an exercise here about 18 months
ago where we set off a dirty bomb in front of the Smithsonian
and there was real challenges about Virginia and Maryland. Are
you going to leave--people leave the city and bring
radiological contaminated cars and vehicles to your States or
whatever? The only way we can be prepared for that are the
exercises that this sort of thing will fund because I don't
think Virginia, Maryland and the District has the money
themselves to do those sort of regional events. Maybe you do it
through the FEMA districts. But I think the most important word
is cross-jurisdictional. That is the problem we have in
homeland security.
Mr. Latham. I am the Vice Chair of the Central United
States Earthquake Consortium, and we have been doing regional
planning for years. We have done regional planning with other
States to work on evacuations. In Mississippi, we have
developed homeland security regions. We developed mutual aid
that requires not only the counties, but cities to be part of
this mutual aid compact because in an event, regardless of the
cause, it will require resources from multiple jurisdictions
and multiple disciplines.
So, we have to build not only at the local level and even
regionally up to the State, but we have to think outside the
box, as well, and be prepared. I wouldn't want to do that at
the expense of the other programs that we are also trying to
mimic.
Mr. Shadegg. I do have a question about, Mayor Garner about
how quickly money gets there and your question about Federal
Express and Pony Express. But unfortunately--and that goes to
the 45-day distribution requirement we put in the distribution
of the moneys that we just put out, and whether or not that is
working or not working. Regrettably I am out of time and I will
turn to the ranking member, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Taking part of your
comment about the regions, you know there are 25,000 cities in
America. And an average one is about 8,000 in population. One
of the challenges we have is how do you make the whole notion
of homeland security a real issue and instill confidence in the
citizens of those communities that everybody is important. I
represent a rural district. I don't have a Boston,
Massachusetts or a Newark, New Jersey, but I do have
communities of great importance. So how do you see the planning
process for making sure that American citizens feel secure in
their communities regardless of population as it relates to
this legislation?
Colonel Larsen. I am not sure post 9/11 we are ever going
to be able to make every citizen feel secure in this country. I
think that is a new reality we have to understand. We are not
going to go back to that sense of security we had before. We
can't afford to protect everything. But I think perhaps those
FEMA regions might be a place to start where there was that
regional approach. And so that would take--if you look at the
FEMA region that covers your district, I am sure there are some
larger municipalities in there that would even provide first
responder capabilities to your district in the event of an
attack.
That is what is different about this than the Cold War. If
the Soviets hit us, it was going to be every city. We couldn't
depend on Philadelphia helping out, but now we can depend on
our neighbors.
Mr. Thompson. My point here is to try to address the need
for planning, and if you do it in a coordinated fashion, you
can still provide some degree of comfort and security to the
people who don't live in large metropolitan areas. But those of
us who represent rural areas have a fundamental problem with
the realization of likely terrorist threats. You know, we don't
have a Statue of Liberty or the Liberty Bell in RFD
Mississippi, but we have some of the finest folk in the world
that live there.
And we have to create some degree of comfort among those
citizens, too. So I don't want this committee, in its planning,
to overlook that. I think that is real important. And the
planning for whatever happens is real important, but you have
to make those departments and other people understand that.
Colonel Larsen. You don't have a Pentagon or Statue of
Liberty there, but you have rail cars filled with chlorine and
other highly toxic substances going through your district that
would be a likely target. That is why the regional response
capability that is planned for and practiced is important. That
is what is difficult when we say where are these critical
facilities. Do you know how many rail cars are moving around
with chlorine gas right now and other chemicals? There are a
lot of them. It is not those fixed facilities. They go through
your district, I agree with you.
Mr. Latham. I would like to elaborate on that a little bit,
Mr. Thompson. The regional planning is important and I say we
have done it in Mississippi. We have developed regions and we
are doing regional planning. And even if you expand that beyond
the State into multiple States, the State has to be involved to
make sure it supports both States or multiple State strategies
so we are all on the same sheet of music. And I would like to
emphasize once again that post 9/11 in October of 2001, the
State Emergency Operations Center in Jackson, Mississippi
received over 700 calls and reports of suspicious white powder.
Now most of these calls came from rural Mississippi. And every
one had to be treated as an actual threat, and these
firefighters and these first responders had no idea how to do
that.
So building the capability at the lowest level is
important. Granted, it may be to the point of recognizing,
doing the planning that you are talking about, doing the
training and the exercising to the lowest level of government
is important, if nothing more, to recognize that maybe this is
beyond our capability, back off so that we can pull in regional
teams to be able to manage the scene much better. But any rate,
regardless of the size of the region, however you define the
region, I think the States have to be involved in that process.
Mr. Garner. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, we are concerned that
regions get put together without our input, but getting to the
region might be a better way than the States. We want to make
sure that we are at the table in that process in terms of when
you, perhaps, look at the region versus State. So that is
basically--that is basically how I would say it.
Mr. Shadegg. The Chair would now call on the chairman of
the full committee to question.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Shadegg. I think your testimony has
been outstanding and very helpful and the member questions have
been very helpful as well, and member comments.
Mayor Garner, if I may start with you, you have made the
point just now and in your formal testimony that cities should
not find themselves the subject of a grant application by a
region that somebody else puts together. I think that is a
reasonable point. It is not presently reflected in the
legislation, so I want to ask you if we explicitly require that
all jurisdictions that are included within a region be
consenting partners to the application. Would that address that
concern?
Mr. Garner. I am not so sure, Congressman, but let me just
say that cities, as I understand it, don't control the threat
level of the system that set the threat level. We also don't
manage the borders or control the entry of terrorists into our
Nation, but we do control the local police and there is simply
no substitute for local police guarding critical
infrastructures or protecting public events and gathering
intelligence, especially when the national threat level is
increased. What we are asking for is perhaps is a partnership
at the end of the day. Most of the funding for personal
activities, as you know, will still come from the local
government more or less.
Mr. Cox. But just to be clear on the point, does it address
your concern if we were to require in the legislation that when
regions apply for grants through the Department of Homeland
Security, the jurisdictions included within that region must be
consenting partners in the application?
Mr. Garner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cox. I want to be clear on that point. The reason that
we are driven to this regional approach is that we have, first
of all, heard it over and over again from the first responders
across the country in our hearings.
Second, because as Mr. Thompson points out, with tens of
thousands of cities in the country and an average population
per city of 8,000 people roughly, the Department's view is that
they would be overwhelmed with applications if they have to
take an application from every one. Beyond that, if we were to
make grants on that basis, we would miss the opportunity that
mutual aid agreements have been providing for us and that is
that you don't need--you can share a lot of this equipment; you
don't need to replicate it in every single small town. And so
we want to drive this mutual aid agreement process and reward
it because it has been so successful.
Finally, with respect to how these regions get formed, I am
a little bit chary about saying let us take the old FEMA
regions, because what we are trying to do here is encourage
innovation, and we are trying to grant flexibility to meet
different homeland security challenges. We have done these two
top-off exercises recently, and it is just a very different
situation depending on the nature of the attack.
If what you are trying to plan for is evacuation based on a
dirty bomb, then weather patterns to a significant extent are
going to dictate what that sensible region is for planning
purposes. If, on the other hand, you are looking at an attack
on the food supply in Iowa, then you are going to be concerned
perhaps with the pattern and rates of disease spread in crops.
So what we are suggesting in this legislation is that the
Department of Homeland Security be empowered to evaluate
applications from regions that can be pure ad hockery based on
the threat that they perceive and the way that they want to
meet it. So that, Mayor Garner, your city may be part of one
region for one purpose and another reason for another purpose.
What we are most anxious to do here is solve the problem
and spend the money as wisely as possible. And with that in
mind, I want to ask a question about mutual aid agreements. You
mentioned it, Mr. Latham, in your testimony. Some States have
them, some States don't. It seems to be something of a trend.
What can we do to encourage more of this?
Mr. Latham. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but the
National Emergency Management Association has what is called
EMAC, Emergency Management Assistance Compact. And what I think
now, all but maybe a couple States are signed on. Mississippi
took that program and it is a very proven program in natural
disasters, we have actually implemented a system similar to
that in Mississippi called the Statewide Mutual Aid Compact
that was in place pre-9/11. At the time of 9/11, we had only 18
of our 82 counties and about 25 of 312 cities that were
members. But since 9/11, using a comprehensive strategy in
Mississippi, we have used that to encourage signing on to this
compact.
So now we have 81 of our 82 counties with the 82nd one in
the process and 178 of our 312 cities members of that compact
because we recognize, that regardless of the event or the
cause, local resources, at whatever level, will be exhausted
totally, and we have to bring in resources from another city,
from another county, maybe, even using EMAC and maybe from
another State. We have been able to use our homeland security
funds and increase mutual aid compact in Mississippi.
Mr. Cox. My red light has just gone on, and I want to get a
question under the wire which is to you, Colonel Larsen. You
have challenged us to think about what significant loss of life
means, so I accept your challenge in needing to think about it,
but we need your help while you are here. You laid out the
problem very nicely, and tell us how you might answer it if you
were forced to do so?
Colonel Larsen. I was afraid you were going to ask that. I
have been thinking about homeland security for 10 years and
writing about it. But since I put those words to paper last
night, I had a hard time getting that off my mind because I
think it is very critical to your point of prioritization. And
late last night, sitting there thinking about standing in that
museum in Oklahoma City, it is hard to imagine how 168 wouldn't
be significant. But from a national perspective, you know, you
almost have to take the perspective of General Eisenhower when
he was talking to the 101 Airborne early on the morning of 6
June.
He knows these guys are going to jump in there and they are
going to lose a bunch of them. There are going to be some
losses, but we are not going to stop the invasion because
people are going to die. Likewise, we can't spend ourselves
into bankruptcy trying to prevent or respond to every event and
every car bomber. I would be happy to help you think about
that, but I will take the question for the record because I
would like to spend some time sitting and thinking about it and
getting back to you. I think it is critical to the success of
your legislation.
Mr. Cox. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pascrell. I have to respond to that. The danger in--I
think there is a major danger in what you just said. I don't
think we are talking about the numbers, God forbid, of
fatalities. I don't think that is what determines terrorism or
the level of terrorism. I think what determines it are the
circumstances. I mean if there was a, God forbid--let us talk
and put it on the table--if we don't do it, who is going to do
it, an explosion by a terrorist and we determine that in a
restaurant in Cheyenne, Wyoming, it would seem we would have to
respond, and the FBI would have to respond and a lot of other
agencies would respond.
So I am not particularly--I am not thinking about it in
terms of numbers. I am thinking about it in terms of the
circumstances. And if there were indeed as has happened in
other countries where you stopped commerce, you may not have a
great loss of life, but you still wouldn't have to respond to
that particular situation. So I don't think we should get into
the numbers situation. I think it will be determined by the
circumstances. What you are saying really is pretty dangerous.
Mr. Shadegg. I appreciate the gentleman's creativity in
trying to state a point of order. I don't think it states his
point of order. However you are only stepping on your ranking
members' time so we will now call on the ranking member of the
full committee, Mr. Turner, for questions.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As our witnesses have
heard, we are trying to deal with a very difficult issue, which
is how do you pass out Federal money to the States and the
local governments for homeland security? There is a full range
of choices, and when you look at the two pieces of legislation
before this committee, the one introduced by Mr. Cox and the
other introduced by the members on the Democratic side, you see
many similarities in what we are trying to do. But there is one
stark difference in the two approaches, and that is under Mr.
Cox's bill, the funding for homeland security would be based on
a determination of the threat by the Department of Homeland
Security.
Under the Democratic version, we suggest that there should
be a process, a bottoms-up process, whereby we would take the
information on general threats and vulnerabilities in our
communities and develop what we call in our bill the essential
capabilities that each community should have. Those
capabilities would vary from community to community based upon
the actual, on the ground differences in those communities.
If, for example, you live in a community that has a lot of
rail traffic coming through with a lot of chemical tank cars,
or you live on an interstate highway with a lot of chemical
tankers, then you might have a different threat and
vulnerability or different vulnerability than perhaps a
community without those kind of transportation systems. If you
lived in a city that is located below a major dam, which, if
blown up by terrorists could flood your community, you may have
a different vulnerability. But it seems to me that what we need
your help on--and I might direct this to you, Mr. Latham,
because you are the director of emergency management for the
State of Mississippi, and you happen to be from one of those
States that did not get any money under the one grant program
that the Congress has put into law that is based supposedly on
threat--the high threat urban grant program.
That program has provided funds to about 19 different
States and 30 different areas of the country. Now that program,
the high threat urban area grant program, is designed and
probably was a response to the fact that our large cities said
that they weren't getting their fair share of homeland security
money and they didn't like the formula approach that we have
in--some of our grant programs, so they wanted their share and
Congress passed this high threat urban grant money. But even
though we have written the Department of Homeland Security on
numerous occasions asking them for the criteria on which they
disburse that money, we have yet to get an answer.
Now that is one choice. The other choice is to develop a
list, as we suggest in our alternative, of the essential
capabilities that communities across America should have to
respond to terrorist attacks, an approach that would assess not
only the threats, but the vulnerabilities that you may
encounter in the respective locales.
And it seems to me, Mr. Latham, most of the time when you
are working in Mississippi trying to prepare for the problem of
terrorist attack and response, that you are looking at
vulnerabilities, but you don't have the information necessary
to tell you whether it is a threat today or whether that same
threat will be there tomorrow.
Now under Mr. Cox's legislation, when you apply for a
grant, you would be required to give a description of the
source of the threat to which the proposed grant relates,
including the type of attack for which the applicant is
preparing for and seeking the grant funding. Which of the two
approaches makes the most sense in terms of your background,
your experience, in trying to prepare to deal with the security
of the State of Mississippi?
Mr. Latham. Mr. Turner, there are several issues. You
mentioned vulnerability and capabilities being bottom up. Every
municipality, every town, every village, every county in the
State of Mississippi is part of that process we are doing right
now. They are submitting their capabilities to us based on what
they did have, not what they have based on the money we have
given them to purchase this new equipment. We will submit that
to the Department of Homeland Security by the deadline, which
is the end of December. That will be the basis for the strategy
for the next 3 years.
But I think the question is what is the threat? Tomorrow
the threat may be different. New information will reveal that
this is a fluid environment. How do we build a capability if we
don't build it in every community. I will give you a good
example. During Operation Liberty Shield, when we received
information from the Department of Homeland Security about what
potential targets around the Nation, there were none for
Mississippi. We have a nuclear power plant. We have two major
ports on our gulf coast. We actually--we have several pipelines
that come together where 75 percent of the jet fuel for the
northeast comes together. The facility was guarded by one
security individual that was on contract.
So the message is, there is a threat in every community. If
we don't build this capability from the bottom up for every
community, then how do you sell our public, how do you convince
the public that they need to be a part of this. If they do
these capability assessments and vulnerability assessments and
then don't provide them the funds to do what we are asking them
to do, then how do you make them a partner in what we are
trying to do. This has to transcend jurisdictional boundaries
and discipline boundaries. Granted, that in the higher
populated areas, the threat is bigger, but that does not mean
that there is not a threat in every community of this Nation
and our capability must be built on that assumption.
Mr. Turner. You can determine your vulnerabilities because
you can see them. But if you had to base your grant funding
solely on the threat, number one, you don't always have the
information, number 2, it may change from time to time?
Mr. Latham. The threat information changes. So what is the
threat? I think this is--what we know today may not be there
tomorrow and we may have more information tomorrow. And we know
this. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of sleeper cells in
this country somewhere living in neighborhoods that are part of
the community waiting for an opportunity to utilize soft
targets or targets of opportunity. So we have to prepare for
that. When we had the 700-plus anthrax threats, most of them
came from rural areas. We still had to respond to them as if
they were real. None were, but we have to respond to them.
Mr. Shadegg. Time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair
would now call on the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the vice-
chairman of the committee, Mr. Weldon.
Mr. Weldon. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I want to make some
comments, first of all, on threats. We have to be careful in
deciding this issue and make sure that it is not just based on
population. Before getting involved in politics, I was a
teacher and a fire chief of my hometown as a volunteer. The
town had less than 5,000 population. Yet the year that I was
assistant chief, we had the largest incident in America with
the collision of two tankers, the chemical carrying tanker,
Edgar M. Queeney and the Quintos. Killed 29 people and burned
out of control for 3 days.
That entire incident was handled by an all-volunteer force.
No paid firefighters. So what I would say to you--and we get
this problem inside the Beltway that we have all the answers
here. The fire service has been handling the risk of this
country for longer than the country has been a country. And we
are talking only the military can handle a chemical incident.
That is BS. How many soldiers have been in a chemical plant
when it is totally involved in fire and you have got butane or
propane? I can tell you a ton of fire departments that have
been. And they have been handling that with their own equipment
and do a great job. The fire service nationwide, they
understand what their threats are and they understand locally
what their needs are. Instead of trying to come in and tell
them how to redo what they have been doing for 200 years, we
ought to ask them what their problems are.
And that is why we created the program, assistance to
firefighter grants so they could identify based on what their
needs are, where the money should go without the interference.
And I got to put a shot at the States here. The States talk a
good game. I can count on a number of fingers on my hand the
number of States who put significant dollars in to the fire and
EMS community.
In fact, there are many States who don't even take in and
put a 2 percent surcharge on the foreign fire insurance for
that State and give it back. Every State should have that. We
ought to make it a requirement that if the States are going to
determine how the money is going to be spent, then the States
ought to put some dollars on the table, too, because it is not
fair for them to come in and say we are going to tell you what
your threats are and where the money should go. The States
ought to be required to put some dollars on the table along
with the Federal Government.
I want to talk about the issue of regions. We have to make
sure when we develop regions, that we don't discriminate to the
point where we discourage people from volunteering. I am not
against paid firefighters. They do a fantastic job and we have
to fully support them, but we also have to support our
volunteers. And they protect--if we ever try to replace them,
it would bankrupt America. We have to make sure we give them
the support to volunteer to serve their communities and not
make road blocks.
I want to make another point. We have to put a provision in
this bill, I am convinced, dealing with the issue of technology
transfer. We spend $400 billion a year on the military. We have
developed all kinds of great capability and technology. Yet we
don't transfer that technology to the first responder.
Examples: We lost five or six firefighters in Boston when a
warehouse was fully involved in fire. Two firefighters were in
fighting the fire. Their air packs ran out. They collapsed.
Four other firefighters went in to rescue them. All six were
killed. Yet the military has developed technology that you can
put on a suit that gives you the GPS location of where that
soldier is all the time they are on the battlefield.
And they have developed both horizontal and vertical GPS.
The military has also developed transmitter technology that you
can place an undergarment on a soldier that gives you the vital
signs of the soldier, the heart rate the pulse and the
condition. Why in the world don't we have that for every first
responder. If we had that kind of technology the two
firefighters that were down in Boston, we would have known
exactly where they are and we could have gotten them out of the
building saving them and four other firefighters.
So in this case it is not a case of new money, it is a case
of telling the military that they got to do a better job in
transferring technology they developed out to the first
responder so it can be put into place quickly. There is a ton
of technology along that line that we have not made the case
and we have not forced the military. Military has paid for it
once to get that technology out to the first responder
community.
And we need to make sure in this bill that we make a
statement I think to that effect. In terms of mutual aid, most
of the municipalities already do that. I think California has
the best mutual aid program because in California, the State
buys fire apparatus. They preposition it around the State and
they tell the fire stations we will give you this fire truck,
but you have to sign an agreement. When there is a major
incident, you are going to provide that vehicle as a support
for that incident and you have to take it there.
No other State does that that I am aware of, except for
California. We ought to use that model where the States take
their own money, preposition equipment so that when a disaster
occurs that local department--and there are 32,000 departments
in the country have signed an agreement that they will take
that equipment to the scene because it has been funded not just
with their own local money from chicken dinners and tag days,
but it has also been funded by the State and Federal
Government. The use of these ideas I would hope as we move this
bill forward that we could incorporate that I think will help
the first responder. But keeping in mind, the ultimate solution
for the risks that we have are not going to come out of the
Beltway. They are going to come out of the mouths of the people
who have been doing this job, either paid or volunteer.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman for his comments and I
would call upon the gentleman, Mr. Etheridge.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the
gentleman from Pennsylvania and associate myself with his
comments. That way, I won't have to repeat them, because the
truth is, let me just share with you as relates to North
Carolina. Many of our fire and some of our rescue are on tax
districts. So that means that they can enter into mutual aid.
They have resources that are inadequate, because if you live in
an area where you have a lot of resources, if you are in a
rural area and have a low tax base, the problem still is there.
Colonel Larsen, let me come back to something you said
earlier. You just touched on the food threat. Several months
ago, we had an exercise in North Carolina dealing with this
whole. And I trust that as we develop this legislation we take
a hard look at it, because if you have a large--today in this
country as we produce many food products, in our case a lot of
pork and poultry, it moves across this country. And we put a
scenario in that within a matter of days, it may be just people
we are talking about, but at the end of the day we would have
to shut down every slaughtering plant, all the operations.
What this would amount to is bring into a dead standstill
the economic structures, our ability to export goods and
services and for the people in this country, lose faith in our
food supply, whether that were put in by terrorists or whether
it just might be an accidental disease placed in a number of
animals that would create a problem, specifically hoof in mouth
disease. I think this is something we need to think about as we
are moving.
Gets me back to the point we made earlier. We are going to
have to have a lot of help in the rural areas as well as the
urban areas, because it may not be something we are thinking
about, but I guarantee some other people are thinking about it.
Mr. Mayor, let me come back to a point that was made before
this committee and you made it earlier as it relates to
regional funding, and we look at it differently in North
Carolina because we have a lot of it in terms of regional
partnerships. But you mentioned that and others have said so
that this is a Federal responsibility, and a lot of cases
federally driven that the Federal Government ought to share the
bulk of the responsibility. What is the position of the U.S.
Conference of Mayors on the responsibility of the Federal
Government to pay for terrorist prevention and response? I
assume they have a position?
Mr. Garner. Let me say Congressman, we have supported
legislation in the Senate that would allocate funding on a
variety of important factors such as population, population
density, location of critical infrastructure, threat
vulnerability and proximity to borders.
Mr. Etheridge. That being said then, I assume there is a
position that it ought to be Federal, State and local mix, or
is it total Federal?
Mr. Garner. Again, Congressman--.
Mr. Etheridge. Let me tell you the reason I ask that
question because currently, whether it be a rural fire
department or rescue squad, they are doing a lot of this stuff
anyway. They can't determine--and I think Congressman Weldon
touched on it, they are not going to determine whether it is
terrorists, whether it is natural or otherwise, these folks are
going to respond. They are going to respond to it. They have
done it for a long period of time. And we get called up here
sometimes as if you are going to put it in a compartment and
that is all it is going to be. We have to be careful as we
legislate that we don't send stuff down with the intent of
helping that winds up categorizing and narrowing the focus that
this money can only be used for this issue. It gets to the
point that someone raised earlier that we aren't going to allow
them to supplant money.
I think Congressman Frank said earlier, if you have laid
off a fireman and you have laid off a police officer because
local resources are short and you get new money, is that person
only going to be responsible for one specific area? I don't
think so, and I don't think they think that way. And that is
where I am trying to head with my question.
Let me move on, if I may. This question is for you again
Colonel Larsen. In your testimony, you state that we must
establish priorities for first responders' funding and base it
on risk and significant loss of life, et cetera, et cetera. In
keeping with that statement with the point I just laid out as
it relates to agro terrorism, whether it be induced by
terrorists or man-made, it works out to be the same economic
issue. Local governments, small and large, have to have a
continual stream of money if they are going to meet these
needs, especially today as it relates to all the changes that
come in the mobility of population.
Talk to me a little bit, because this is a whole different
scenario than you laid out in your testimony, but it creates
the same kind of impact because what terrorism is about is
fear. You wind up with the same result.
Colonel Larsen. When we did Crimson Sky, where Senator Pat
Roberts played the President of the United States, we had to
end up killing 50 million animals in this country to get foot
and mouth disease under control. That is a national problem
that could have enormous economic consequences. That is the
sort of threats--I am not worried about a single truck bomb in
a State. It is a tragedy for that community. This is an
economic tragedy for the Nation. North Carolina sends 20,000
hogs a day to the Midwest every day, 20,000. So it is not just
a North Carolina problem if you have FMD.
Mr. Etheridge. It is an American problem.
Colonel Larsen. That is the type of threats that this money
should focus on, that level of threat. Not a single truck bomb,
that is a tragedy. I am talking about a national threat.
Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Chairman, at risk of getting your dander
up, these folks are already doing a lot of work, the private
folks. All of these people are working together with the
States. What they really need is a national coordinated effort
to help.
Colonel Larsen. Absolutely.
Mr. Shadegg. My dander doesn't get up easily. I want to let
you get your questions in. Although both the ranking member and
I noted that when you said your time was almost up it was in
fact well up. We both agreed to let you go.
Mr. Garner. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shadegg. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garner. May I be excused? I have got to try to catch a
6:30 shuttle back.
Mr. Shadegg. Well, we appreciate very much your being here.
We would request the other two witnesses stay. We do have two
members left to question. Thank you, we appreciate it. You are
excused.
Mr. Garner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Shadegg. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, to
question.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
submit for the record an article, an NTI global security news
wire, just read a paragraph talking about standards. It talks
about a gentleman from GAO, Randall Yim, complains that efforts
to establish homeland security standards aren't comprehensive
and the focus on training equipment for first responders isn't
enough to prepare them adequately for energies. Captain Michael
Grossman of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, who
heads his county's Emergency Operations Bureau, warns that
people from different parts of the government have difficulty
understanding one another. He recalls that during the 1992 Los
Angeles riots triggered by the beating of motorist Rodney King,
the local police responded to a domestic dispute call and were
accompanied by Marines for backup. As one of the police
officers approached the house, he yelled, cover me, meaning
watch my back. To the Marines ``cover me'' meant lay down fire,
so they fired more than 200 bullets down the house.
Fortunately, no one was hit.
GLOBAL SECURITY NEWSWIRE
FROM FRIDAV, OCTOBER 10, 2003 ISSUE.
GAO Pushes to Embed Homeland Security ``Standards'' Into U.S. Policy-
Making
By Siobhan Gorman
National Journal
WASHINGTON--Randall Yim probably doesn't fit anyone's picture of a
homeland-security evangelist. Calmly sitting cross-legged at a
conference table in his office in the General Accounting Office's drab
headquarters, Yim is the antithesis of fire and brimstone. His tone is
low-key, almost professorial. And his attire is standard-issue
Washington professional--a dark suit and tie. But as the GAD's managing
director for national preparedness, he is heading up the agency's new
effort to think big and long-term about homeland security. And he is
relentlessly traveling the country and walking the halls of Congress to
try to prod the rest of America into doing the same.
Yim, a native of California and an environmental lawyer by
training, came to the nation's capital in 1998 to assume an only-in-
Washington title: principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for
installations, logistics, and environment. Within three months, he
became deputy undersecretary of Defense for installations. He went on
win earn the Defense Department's Medal for Distinguished Public
Service in January 2001. Working with the GAD while still at the
Defense Department, Yim caught the eye of GAD Comptroller General David
Walker. Impressed by Yim's intellect, Walker wooed him to the GAD. Yim
reported for duty in August 2001 and began to tackle defense and
environmental projects. Two weeks later, terrorists slammed American
Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon.
That day, a crusader was born. ``I'm making the classic lawyer
mistake,'' Yim confessed to National Journal. ``I had friends and
colleagues killed in the Pentagon attack. Because of that personal
connection, I feel a sense of urgency to go forward.'' As ``homeland
security'' emerged as a top federal priority, Walker asked Yim to lead
an informal task force to give the GAD a handle on the issue. Next, Yim
became the first national-preparedness director within the agency's
homeland-security team.
Placing a newcomer in such a high-level role was unusual for the
GAD, but the move was part of Walker's effort to infuse new blood into
the staid government watchdog agency. ``Randall is very bright. He's
very creative,'' Walker says. Colleagues describe the self-effacing Yim
as ``an intellectual,'' ``a visionary,'' and ``a consensus builder.''
What keeps Yim awake at night is his worry that the nation's
approach to homeland security is unsustainable. Policy makers at all
levels, he frets, think of homeland security as merely a ``bolt-on''
program. He disdainfully compares their attitude to that of the auto
industry when it decided not to fundamentally rethink car designs in
the 1970s after Ford Pintos started to explode when they were rear-
ended. Automakers instead chose to simply bolt on bigger bumpers. Yim's
PowerPoint presentation to local officials even features a slide of a
Pinto. His alternative: embedding homeland-security principles into all
elements of public policy--from energy regulations to building codes.
His challenge: persuading the governmental powers that-be, especially
those in Congress, to make it happen.
While the GAO is careful to maintain its standing as an objective
outside evaluator of government endeavors, Yim's work takes the agency
into a new role--that of ideas broker and pitchman. Policy advocacy is
``unusual for GAO,'' Yim acknowledges. The GAO's advocacy role on
homeland security--coming on the heels of the agency's lawsuit against
Vice President Cheney to try to force him to divulge details of the
meetings that led to the administration's energy policy--suggests that
Walker intends to make the government's chief accountability agency a
more potent force.
Although the bulk of the GAO's work consists of responding to
congressional requests, Walker wants 10 percent of his agency's efforts
to be on major initiatives of its own. Walker described them as dealing
with ``more-strategic, complex, crosscutting, and longer-range
issues.''
Walker is determined to sell Congress on the GAO's conclusions
about long-range solutions to what it sees as significant problems.
Walker says that his ``client''--Congress--is understandably
preoccupied with short-term, localized issues because of lawmakers'
focus on winning re-election. But, he adds, the tendency of Congress
and the executive branch to think small makes devoting some of the
GAO's energy to thinking big all the more important.
The old reliable GAO seems well suited to thinking about the
massive problem of homeland security in the post-9/ll world. It also
seems suited to delivering harsh messages about what the nation must do
to try to protect itself. In Yim's view, at least, there's a crying
need for the government to adopt a take-your-medicine-and-eat-your-
vegetables approach. As Yim patiently outlined the GAO's master plan
for homeland security--flow charts and all--during two hour-long
sessions in his office, he took a page from the environmental chapter
of his life. In the 1970s, environmentalists began establishing
standards aimed at ensuring that the government and companies were good
stewards of Earth's resources. Similar standards, he says, are needed
for homeland security. For example, Yim would like to see a standard
for ensuring that financial markets have the technology in place to
withstand a variety of terrorist attacks.
Currently, the Department of Homeland Security, Congress, and the
private sector are haphazardly trying to establish standards for
various aspects of homeland security. But Yim worries that unless these
efforts become more unified and standardized, dangerous gaps are
inevitable.
Thinking Big
Randall Yim isn't content to just tinker. ``One of the concerns I
have about homeland security,'' he said, ``is, we have to begin
addressing the core issues.'' He quickly ticks off several: Who is in
charge? What should be done, and who should be doing it? Who should pay
for these changes, and how? How do you hold people accountable? How do
you track progress?
As homeland-security strategies proliferate at all levels of
government, Yim is dismayed to see that they are rarely connected to
cost considerations - or to one another. He wants to bring the high-
flying talk of strategies down to ground level, where planners could
focus on such issues as how much it costs states, localities, and
private businesses when the federal government raises the national
terrorism threat level to, say, Code Orange - where it was for nearly
nine weeks this year.
After getting a better sense of costs, the planners' next step
would be to assess what homeland-security precautions are being taken
and whether they are actually making the nation safer. Right now, Yim
said, federal money is flowing out, and there's no way to know whether
it's doing any good. Just last week, President Bush signed the $31
billion Homeland Security appropriations bill, which he declared ``a
major step forward'' in efforts ``to make our nation more secure.'' But
no one yet knows how much added security the $31 billion will really
buy.
Some $4 billion of the total will go toward resolving the myriad
complaints of so-called first responders. Billions of dollars are being
spent on first responders, not because the Department of Homeland
Security has determined that the country's greatest needs include
ensuring that firefighters nationwide have hazmat suits, but rather
because public officials were eager to heed the demands of the heroes
of September 11. Plus, lawmakers all have large numbers of firefighters
and police officers in their districts.
Among the difficult post-9/11 questions is whether spending money
on first responders is the best way to enhance local security. If
beefing up first-responder squads is a wise way to spend federal
homeland-security funds, are hazmat suits needed more than upgraded
walkie-talkies? And are they needed more than computer access to a
terrorist watch list?
To begin intelligently answering these questions and weighing one
demand against another, Yim said, the GAO should establish standards
that detail what government and the private sector must do in order to
assure a minimum level of security. There could, for example, be a
standard for ensuring that a ship's cargo is not tampered with en route
from Singapore to New York City.
Yim is not alone in seeing the creation of homeland-security
standards as crucial. John Cohen, a cop-turned-homeland-security
consultant, has helped states and localities, including Massachusetts
and Detroit, draw up homeland-security strategies. How important is
standardization? ``It's critical,'' Cohen said. ``You have got to get
everybody talking the same language.''
Several commissions have recommended the adoption of homeland-
security standards. Most recently, the Council on Foreign Relations, in
a project with former Sen. Warren Rudman, R-N.H., advocated national
standards for first responders as the council lamented what it saw as
their general lack of preparedness. The Gilmore Commission, headed by
former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore, also strongly advocated standards
in its December 2002 report.
Scattershot Standards
No longer the exclusive territory of bean-counters, the wonkish
topic of homeland-security standards has come into vogue on Capitol
Hill in recent weeks. Lawmakers are targeting their standardization
efforts at emergency workers. Meanwhile, various tentacles of the
Homeland Security Department are grappling with the creation of an
assortment of standards. Private industry may be the furthest along.
Several members of Congress, relative newcomers to the standards
debate, have quickly found religion. ``We are told Moses traveled in
the desert for 40 years because he didn't have a plan,'' Rep. Carolyn
Maloney, D-N.Y., said at an October 2 press conference announcing
legislation to establish national standards for first responders.
``What we're trying to do with this bill is to get a plan, get
standards, so that we know where we are and where we are going.''
In late September, Rep. Jim Turner of Texas, who is the ranking
Democrat on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, started
the standards stampede by introducing the PREPARE Act. Turner's bill,
which has attracted a host of Democratic co-sponsors, would require the
Department of Homeland Security to establish a task force to recommend
first-responder equipment and training standards. Then, the secretary
would be required to submit a plan for getting states and localities to
adopt the voluntary standards. (Federal funds would be tied to
compliance.) Turner's initiative was followed by the introduction of a
similar bill sponsored by Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., the chairman
of a Government Reform Committee subcommittee, and Maloney, the head of
the House Democrats' Homeland Security Task Force.
And on October 9, California Republican Christopher Cox, who chairs
the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, unveiled part of a
comprehensive homeland-security bill that includes a range of
proposals--from aligning funding for state and local responders with a
given locale's vulnerability, to bolstering the Homeland Security
Department's intelligence arm. Cox said in an interview that first-
responder standards are ``something that will be covered in our
legislation,'' adding that he will work with Turner, Shays, and
Maloney. Cox said he plans to mark up his bill before the end of the
month.
At the Department of Homeland Security, Alfonso Martinez-Fonts,
chief liaison to the private sector, and Frank Libutti, undersecretary
for information analysis and infrastructure protection, have been
reaching out to private-sector groups to discuss new safety standards
for the financial and telecommunications sectors, among others. Other
officials at the department are working on physical-security standards
for chemical plants and cargo containers. Still others are forging
ahead on standards for emergency-response equipment.
In the private sector, ASIS International, a trade group for the
security industry, has been developing standards since June 2001.
Earlier this year, it published guidelines to help companies perform a
terrorism risk assessment, said Don Walker, who co-chairs ASIS's
guidelines commission and is chairman of Securitas Security Services
USA. ``There's bits and pieces of work being developed by lots of
organizations,'' he said. ASIS will soon release guidelines for how
private industry should respond to announced changes in the national
threat level. The trade group is also working on guidelines for hiring
and training private security guards. And Walker says his commission
has listed 30 priority areas in which it wants to develop homeland-
security guidelines.
Still, Yim complains that the efforts to establish homeland-
security standards aren't comprehensive. And the focus on training and
equipment for first responders isn't even enough to prepare them
adequately for emergencies. Capt. Michael Grossman of the Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department, who heads his county's emergency
operations bureau, warns that people from different parts of the
government have difficulty understanding one another. He recalled that
during the 1992 Los Angeles riots triggered by the beating of motorist
Rodney King, the local police responded to a domestic-dispute call and
were accompanied by marines for backup. As one of the police officers
approached the house, he yelled, ``Cover me,'' meaning ``Watch my
back.'' To the marines, ``Cover me'' meant ``Lay down fire,'' so they
fired more than 200 bullets toward the house. Fortunately, no one was
hit.
ISO: In Search of a Plan
Creating standards, Yim insists, is the best way to figure out
who's responsible for each aspect of homeland security. Again, he looks
to the environmental realm for a positive example: the International
Organization for Standardization. It's known as ISO, which was derived
from the Greek isos, meaning ``equal.'' The group's American corollary
is the American National Standards Institute. Yim and his colleagues
want to translate what ISO has done for international environmental
policy and apply it to U.S. homeland security.
Launched in 1947, ISO aimed to blend private and public demands for
cost control and quality control, so that a company would not be put at
a competitive disadvantage for producing a high-quality product. The
organization has since established more than 13,700 voluntary standards
in business and environmental management that apply to everything from
the size of a screw thread to proper procedures for recycling aluminum
cans. ISO has two series of standards: ISO 9000 rules deal with general
management specifications; ISO 14000 rules specify what a company must
do to minimize environmental damage. By defining how things are to be
done, these standards clarify both who's in charge and what they should
be doing.
Yim sees promise for homeland security in following the lead of the
environmental-standards efforts, which began with rules for toxic-waste
cleanup and expanded to include such details as how much radiation a
computer screen is allowed to emit. ISO 14000 was among the reforms
inspired in the late 1970s by the Love Canal pollution disaster. And as
ISO 14000 evolved, it became recognized essentially as common law, so
that a company hit with a lawsuit can be held responsible, in court,
for failing to meet those standards. For business, Yim said, the
selling point was ``increased reliability, decreased liability.'' That
is, companies can feel assured that if they are meeting the standard,
they won't be held accountable for not doing more.
In the realm of homeland security, Yim sees endless opportunities
for crafting standards. To name a few: container security; protocols
for assessing a city's vulnerabilities; power-grid protection; building
codes; evacuation capacity for main thoroughfares; airline screening
procedures; and, of course, emergency-response teams. There could also
be standards for a hospital's capacity to triage patients or for a
communications system's ability to operate despite a power outage.
(During the Northeast's massive blackout this August, the 911 emergency
communications systems failed in Detroit and New York City.)
Yim argues that, over time, homeland-security standards would
transform the way the government and industry protect the nation.
``It's a strategic approach that links theory to action and, I think,
would significantly advance where we need to go as a country in
homeland security,'' he says. ``And it would give us a measure of
whether we're making progress in being better prepared.'' Establishing
standards would help ensure that there are no weak links in the
``homeland-security supply-and-demand chain,'' he added. That should
make the nation get more for its homeland-security dollar.
Standards would also provide a basis for gathering uniform data on
what is or isn't effective, and for performing cost-benefit analyses.
Plus, involving the business sector at the outset would ensure that
these standards ``are not blind to costs,'' Yim said.
Industry standards that the government sees as voluntary could end
up being mandated by insurers offering terrorism coverage. And, Yim
said, citizens would probably be willing to pay more for a government
service--their local 911 system, for example--if they had the assurance
that the system met a national standard of quality.
Developing homeland-security standards wouldn't be quick or cheap,
Yim admitted, but he argues that it's time for homeland-security policy
to become less panic-driven. He foresees government and industry
working together to craft each individual standard, and he thinks that
the GAO should form the teams to design each one.
Since the GAO is the investigative arm of Congress, Congress is its
top client, of course. For Yim and his team, the key to success will be
whether they can sell the Hill on their homeland-security vision.
Although currently fixated on first responders, lawmakers such as Shays
and Maloney are open to the idea of standards for other homeland-
security arenas as well.Maloney said she's particularly open to
standards involving cargo, power grids, water, and nuclear plants.
In fact, perhaps a homeland-security bill already in circulation
will turn out to be just the vehicle Yim and his team need. With that
in mind, they have been quietly buttonholing lawmakers in both parties.
Yim's hope is to incorporate a broad notion of homeland-security
standards into legislation before Congress adjourns for the year. His
immediate window of opportunity will soon close, he fears: Thinking big
homeland-security thoughts is unlikely to top many lawmakers' agendas
in an election year.
I don't know if we have that kind of extreme, but what I
haven't heard today, Colonel Larsen, is the issue of standards.
I want you to first respond to the report done by Senator
Rudman. They talk about potentially $999 billion needed, and
then when we question them they said, heck, it could be a lot
less. But just speak to the issue.
Colonel Larsen. Well, I told you, I was asked to be on that
panel and I just--the methodology bothered me. Well, two things
bothered me. If you look at the commissioners on there, not one
of them were from the State and local communities, no
experience except Senator Rudman, who 25 years ago had been a
State Attorney General. I mean, you know, I have got great
respect for Judge Webster and all the other folks on there, but
they weren't State and local people. Their methodology was to
go to all these different organizations, the firefighters, the
EMS, and, what is your wish list? What was their wish list? I
mean, if I use that to--.
Mr. Shays. Okay. So you question how they figured out the
dollars. Do you question their basic analysis that we needed to
set standards?
Colonel Larsen. No. The standards, that is a different
question. I question the money figure for their methodology
when they say how much do you need. Okay. The standards, I
think that is a critical thing.
Mr. Shays. You could question it in another way. Since they
didn't set standards, they would have no way of knowing what
was needed. So on both accounts.
Colonel Larsen. A very good point. If you go to the Center
for Domestic Preparedness in Anniston, Alabama, they have a
room this size and they have all this equipment laying out
there that first responders can buy. And the director took me
around and said, well, here, they are selling this to some of
the first responders. He said the bad news is it protects them
against chemical vapors but not liquids. I said, so why are you
letting them sell it like that for? And he said, because the
Federal Government doesn't set standards. But if you go down to
Home Depot and buy an electrical cord, there are standards.
Mr. Shays. I hear you. But what I am trying to, in my 3 and
half minutes--.
Colonel Larsen. Sorry.
Mr. Shays. I used up some of it improperly, too. But talk
to me about what we do to get standards, how long you think it
will take, et cetera.
Colonel Larsen. Length is going to be very frustrating to
all of us, because I think you should do it right instead of
wasting money. Perhaps we need something like that Underwriters
Laboratory. Maybe a quasi-government something over here. To
me, as a taxpayer, I wish the Department of Homeland Security
can do it. I am not sure that system is going to work. But we
need some sort of independent organization.
Mr. Shays. First off, they are required to set standards.
Colonel Larsen. They have been slow.
Mr. Shays. Okay.
Colonel Larsen. As a taxpayer, I would prefer that they do
it. I mean, I would like to get them, I just want to make sure
we get them right.
Mr. Shays. By December, they have to tell us capacity,
correct? We are getting all the local communities and States,
they are going to come back and they are going to tell us
capacity. Capacity tells us what they can do. What we want in
standards is to know what they should do and to know who should
do it, and who has the threat that has to need--for the need to
be able to respond to it. So, for instance, I would argue that
New York City probably needs more resources and Greenwich,
Connecticut right near it than Oxford, Connecticut a little
further away, though Oxford has an airport. And so talk to me a
little bit more about standards.
Mr. Latham, do you want to jump in?
Mr. Latham. I will talk about standards in terminology,
standards in incident planning, and those kind of things,
because the article you mention I think addressed that. And in
Mississippi what we have done by Governor's executive order is
standardized incident management, requiring every first
responder to operate under a standard system, the National
Interagency Incident Management System, so that you have common
terminology, unified commands so that everybody plays a part in
the decisionmaking and then you have one incident--.
Mr. Shays. That speaks to uniformity. But let me ask you
this. Don't you believe that some communities in Mississippi
are more likely to have to face a threat than others? Some may
have a chemical plant near, some may be on a throughway, some
may just be totally out of the way. Are you treating them all
the same? Are you doing it on a per capita basis?
Mr. Latham. What we are doing is training everybody to the
same standard. And I don't believe that the standards should
vary, regardless of the level, because--I mean, you don't
really know where the next incident will be, and we have to
train everybody to the same standards. As far as equipment
standards, I agree, that is a little bit more difficult. But
there needs to be a standard in that equipment, and I think it
should be in the Department of Homeland Security and the
science and technology department. Whether they have the
capacity to do that or not, I am not sure.
Colonel Larsen. Maybe your initial standard would be that
you need to get the capability there within X number of hours.
And over time we can move that from 10 to 5 to 4, but--and we
just can't have it in every community; but if the key was we
can get the class A suit to a site within 5 hours. And so if we
had that as a standard, then we could work toward that goal.
Mr. Shays. That helps me to discuss one part of the
standard. What I am trying to wrestle with is how do we as a
government decide who in Mississippi gets it and who doesn't.
And that seems, to me, you set certain standards. You say there
is a certain threat level here, we need certain capacity. I
mean, for instance, the fire department in the community could
tell us that they can put out three fires at one time, but the
standard may say you don't need to. Or you need to be able to
put four fires out. That is the standard. Then if their
capacity doesn't match the standard, we know it is out of sync.
Or it could be the reverse. They could be able to put out three
fires, and we say you only need to put out two. That is kind of
what I am wondering about.
Colonel Larsen. EPA says there is 123 chemical storage
facilities that if attacked with truck bombs could threaten the
lives of a million people. I think those 123 sites are clearly
defined threats that should have the best response capability,
if you want a specific example. But you can't protect every
railcar, but there are some big threat areas.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Latham. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment, too,
because there are a lot of standards out there, not the least
of which are some that have been developed jointly between NEMA
and FEMA and the EMAP program, which is an accreditation
program that takes assessments and capabilities with State and
local governments of what is already in place, that we need to
incorporate those in these standards to make sure that we are
not duplicating something that is actually already there.
Mr. Cox. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
from New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There seems to be confusion on the local level about
applying for these funds in the first place. And what I would
suggest, Mr. Chairman, when we finally put together our final
bill, that we do what FEMA does in terms of the Fire Act. They
have gone all over the country and in certain regions and
educated firefighters on how to apply. Of course, there is
something to grant application, obviously. And this is so
important, and I know firefighters tell me all the time, thank
you for doing this and, you know, we have cleaned up our act on
our application. We know primarily now why we didn't get a
positive response. Do you think that--if that is the case, do
you think, very quickly, these two bills improve or could
improve or would improve upon that situation?
Mr. Latham. Let me address your first comment because we
did that in Mississippi. We had town meetings, we had regional
meetings. We had every town, village, city, and county
represented. We took the majority of the paperwork burden away
from them, and their application is only one or two pages. That
includes an equipment list. We are holding them to what the
priorities are; that is, having a personal protective equipment
for their first responders, having a detection equipment where
it is needed and having some decontamination. After that, you
know, then it becomes a little bit more complex. We go to the
regions and develop a much higher level of capability.
But we did that, and actually I have not had any calls from
any mayor, any supervisor, and I am not sure that the
Congressman has, because if he had, I would have heard about
it. But no complaints about the process. It is a little
burdensome once we get into the actual award because of the
paperwork that has to go up to ODP and back down. ODP should
not have to approve every city, town, village's equipment list.
Mr. Pascrell. What about point B? Do you think these two
bills address any confusion that might exist? Because somehow
the money is not getting through to many of these communities.
You listen to the mayors.
Mr. Latham. And I can't address--I can tell you in
Mississippi it is. And maybe the process is broken somewhere
else, but it is working in Mississippi.
Mr. Pascrell. The Homeland Security money we are talking
about?
Mr. Latham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. Okay.
Mr. Latham. And we obligated the money on both the 2003 and
2003 supplement within the 45 days, actually, within 30 days.
Mr. Pascrell. Was part of that money overtime, for
instance?
Mr. Latham. Just equipment money.
Mr. Pascrell. Well.
Mr. Latham. And we didn't--.
Mr. Pascrell. Well, it is a very different situation
depending upon the region.
Mr. Latham. Well, now when we had Operation Liberty Shield
and then provided some of that infrastructure protection,
overtime and stuff, when the applications came in we processed
them and moved them on up to ODP. So we haven't had any
complaints on any of the process.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you. The second point is a point that
Curt Weldon made, Mr. Chairman, before when you stepped down
for a moment. Technology transfer. We just had a very, very
well attended meeting yesterday afternoon on helping--with the
military particularly--the Mayo Clinic on brain injury
research. A million Americans are affected every year, and
there is a lot of our soldiers have been affected, obviously,
unfortunately, and wounded in Iraq. The research that is being
done by the military is being carried over into the civilian,
and it really is working. It would seem to me--I don't know how
we would do it, but we need some agency--well, we already have
agencies. We have enough agencies. Somebody has to have the
responsibility of coordinating this technology transfer down to
the civilian, and particularly, particularly in Homeland
Security. I think we are missing out, the military. We invest a
tremendous amount of money in that budget. And you can't tell
me that that would not be helping us in many ways, and I think
we need to explore those ways. And I think that is what Curt
was talking about. And I would recommend it, I really would. I
think it is important that we utilize it so that the ripple
effect is felt far beyond the military as we have done in
medicine.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cox. I want to thank all of our members and especially
our panel of witnesses, including Mayor Garner, who has left
already to catch his flight. You have done a splendid job of
educating us today. We appreciate it, we look forward to
continuing to work with you. You are now excused, and this
hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 6:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
------------
Material Submitted for the Record
Questions for the Honorable James A. Garner from the Honorable Bennie
G. Thompson
Question: 1. A Council on Foreign Relations Task Force found recently
that there are no agreed upon standards for emergency preparedness and
no way to measure how prepared a locality is or should be. Do you feel
that it is important that there be some way to measure preparedness
levels and preparedness needs? Do you feel that it is important for us
to set a comprehensive goal for ourselves, by which we can measure
progress? No Response has been recieved.
Question: 2. When states and regions assess their emergency response
needs, are they normally based on threats (that is, what terrorists
want to do to me), vulnerabilities (that is, what targets are in the
vicinity and how secure are they), or a combination of the two?
Shouldn't a Federal grant program take into account the total risk,
both threat and vulnerability? No Response has been recieved.
Question: 3. Legislation introduced by Chairman Cox proposes to have
grants reviewed by the Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection Directorate of the Department. However, past testimony
before the Select Committee has raised doubts about the ability of this
Directorate to develop comprehensive threat assessments and otherwise
carry out its mission. I am aware of no capability that it has to
review grant applications. Do you believe that the Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection Directorate should be put in charge of
determining the distribution of grants to our nation's first
responders? No Response has been recieved.
Question: 4. H.R. 3266 would formalize a structure for allocating
grants according to the assessed threat of terrorist attack. A program
like this is already in place, namely the High Threat Urban Area grant
program. There have been two rounds of funding through the High Threat
Urban Area grants. The first round distributed grant funds to seven
urban areas; the second round sent grant funds to 30 areas in 19 states
and the Capitol region, including additional funds to the first seven.
Do you anticipate that H.R. 3266 would similarly send the totality of
first responder grant funding to only a few parts of the country? No
Response has been recieved.
Question: 5. Would it be useful for first responder agencies to know
how much funding is needed to help prepare for terrorist attack over
the next five years, as provided in the PREPARE Act? Do we need a
national goal to work towards? No Response has been recieved.
Question: 6. Who should determine the needs of our first responders--
analysts in the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
Directorate of the Department, or the First Responders themselves? No
Response has been recieved.
Questions for Colonel Randy Larsen from the Honorable Jim Turner
1. A Council on Foreign Relations Task Force found recently that there
are no agreed upon standards for emergency preparedness and no way to
measure how prepared a locality is or should be. Do you feel that it is
important that there be some way to measure preparedness levels and
preparedness needs? Do you feel that it is important for us to set a
comprehensive goal for ourselves, by which we can measure progress? No
Response has been recieved.
2. To your knowledge, did anyone foresee that the Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City would be the target of a devastating 1995
terrorist attack? Do you believe that Oklahoma City, today, would rank
very high on a list of likely terrorist targets? Given that it is very
difficult to predict where terrorists will strike next with any level
of specificity, would you agree that it is better to increase our level
of preparedness against terrorist attacks across the board? No Response
has been recieved.
3. Legislation introduced by Chairman Cox proposes to have grants
reviewed by the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
Directorate of the Department. However, past testimony before the
Select Committee has raised doubts about the ability of this
Directorate to develop comprehensive threat assessments and otherwise
carry out its mission. I am aware of no capability that it has to
review grant applications. Do you believe that the Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection Directorate should be put in charge of
determining the distribution of grants to our nation's first
responders? No Response has been recieved.
4. Would it be useful for first responder agencies to know how much
funding is needed to help prepare for terrorist attack over the next
five years, as provided in the PREPARE Act? Do we need a national goal
to work towards? No Response has been recieved.
5. Who should determine the needs of our first responders--analysts in
the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate of
the Department, or the First Responders themselves? No Response has
been recieved.
Questions and Responses for Mr. Robert Latham from the Honorable Bennie
Thompson
Question: 1. In your testimony, you requested that the States be
provided flexibility within DHS guidelines to utilize terrorism
preparedness funds, including increased authority for the States to
approve changes to local equipment requests. The PREP ARE Act (H.R
3158) would require States to develop a five year plan to meet their
needs for essential terrorism preparedness capabilities, and to
implement that plan based on the priorities of the State and local
governments. Would such a system meet your requirements for
flexibility, and what other measures would you suggest to ensure that
States and localities have the flexibility to meet their preparedness
needs? .
Answer: I would urge Congress not to impose additional requirements
such as a 5-year plan upon the States. Currently each state is
completing their Strategic Plan that wi11 guide priorities for the next
3 years. If Congress desires a more long-range plan then expand the
current requirement for a strategic plan from 3 years to 5 years. In
either case I agree that long-range plans are critical to keep us
focused. However, each and every year our priorities change based on
the threat environment and our capabilities improve. The flexibility I
referred to was based on this fact. A three or five year plan can
provide a road map but flexibility must be allowed for states to make
adjustments in that period of time.
Question: 2. In response to questions from the Subcommittee, you
described in detail the planning process that the State of Mississippi
utilized to quantifY and prioritize homeland security needs throughout
the State. In your experience, has this been an effective process to
ensure that preparedness needs are met throughout the State, and are
you aware of any other States who have adopted your coordination model.
In addition, how long did this coordination process take, and would you
recommend that such a process be required for any State requesting
homeland security funds from the Federal government?
Answer: For our State, I believed that without local buy-in the whole .
initiative was doomed to failure. I can say that this process worked
for our State. Whether or not it will work for other states I can't
say. As I stated during my testimony, ``one size does not fit all''.
Every community and every state is different. As far as the length of
time the process took, we began meeting with the various parties long
before we received any funding to get everyone focused on the strategy.
This gave us a head start. Once funding was received I met with the
parties again to discuss the formula we would use for distribution of
funds and the application process. After that the only challenges were
keeping the applicants focused on the state strategy and priorities and
the administrative burden placed on the state to manage such a large
number of sub-grants.
Question: 3. H.R. 3266 allows first responder grant funds to be spent
on the purchase or upgrading of equipment; exercises to strengthen
emergency response; training in the use of equipment; and training to
prevent terrorist attack Conversely, the PREP ARE Act allows first
responders to spend grant funds as necessary to provide the essential
capabilities their jurisdiction needs. Isn't it possible that H.R. 3266
would allow first responders to use funds year after year without
meeting an of their preparedness needs?
Answer: It is certainly possible that H.R. 3266, even with its broad
intent, might not meet all of the preparedness needs.' That is why I
firmly believe that FLEXIBILITY is the key to meeting the initial and
subsequent needs of our first ' responders. This is a fluid environment
with a changing threat. If states and local jurisdictions are not
allowed the flexibility to meet the changing threat, it's quite
possible that our capabilities will not increase at the same rate that
the risks and vulnerabilities increase.
Question: 4. In addition to providing first responder grant funds,
should the Department of Homeland Security be giving states and local
communities guidance in what equipment and training to buy? Isn't this
guidance and planning necessary for equipment interoperability?
Answer: I believe that through the authorized equipment list provided
with the ODP Grant package that we have the guidance we need. The
equipment lists are and should be generic because our first responders
use different types of self-contained ' breathing apparatuses as well
as other types of equipment. Specifying certain types of equipment
would limit accessibility, drive the price up, and require departments
to buy equipment they are not necessarily familiar with or care for.
Interoperability is certainly an issue but I think it really only
applies to communications. In this case many of the problems are not
equipment interoperability but personnel interoperability--turf wars.
Technology is now available to fix the communications equipment
interoperability problem and we should focus on this as a fix and not
rebuild our communication system.
Question: 5. The grant process in H.R. 3266 is open to states,
interstate regions, and'intrastate regions. This would potentially
require the Under Secretary of Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection to sort through hundreds of applications on a regular basis,
making detailed threat comparisons for each. Does it make sense to
streamline the funding process to set a number of applicants, each of
which builds in regional planning to its own process?
Answer: I think the bigger issue here is making sure whatever process
is selected, that each state remains the primary point of contact and
coordinator. If the current role of the state is altered it will
undermine everything we have accomplished so far. In Mississippi we are
doing planning on a regional basis and our response is based on a
regional concept. If we look beyond our state borders, there should be
some agency, such as FEMA Regions, as the coordinator to assist with
multi-state planning.
Question: 6. There have been two rounds of funding through the High
Threat Urban Area grants. The first round distributed grant funds to
seven urban areas; the second round sent grant funds to 30 areas in 19
states and the Capitol region, including repeat funds to the first
seven. Do you anticipate that H.R. 3266 would similarly send the
totality of first responder grant funding to a few parts of the
country?
Answer: As I stated in my testimony, I believe that if we are to build
a comprehensive strategic plan to secure the homeland, it must involve
every Citizen, in every community, in every county, in every state.
Having said that, I also believe that there must be continued funding
of this initiative in every state, possibly at a reduced level. I also
believe, for obvious reasons that based on threat analysis and
vulnerability future funding must target the higher populated areas. I
am totally opposed to sending all first responder grant funds to a few
areas of the country.
Question: 7. Terrorist threat depends on what a terrorist intends to
attack. Terrorists intend to attack the United States where the
defenses and countermeasures are weakest. Terrorists will presumably
know what areas have been deemed worthy of receiving grant funds. So,
areas that DHS determines to be ``low threat'' will automatically
become higher threat. So doesn't it make sense to ensure that all
communities have some baseline level of preparedness?
Answer: I totally agree. My response to the previous question.
reinforces my opinion in this matter. As I stated during my testimony
``not every community needs a hazmat capability, but every community
needs a basic capability''. I also agree that if we focus on the
obvious high-threat targets we leave ourselves vulnerable in other
places making sma1Jer communities that are low-risk, very attractive to
our enemies.
Question: 8. Under H.R. 3266, grant applications would be rated
according to the threat faced by a specific grantee--a state, a group
of states, or as small an entity as a single city. Are the current
intelligence and our ability to assess the terrorist threat faced by a
specific city or county good enough to allow numerical comparisons
among different grant applicants?
Answer: Again I think we have to be very careful in the analysis of our
information. As good as our intelligence is, it is not perfect.
Numerical comparisons obviously unintentiona1Jy create targets of
opportunity for our enemies. This supports my theory behind building a
national capability in every community.
Question: 9. H.R. 3266 requires grant applicants to provide, as a part
of the application, a ``description of the source of the threat to
which the proposed grant relates, including the type of attack for
which the applicant is preparing for in seeking the grant funding.'' Do
states and regions typica1Jy have access to the intelligence necessary
to know the exact source of a terrorist threat that may affect them?
Aren't a Jot of first responder grants used to improve general
emergency readiness rather than to improve defenses against a specific
type attack?
Answer: The flow of intelligence information is getting better but it's
not perfect. The current challenge is the distribution of information
below state level. The intelligence information enables us to better
prepare, but as stated in an earlier response, flexibility in use of
funds would enable states to adjust our preparedness plans and
capability as intelligence information changes. Yes, most of the first
responder grants are used to improve genera] emergency readiness
because our first responders have been under funded for so long. We
have to develop and enhance our response capability first and then
focus on deterrence.
Question: 10. Since 9/11, the federal government has spent four to five
billion dollars each year on first responder grants. I am unaware of
any justification for why this is the right amount-certainly the amount
isn't based on an assessment of threat, of vulnerability, or of first
responder needs. Would you support legislation that tied the first
responder budget to some assessment of what is needed by the nation's
first responders?
Answer: I believe that the funding should be driven by some sort of
assessment of the capability based on the threat and risks. The
National Emergency Management Association's Emergency Management
Accreditation Program (EMAP) provides a very valuable tool to evaluate
each state's capability. Expansion of this program to the local level
using the NEMA Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR) . could
provide the yardstick needed to drive future funding. I also believe
that we must continue to build an ``all-hazards'' capability and resist
the temptation to focus solely on one risk.
Question: 11. Under H.R. 3266, there is no way for a region to know
whether it will be receiving first responder funds. How would first
responder agencies plan their equipment purchases, training, exercises,
and other components of emergency readiness without having a sense of
what funds would be coming?
Answer: As I have stated before, the fear at the state and local level
for our first responders is what is the ``Congressional will'' at it
relates to a long-term commitment to this initiative. We are currently
taking it a year at a time not knowing what funding will be available
in out-years. We enter each funding cycle as if it may be the last.
Accomplishing the goals outlined in our 3 or 5 year plan is totally
dependent upon funding.
Question: 12. States and loca] jurisdictions have prepared detailed
analyses and assessments to meet ODP requirements. Have these
assessments been valuable to local and state planning efforts, and if
so, shouldn't ODP be involved in grant funding based on those
assessments?
Answer: Yes, these assessments have been a valuable tool to our state,
regional, and local planning. ODP involvement would be beneficial as
long as another level of bureaucracy does not further delay the current
process.
Questions and Responses for Mr. Robert Latham from the Honorable Jim
Turner
Question: 1. A Council on Foreign Relations Task Force found recently
that there are no agreed upon standards for emergency preparedness and
no way to. measure how prepared a locality is or should be. Do you feel
that it is important that there be some way to measure preparedness
levels and preparedness needs? Do you feel that it is important for us
to set a Comprehensive goal for ourselves, by which we can measure
progress?
Answer: Yes I do feel that is important that there be some way to
measure preparedness levels and preparedness. As I stated in a previous
question the National Emergency Management Agency's (NEMA) Emergency
Management. Accreditation Program (EMAP) could be enhanced to provide
such a tool for measuring the preparedness 1evels and preparedness
needs. Use of a tool such as the NEMA Capability Assessment for
Readiness (CAR) as a requirement at the local level could provide
valuable information to determine a local and state's preparedness
level. Again we must focus on an ``all hazards'' plan.
Question: 2. When states and regions assess their emergency response
needs, are they normally based on threats (that is, what terrorists
want to do to me), vulnerabilities (that is, what targets are in the
vicinity and how secure are they), or a combination of the two?
Shouldn't a Federal grant program take into account the total risk, by
which we can measure progress?
Answer: Actually we use a combination of threat, vulnerability, and
capability to determine our needs. I'm not sure that I understand what
you mean by ``total risk'' but whatever we do should be based on an
assessment of the threat and vulnerabilities compared to a
jurisdiction's capability.
Question: 3. Legislation introduced by Chairman Cox proposes to have
grants reviewed by Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
Directorate of the Department. However, past testimony before the
Select Committee has raised doubts about the ability of this
Directorate to develop comprehensive threat assessments and otherwise
carry out its mission. I am aware of no capability that it has to
review grant applications. Do you believe that the Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection Directorate should be put in charge of
determining the distribution of grants to our nation's first
responders?
Answer: I do not believe I am in a position to determine what the
capability of the IA/IP Directorate may be. Even though I believe that
the IA/IP Directorate should have a role I do not believe they should
be put in charge of determining the distribution of grants to our first
responders.
Question: 4. H.R 3266 would formalize a structure for allocating grants
according to the assessed threat of terrorist attack. A program like
this is already in place, namely the High Threat Urban Area grant
program. There have been two rounds of funding through the High Threat
Urban Area grants. The first round distributed grant funds to seven
urban areas; the second round sent grant funds to 30 areas in 19 states
and the Capitol region, including additional funds to the first seven.
Do you anticipate that H.R. 3266 would similarly send the totality of
first responder grant funding to only a few parts of the country?
Answer: I would be opposed to any initiative that targets only certain
parts of the country. If we expect to build a comprehensive strategy to
secure the homeland, each and every community of the nation must be a
strategic part of this national effort.
Question: 5. H.R. 3266 places responsibility for grant management and
interaction with grantees under the Office of State and Local
Coordination. Are you concerned that we will lose the expertise built
over the past several years at the Office of Domestic Preparedness and
FEMA?
Answer: Because we have had so many natural disasters in Mississippi in
the last 4 years, I have been and continue to be concerned about the
future of FEMA and the capability we have built nationwide under their
leadership. I believe we have to be very cautious in our efforts not to
undermine the effectiveness of that Agency. As the consolidation of
grants continues to unfold; I would caution Congress not to eliminate
those programs that have been so effective such as the Emergency
Management Performance Grant (EMPG) managed by FEMA, upon every state
has built their emergency management capability.
Question: 6. Would it be useful for first responder agencies to know
how much funding is needed to help prepare for terrorist attack over
the next five years, as provided in the PREPARE Act? Do we need a
national goal to work towards?
Answer: Yes, states and local governments need to know what the future
holds if we are going to sustain the capability that has been build so
far.
Question: 7. Who should determine the needs of our first responders--
analysts in the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
Directorate of the Department, or the First Responders themselves?
Answer: I believe that first responders should decide what they need
based on what the IA/IP Directorate tells us the threat is.