diff --git "a/data/CHRG-108/CHRG-108hhrg21511.txt" "b/data/CHRG-108/CHRG-108hhrg21511.txt"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/data/CHRG-108/CHRG-108hhrg21511.txt"
@@ -0,0 +1,3496 @@
+
+ - H.R. 3266 FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS ACT OF 2003
+
+[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.
+
+
+
+