diff --git "a/data/CHRG-108/CHRG-108hhrg23389.txt" "b/data/CHRG-108/CHRG-108hhrg23389.txt"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/data/CHRG-108/CHRG-108hhrg23389.txt"
@@ -0,0 +1,4074 @@
+
+ - HEARING ON THE OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS FIRST RESPONDER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
+
+[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
+[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
+
+
+
+ THE OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS
+ FIRST RESPONDER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
+
+=======================================================================
+
+ HEARING
+
+ of the
+
+ SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
+
+ before the
+
+ SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
+ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
+
+ ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
+
+ SECOND SESSION
+
+ __________
+
+ APRIL 28, 2004
+
+ __________
+
+ Serial No. 108-46
+
+ __________
+
+ Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Homeland Security
+
+
+ Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
+ index.html
+
+
+ __________
+
+ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
+21-023 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
+David Dreier, California Barney Frank, Massachusetts
+Duncan Hunter, California Jane Harman, California
+Harold Rogers, Kentucky Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland
+Sherwood Boehlert, New York Louise McIntosh Slaughter, New
+Lamar S. Smith, Texas York
+Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
+Christopher Shays, Connecticut Nita M. Lowey, New York
+Porter J. Goss, Florida Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
+Dave Camp, Michigan Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
+Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Florida Columbia
+Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Zoe Lofgren, California
+Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Oklahoma Karen McCarthy, Missouri
+Peter T. King, New York Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
+John Linder, Georgia Bill Pascrell, Jr., North Carolina
+John B. Shadegg, Arizona Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
+Mark E. Souder, Indiana Islands
+Mac Thornberry, Texas Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
+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 Ben Chandler, Kentucky
+
+ John Gannon, Chief of Staff
+
+ Stephen DeVine, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
+
+ Thomas Dilenge, Chief Counsel and Policy Director
+
+ David H. Schanzer, Democrat Staff Director
+
+ Mark T. Magee, Democrat Deputy 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)
+
+
+ C O N T E N T S
+
+ ----------
+ Page
+
+ STATEMENTS
+
+The Honorable John Shadegg, a Representative in Congress From the
+ State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
+ Preparedness and Response...................................... 1
+The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
+ From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
+ on Emergency Preparedness and Response......................... 3
+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, Ranking Member, Select Committee on Homeland
+ Security....................................................... 6
+The Honorable Donna M. Christensen, a Delegate in Congress From
+ the U.S. Virgin Islands........................................ 30
+The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress From
+ the State of Oregon............................................ 24
+The Honorable Jennifer Dunn, a Representative in Congress From
+ the State Washington........................................... 31
+The Honorable Bob Etheridge, a Representative in Congress From
+ the State of North Carolina.................................... 34
+The Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress From
+ the State of New York.......................................... 28
+The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress
+ From the State of New Jersey................................... 38
+The Honorable Curt Weldon, a Representative in Congress From the
+ State of Pennsylvania.......................................... 36
+
+ WITNESSES
+
+The Honorable C. Suzanne Mencer, Director Preparednsess,
+ Department of Homeland Security
+ Oral Statement................................................. 8
+ Prepared Statement............................................. 11
+Mr. Dennis R. Schrader, Director, Governor's Office of Homeland
+ Scurity, State of Maryland
+ Oral Statement................................................. 17
+ Prepared Statement............................................. 19
+
+ APPENDIX
+ Questions for the Record
+
+The Honorable C. Suzanne Mencer Responses:
+ Questions From the Honorable Christopher Cox................... 50
+ Questions From the Honorable John Shadegg...................... 43
+ Questions From the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson................ 56
+ Questions From the Honorable Curt Weldon....................... 44
+
+
+ HEARING ON THE OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC
+ PREPAREDNESS FIRST RESPONDER
+ ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
+
+ ----------
+
+
+ Wednesday, April 28, 2004
+
+ House of Representatives,
+ Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness
+ and Response,
+ Select Committee on Homeland Security,
+ Washington, DC.
+ The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in
+Room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shadegg
+[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
+ Present: Representatives Shadegg, Weldon, Camp, Diaz-
+Balart, King, Dunn, Cox, Thompson, DeFazio, Norton, Pascrell,
+Christensen, Etheridge, Lucas, Turner, and Souder.
+ Mr. Shadegg. [Presiding.] Good morning. The committee will
+come to order. And I will begin by asking unanimous consent
+that the opening statements be limited to those of the chairman
+and ranking members of the subcommittee and of the full
+committee.
+ Without objection, so ordered.
+ Today's hearing continues our ongoing effort at first
+responder funding. That issue is extremely important to the
+American people.
+ And I would begin by noting that yesterday we released this
+report. And I want to begin by thanking my own personal staff,
+as well as the committee staff, for its thorough examination of
+this issue, which is of primary concern to the American people
+with regard to the work of the Department of Homeland Security
+and our efforts to support first homeland responders all over
+the country.
+ As a result of the tragic events of September 11, 2001,
+Congress responded by appropriating over $6 billion in funding
+for first responders through the State Homeland Security Grant
+Program and the Urban Areas Security Initiative. By comparison,
+the 2001 funding for these kinds of activities was roughly $121
+million.
+ That is the equivalent of moving from a drip out of a
+faucet to a blast from a fire hose. In spending terms, it is an
+increase of over 2,000 percent.
+ Right or wrong, this funding has become the most tangible
+measuring stick for Congress when discussing progress on
+homeland security. That being the case, we need to figure out
+how and where this money is being used and to make sure that it
+is indeed the appropriate evaluation of whether our homeland is
+secure because we may commit an additional $2.5 billion this
+year in this current budget cycle without knowing what the
+previous money has gotten us--in essence, to figure out where
+we have been, so that we know where to go.
+ Toward that end, the Select Committee staff, under the
+direction of Chairman Cox, and this subcommittee has examined
+where those funds have gone and produced the report that I just
+showed you. What we learned is that while much of the homeland
+security grant money and urban area grant money has been
+allocated--meaning that they have been directed to the
+counties, cities and towns--very little money has actually been
+drawn down or spent.
+ Let us take, for example, fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year
+2003, Congress had a regular and supplemental appropriation for
+homeland security totaling over $2.6 billion.
+ As of last week, only $246 million of that money had been
+spent or roughly 15 percent. That is a pretty amazing number.
+ To the extent, however, that cities are taking their time
+to figure out what to purchase and how to spend this money and
+to ensure that it enhances the protection of critical assets
+and the public at large, that is not a bad thing. It means they
+are doing their jobs thoughtfully and carefully.
+ And we have heard that that is one of the reasons for the
+delay in spending the money; that is, that is that they are
+going slowly at the actual spending level. But to the extent
+that this delay is because of bureaucracy within the city
+councils or county boards or at the state level or is a result
+of bureaucracy within the Department of Homeland Security, not
+only am I concerned, but we should all be concerned.
+ I also continue to be concerned about misappropriation of
+homeland security funding. Anecdotes from public officials in
+our report--again, the report I just showed you--like the one
+from the State of Washington noting that ``specialized
+equipment will go to waste, sitting on a shelf collecting dust,
+because we are not in a high-threat area,'' are very
+disturbing.
+ And they point out the important work of this subcommittee
+and the full committee in moving toward a risk-based allocation
+of funds. There is plenty of blame to go around. But I hope we
+are not in the blame business.
+ I hope we are in the business of looking forward to improve
+upon the system to better protect the people of America.
+Congress is responsible for coming up with a grant formula that
+does not take into account risk, nor does it provide guidance
+to the states as to what the appropriate level of preparedness
+is.
+ We are fixing that through the legislation we have passed
+through this subcommittee, the Faster and Smarter Funding for
+First Responders Act. In addition, ODP can do a better job.
+ It is new to the scene, in terms of being responsible for
+our nation's preparedness for terrorism. And one could argue
+that FEMA has vastly more experience in emergency management,
+which now seems to be devoted solely to natural disasters.
+ Nevertheless, decisonmaking can be improved. And
+communication and guidance can be more crisp.
+ I will not go into the computer glitches which we have
+experienced. But I believe that problem has been corrected.
+ States and counties all need to do a better job in terms of
+planning and coordinating and ensuring that these essential
+funds are spent appropriately and quickly to best enhance the
+security of our nation. I have been astounded by the confusion
+and misinformation as to how the homeland security grant
+process works and why the money has not been spent.
+ My hope is that, through our committee report and through
+the testimony we will receive today from our witnesses, we can
+clear the air and focus on the actual problems facing us as we
+go forward.
+ I appreciate the presence of our witnesses. And I would now
+like to call on the ranking member of the subcommittee, the
+gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson.
+ Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Mercer,
+welcome and thank you for appearing before the subcommittee
+today to provide details on your budget request for fiscal year
+2005.
+ As you are aware, the full Select Committee recently passed
+legislation that would significantly reform the Terrorism
+Preparedness Grant Program administered by your office. We
+passed this legislation because we believe that our current
+system for funding first responders does not work.
+ We spend an arbitrary amount of money each year. These
+funds are not distributed where they are needed the most. And
+they have no idea whether we are building an effective
+nationwide capability to respond to acts of terror.
+ And unfortunately, your budget proposal for 2005 simply
+continues the broken practices of the past. Once again, your
+budget is not based on any true assessment of the preparedness
+needs of our states, cities and rural communities.
+ Once again, your budget seeks to limit the use of fire
+grant funds to programs related to terrorism preparedness. And
+once again, you ignore the most critical need of our emergency
+management community by severely limiting the amount of
+emergency management performance grant funds that can be used
+for personnel.
+ Most disturbing, however, is the fact that your budget cuts
+first responder grant programs by almost $700 million. If DHS
+has no way of measuring the nation's progress toward closing
+the security gaps, either as a whole or by a state by state
+basis, then what is your basis for the proposed reduction?
+ We cannot fight and win the war on terrorism if our first
+responders lack the equipment, training and planning that they
+need to ensure the safety of their communities. Let me
+highlight some examples from the President's budget that
+demonstrate the misguided approach of this administration.
+ First, the budget reduces the Emergency Management
+Performance Grant Program by $10 million from the fiscal year
+2004 level. In addition, the administration proposes that only
+25 percent of these grant funds will be available to support
+state and local emergency management personnel salaries.
+ This program is the principal source of funding for state
+and local emergency management agencies, your partners in all
+hazardous preparedness. A March 2002 survey by the National
+Emergency Management Association found that an additional 5,212
+local emergency management positions are needed, with 3,960 of
+those positions being full-time directors needed to manage the
+program.
+ How do you propose to respond to and recover from major
+disasters or even conduct additional training and exercise when
+your budget will eliminate many of your state and local
+partners?
+ I have a number of other questions that I will go, but I
+want you to listen to a couple of the others I have for you.
+ How does the administration expect the fire community to
+prepare for and respond to terrorism when it is abundantly
+clear that many fire departments lack the training and
+equipment to respond to even the most basic emergency
+situation?
+ How does the administration expect our communities to
+prepare for and respond to acts of terrorism when they cannot
+even afford to pay for a full-time emergency manager?
+ And I want you to think about rural areas as you deal with
+the answers. Some of us represent significant rural areas. And
+there is a real concern being voiced by our constituents that
+they are being left out.
+ So I look forward to your testimony. Thank you.
+ Mr. Shadegg. Thank the gentleman.
+ The chair would now recognize the chairman of the full
+committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Cox, for an
+opening statement.
+ Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome our
+witnesses today and thank you very much for the hard work that
+you are doing on the important mission of preparing us for what
+might happen in our future that has already happened to us in
+our past.
+ I want to thank Chairman Shadegg and all the members of
+this subcommittee for the leadership that each of you has shown
+in helping this vital community of first responders build new
+capabilities.
+ Our objective, on behalf of the American people, is to
+bring about a fundamental change in the way that we allocate
+first responder monies to fight the war on terrorism. The
+commitment by President Bush and the
+ Congress to our first responders is unshakably strong and
+will remain so.
+ We have increased funding to assist first responder
+terrorism preparedness by an astounding 2,000 percent since
+2001. The federal government-wide commitment has totaled over
+$28 billion since 2001.
+ That includes the President's Fiscal Year 2005 budget. And
+the Department of Homeland Security and its predecessor
+agencies have committed almost $14.6 billion since 2001.
+ Our concerns--and I believe the department's as well--are
+that federal dollars appropriated by Congress and granted by
+DHS are nonetheless not reaching our local first responders
+quickly enough. In fact, of $6.3 billion granted since 2001,
+roughly $5.2 billion in DHS grant money remains in the
+administrative pipeline, waiting to be used by first
+responders.
+ A separate distinct problem is that federal dollars are not
+necessarily going to those first responders who need it the
+most and not nearly often enough are the allocations based upon
+risk. Over the past several months, as the chairman and ranking
+member have mentioned, committee staff obtained and examined
+grant allocation expenditure data from ODP and from all 50
+states for the largest ODP first responder terrorism grant
+programs in 2003.
+ State formula grants in 2003 were a little over $2 billion.
+The high-threat, urban area grants were $596 million.
+ What we found is that ODP has done a good job of obligating
+the grant funds quickly. In 2003, ODP announced awards to
+states within 15 days of enactment of its appropriations. And
+it sent out obligation letters within 3 months.
+ Our concerns at the federal level, therefore, are
+essentially the basis for allocating these monies; that the
+basis is not, with some exceptions, risk or need. Rather, these
+dollars are being allocated in accordance with a
+congressionally mandated, arbitrary political formula that,
+among other things, gave every political jurisdiction in
+America with two senators a minimum of $17.5 million in fiscal
+year 2003.
+ To your credit, you, Secretary Ridge and President Bush
+have requested this formula be changed. In both the fiscal year
+2005 budget request and through your testimony here today, you
+have asked that the secretary be provided increased
+flexibility. And it has been the Homeland Security Department's
+longstanding position that the Patriot Act formula, of which I
+have just complained, be changed.
+ H.R. 3266, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First
+Responders Act, which passed this committee unanimously last
+month, gives the secretary a clear mandate to prioritize risk
+in the grant distribution process and to make sure that there
+are clear and measurable federal preparedness goals.
+ It will ensure that we have minimum essential capabilities
+established to guide communities, as Mr. Thompson has
+explained, so that as we use our funds, we know what we are
+building. H.R. 3266 continues a theme that has been the focus
+of this committee since its inception: we must strengthen DHS'
+information analysis and risk assessment efforts. And we must
+use this information to allocate our resources more
+effectively.
+ We also must do a better job of sharing this threat and
+vulnerability information with state and local officials so
+that they too can do a better job in allocating these
+resources. Our staff analysis found that almost one-third of
+the states simply followed the flawed federal model when
+distributing fiscal year 2003 ODP grant funds to their
+localities, resulting in more than $600 million being
+distributed, regardless of risk or need, in that one year
+alone.
+ And most of the States that considered some elements of
+risk or need did not do so in any standard or significant way.
+By improving the flow of threat and risk-based information to
+our first responders, we will materially improve their ability
+to prevent, prepare for and respond to a terrorist attack.
+ By setting clear federal preparedness goals, we will begin
+to build measurable and sustainable capabilities. Our
+investment in the first responder community must be strategic.
+And our priorities must be guided by a comprehensive threat
+assessment.
+ The time is now to develop and implement a clear national
+strategy for homeland security that will allow us to stop
+wasteful and unfocused spending and to permit the measurement
+of progress toward concrete goals that truly make this country
+safer. H.R. 3266 will help get us there.
+ And I hope that this bill will be brought to the floor of
+the House for a vote soon. We expect that will be in either
+June or July because there are time-limited referrals to other
+committees that expire on June 7.
+ I also hope that, under Ms. Mencer's inspired leadership,
+ODP will not wait for such legislation, but will move to adopt
+administratively, to the fullest extent legally possible, the
+reforms that this committee has been calling for.
+ I look forward to hearing from our state partners and from
+the department on their ongoing efforts to effectively manage
+the grant funding process. The committee and the American
+people are grateful for the work that each of you does to
+support the men and women on the front lines of our war on
+terrorism.
+ I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman.
+ The chair would now recognize the ranking member of the
+full committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner, for an
+opening statement.
+ Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Director Mencer and Mr. Schrader, thank you for being here
+with us today. As you can tell, we have numerous concerns about
+the operation of the grant programs, and how they relate to our
+states and local governments.
+ As the chairman mentioned, we have legislation that we
+believe will improve that process. But frankly, we also believe
+that the department could do much on its own to move these
+suggestions forward.
+ We know our current system of funding first responders does
+not work. One reason that we describe in our legislation is
+that we do not have any determination as to what the essential
+capabilities for terrorism preparedness should be.
+ We have no basis for determining these capabilities because
+we do not have a clear national assessment of threat and
+vulnerability to know what level of preparedness, what kind of
+training, what kind of equipment should really be purchased.
+ So we are very concerned that we need to move forward much
+quicker than we have been in trying to build an effective
+nationwide capability. We have proposed, in our legislation,
+that these changes be made. And as I said, I think it is
+important for the department to heed those suggestions in
+advance of the passage of the bill.
+ It is frustrating to many of us to see that we are spending
+millions of dollars and yet we are not sure whether those
+dollars are being spent building the right capabilities and
+infrastructure. In testimony earlier this year, Secretary Ridge
+made a comment that the department was having difficulty moving
+funds through the pipeline, and that this fact justified
+cutting back on funding for our first responders.
+ And as Ranking Member Thompson suggested, that is a concern
+that many of us have, that you have cut back on the funding in
+the budget request that you have submitted. We do not believe
+it is justified.
+ We believe the needs out there are great. But we do believe
+that the money needs to be spent much more wisely and much
+smarter.
+ I would also like to express some concern in the
+President's budget request on some other issues. There is
+obviously a continuing problem out there in achieving
+communications interoperability.
+ The department's statement of requirements, which was
+announced Monday, is a critical first step. But clearly, it is
+only a beginning, and not the end of the process.
+ It comes 8 years after the final report of the Public
+Safety Wireless Advisory Committee and 2 years after the
+initiation of Project SAFECOM. I look forward to hearing how
+ODP is incorporating the guidance from Project SAFECOM into its
+grant programs, as well as receiving explanation as to why the
+administration has requested no funds for interoperability
+grants in fiscal year 2005, either within DHS or in any other
+federal agency.
+ Additionally, the administration's budget request is
+unclear on how other programs, some of which are new to ODP,
+will be administered. The budget includes $46 million for port
+security grants, which is about $500 million short of what the
+Coast Guard says they need for initial security improvements at
+our ports.
+ Our country's commercial transportation systems, such as
+commuter rail, clearly are vulnerable, which was underscored, I
+think, by the recent attack in Madrid. And despite those
+vulnerabilities, the department has provided only $115 million
+in grants from the Urban Area Security Initiative Program since
+September 11 to secure transit systems, the majority of which
+have gone to five metropolitan areas.
+ There is no specific funding in your budget this year to
+improve security for rail and other public transportation
+systems. That is somewhat surprising, in light of the fact that
+the American Public Transportation Association estimates that
+there are $6 billion in unmet security needs nationwide for
+public transportation.
+ So we are interested in hearing any details that you may
+have about your plans to improve the security of commercial
+transportation systems. And finally, as Ranking Member Thompson
+mentioned, there are cuts in funding for the fire grant program
+and the emergency management performance grants.
+ Both requests also contain language that would limit the
+ability of the states to use these funds to meet a full range
+of preparedness needs. In the case of the emergency management
+performance grant, the proposed budget would, by one estimate,
+lead to a 60 percent cut of state and local emergency
+personnel, exactly at a time when we are asking our state and
+local governments to take a more active role in emergency
+planning and response activities.
+ These are just a few of our concerns. We look forward to
+hearing comments from both of you about these issues and any
+others that you may choose to bring before us.
+ Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman. As members of the
+committee are aware, we are in essence a homeless committee. We
+have to borrow committee rooms.
+ We were just advised yesterday that the Armed Services
+Committee, whose room we are borrowing today, needs this room
+this afternoon. So we will be required to vacate no later than
+roughly 12:30 so that they can occupy it. So we will need to
+move crisply through our questioning.
+ With that, let me move forward to introduce our first
+witness, the Honorable Suzanne Mencer, the executive director
+of the newly formed Office of State and Local Government
+Coordination and Response. Ms. Mencer is formerly the executive
+director of public safety for the State of Colorado.
+ Amongst many of her qualifications, she is a member of the
+National Task Force on Interoperability and a member of the
+Society of Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of
+Investigation.
+ Ms. Mencer, please if you would, we have your full
+statement before us and it is in the record. We would
+appreciate it if you could summarize the salient points for the
+committee.
+
+STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE C. SUZANNE MENCER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE
+ FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
+
+ Ms. Mencer. Thank you very much, Chairman Shadegg,
+ Congressman Thompson.
+ Mr. Shadegg. You may want to pull that microphone a little
+bit closer.
+ Ms. Mencer. My name is Sue Mencer. And I serve as the
+director of the Department of Homeland Security's Office for
+Domestic Preparedness.
+ On behalf of Secretary Ridge, it is my pleasure to appear
+before you today to discuss the current status of the status of
+the Office for Domestic Preparedness and other issues of
+critical importance.
+ ODP is the federal government's principal agency
+responsible for preparing our nation against terrorism by
+assisting states, local jurisdictions, regional authorities and
+tribal governments in building their capacity to prepare for,
+prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. Since its creation,
+ODP has provided assistance to all 50 states, the District of
+Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S.
+territories.
+ ODP has trained 325,000 emergency responders from more than
+5,000 jurisdictions and conducted more than 300 exercises. By
+the end of fiscal year 2004, ODP will have provided more than
+$8.1 billion in assistance and support.
+ As of today, 46 of the 56 states and territories have
+received their fiscal year 2004 funding under the Homeland
+Security Grant Program. This includes funds to support
+statewide preparedness efforts under the State Homeland
+Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism
+Prevention Program and Citizen Corps. These awards represent
+over $1.9 billion in direct assistance. In total, $2.2 billion
+will be provided under these initiatives.
+ Further, of the 50 urban areas designated under the fiscal
+year 2004 Urban Areas Security Initiative--or UASI program--33
+urban areas have been funded so far. This represents $467
+million in support to high-density population centers with
+identifiable threats and critical infrastructure.
+ In total over $670 million will be provided to these areas.
+In addition, the department has identified 30 of the nation's
+most used urban transit systems and will provide $49 million to
+enhance the overall security of these systems. To date, 21 of
+these transit systems have received their fiscal year 2004
+funds.
+ Much of how the states and territories will distribute and
+utilize Homeland Security Grant Program funds will be
+influenced by the results of the state homeland security
+assessments and strategies. As you know, these strategies and
+assessments were submitted to ODP on January 31, 2004.
+ These assessments and strategies are important to both the
+states and to the federal government. They provide information
+regarding vulnerabilities, capabilities and future requirements
+and each state's preparedness goals and objectives.
+ They provide the states a road map to how current and
+future funding, exercise, training and other preparedness
+resources should be directed and targeted. And they provide the
+federal government with a better understanding of needs and
+capabilities.
+ All assessments and strategies have been received, have
+been reviewed or currently are under review by an intra-DHS
+review board. Fifty-one have been approved by the department.
+ Recently, the department's inspector general released a
+report titled ``An Audit of Distributing and Spending First
+Responder Grant Funds.'' That report examines how ODP processed
+and awarded first responder grant funds during fiscal years
+2002 and 2003.
+ It also examined how several of the states, once awards
+have been received, obligate and distribute those funds. We at
+ODP welcomed the inspector general's scrutiny and see this
+report as an opportunity to validate those things we are doing
+well and to identify and act upon those things we need to do
+better.
+ With permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a
+copy of the report for inclusion in the record.\1\
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ \1\ Visit the OIG web sit at www.dhs.gov., for copies of Department
+of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, ``An Audit of
+Distributing and Spending ``First Responder'' Grant Funds'' Office of
+Audits OIG-04-15 March 2004.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Mr. Shadegg. Without objection, so ordered.
+ Ms. Mencer. The inspector general concluded that ODP has
+been successful in the development and management of its grant
+programs and that ODP has assessed, processed and awarded its
+grants in a timely and effective manner. The inspector general
+also concluded that there are ways in which ODP and states and
+local jurisdictions could better distribute, dedicate, monitor
+and track homeland security funds.
+ Most important, inspector general concluded--and we at ODP
+agree--that it is more desirable for states to distribute funds
+wisely and prudently than to distribute funds in haste. The
+inspector general's report concluded that although ODP has been
+able to distribute funds to states in a timely manner, there
+were some impediments that slowed the distribution of funds
+from states to local jurisdiction.
+ These impediments did not exist in every state, nor in
+every jurisdiction. And, as the inspector general noted, some
+impediments are unavoidable, some can be corrected.
+ As the former director of public safety for Colorado and
+the homeland security adviser to Governor Owens, I can tell you
+without hesitation that the job of distributing these funds is
+a challenge and not without difficulties.
+ On March 15, 2004, Secretary Ridge announced the creation
+of the Homeland Security Funding Task Force. This task force is
+comprised of several governors, mayors, county executives and a
+representative of tribal governments and is examining DHS'
+funding process for state and local assistance to ensure that
+DHS funds to the nation's first responders move quickly and
+efficiently.
+ It will also identify best practices in an effort to offer
+solutions to both the department and state and local
+jurisdictions. The information provided by this task force will
+assist DHS and states and localities to do a better job. This
+task force, Mr. Chairman, will provide a report to the
+secretary by the end of June, which we will share with
+Congress.
+ ODP initiated many improvements prior to the release of the
+inspector general's report. For fiscal year 2004, ODP is
+implementing new reporting and monitoring guidelines. These new
+procedures will enable ODP to better track each state's
+progress in allocating funds and meeting the objectives
+outlined in their 2003 state strategies and assessments. For
+fiscal year 2005, ODP will establish a dedicated audit team in
+order to more closely audit grant expenditures and better
+ensure compliance with program requirements.
+ ODP has also greatly improved its communications with state
+and local officials to assist them to better understand
+requirements and better plan for the use and allocation of
+program funds.
+ We have made many efforts to improve and to better
+communicate with our states and our territories. These efforts
+are in addition to ODP's existing efforts to provide customer
+service, including an ODP help line and technical assistance
+and monitoring visits by ODP staff to state and local
+jurisdictions. We have, in this last year, made over 300 site
+visits to states and localities.
+ I am speeding this up for you.
+ Mr. Shadegg. Thank you.
+ Ms. Mencer. You are welcome. As you know, as Chairman Cox
+indicated earlier, the secretary has stated that he would like
+to see a change in the homeland security grant funding formula.
+It does not mean, however, that we are not recommending that
+these funds be eliminated, a baseline funding to all states.
+ Secretary Ridge has consistently stated that a minimum
+amount of funds must be provided to all states and territories.
+And for the nation to be secure, all states and territories
+must have the resources to address their particular and unique
+security needs. I would like to speak a little about the
+consolidation of ODP and state and local government. As you
+know, that was proposed. And we have the 60-day review period
+by Congress is over. So we are looking at doing that
+consolidation. And that should be announced by the secretary
+any day now. We believe that is the best and most efficient use
+and way for the federal government to address the needs of the
+states, by having a one-stop shop for the states to go to. And
+I can tell you, as a former homeland security director, that
+would be very helpful to have one place to go for grants
+concerning preparedness issues. This is also supported by the
+inspector general's report, which I mentioned earlier. As to
+the issue--and my last point--the issue of how to measure
+capabilities and performance and the states capabilities, HSPD-
+8, the Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8, is a
+preparedness decision directive. This is one we have been
+tasked at ODP for this implementation. And it will, with our
+state and local partners and our federal government partners as
+well, establish preparedness goals for the states so they can
+measure their capability to deal with all disasters concerning
+man-made incidents, terrorism disasters and also natural
+disasters as well. So we are in the process now of implementing
+that. We had our first steering committee meeting last week. So
+with that, I think in the interest of time and at your
+direction, I will conclude my statement and be happy to answer
+any questions you may have.
+ [The statement of Ms. Mencer follows:]
+
+ Prepared Statement of the Honorable C. Suzanne Mencer
+
+ Chairman Shadegg, Congressman Thompson, and Members of the
+subcommittee, my name is Sue Mencer, and I serve as Director of the
+Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office for Domestic
+Preparedness (ODP). On behalf of Secretary Ridge, it is my pleasure to
+appear before you today to discuss the current status of ODP and other
+issues of critical importance.
+ On behalf of all of us at DHS, I want to thank you Mr. Chairman,
+and all the members of the Committee, for your ongoing support for the
+Department and for ODP. You and your colleagues have entrusted us with
+a great responsibility, and we are meeting that responsibility with the
+utmost diligence.
+ As you are all aware, ODP is responsible for preparing our Nation
+against terrorism by assisting States, local jurisdictions, regional
+authorities, and tribal governments with building their capacity to
+prepare for, prevent, and respond to acts of terrorism. Through its
+programs and activities, ODP equips, trains, exercises, and supports
+State and local homeland security personnel--our nation's first
+responders--who may be called upon to prevent and respond to terrorist
+attacks.
+ Mr. Chairman, ODP has established an outstanding track record of
+capacity building at the State, local, territorial, and tribal levels,
+by combining subject matter expertise, grant-making know-how, and
+establishing strong and long-standing ties to the nation's public
+safety community. Since its creation in 1998, ODP has provided
+assistance to all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
+of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories. Through its programs and
+initiatives ODP has trained 325,000 emergency responders from more than
+5,000 jurisdictions and conducted more than 300 exercises. And, by the
+end of Fiscal Year 2004, ODP will have provided States and localities
+with more than $8.1 billion in assistance and direct support.
+ Throughout its history ODP has strived to improve how it serves its
+State and local constituents. For example, in Fiscal Year 2003,
+application materials for the Department's State Homeland Security
+Grant Program--under both the Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations
+Bill, and the Fiscal Year 2003 Supplemental Appropriations Bill--were
+made available to the States within two weeks of those bills becoming
+law. Further, over 90 percent of the grants made under that program
+were awarded within 14 days of ODP receiving the grant applications.
+ During Fiscal Year 2004, ODP's record of service to the nation's
+first responders continues. As of today, 46 of the 56 States and
+territories have received their Fiscal Year 2004 funding under the
+Homeland Security Grant Program. This includes funds to support State-
+wide preparedness efforts under the State Homeland Security Grant
+Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and the
+Citizen Corps Program. These awards represent over $1.9 Billion in
+direct assistance. In total, $2.2 Billion will be provided under this
+initiative.
+ Further, 33 of the 50 urban areas designated under the Fiscal Year
+2004 Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI program) have been awarded
+funding so far; the remaining are still under review. This represents
+$467 Million in support to high-density population centers with
+identifiable threats and critical infrastructure. In total over $670
+Million will be provided to these areas. In addition, the Department
+has identified 30 of the nation's most used urban transit systems and
+will provide $49 Million to enhance the overall security of these
+systems. To date, 21 of these transit systems have received their
+Fiscal Year 2004 funds.
+ Much of how the States and territories will distribute and utilize
+Homeland Security Grant Program funds will be influenced by the results
+of the State Homeland Security Assessments and Strategies. As you know,
+each State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
+and the territories were required to submit their assessments and
+strategies by January 31, 2004.
+ These assessments and strategies, Mr. Chairman, are critically
+important to both the States and the Federal Government. They provide a
+wealth of information regarding each State's vulnerabilities,
+capabilities, and future requirements, as well as each State's
+preparedness goals and objectives. They provide each State with a
+roadmap as to how current and future funding, exercise, training, and
+other preparedness resources should be directed and targeted, and they
+provide the Federal Government with a better understanding of needs and
+capabilities. I am happy to report that all assessments and strategies
+have been received and reviewed or currently are under review by an
+intra-DHS review board comprised of representatives from major
+Department components. Of those 56 strategies, 51 have been approved by
+the Department. The remaining five should be approved shortly.
+ During Fiscal Year 2005, ODP will continue to provide States and
+localities with the resources they require to ensure the safety of the
+American public. The funds requested by the President for Fiscal Year
+2005 will allow ODP to continue to provide the training, equipment,
+exercises, technical assistance, and other support necessary to better
+prepare our communities.
+ DHS's mission is critical, its responsibilities are great, and its
+programs and activities impact communities across the nation. We will
+strive to fulfill our mission and meet our responsibilities in an
+effective and efficient manner. And we will, to the best of our
+abilities, continue to identify where and how we can improve. Part of
+our responsibility, part of the Department's responsibility, Mr.
+Chairman, is the recognition that we can always improve what we do and
+how we do it. And we can never be too safe or too secure.
+ To that end, the Department's Inspector General recently released a
+report titled ``An Audit of Distributing and Spending `First Responder'
+Grant Funds.'' That report examined how ODP processed and awarded first
+responder grant funds during Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003. It also
+examined how several of the States, once awards have been received,
+obligate and distribute those funds. We at ODP welcomed the Inspector
+General's scrutiny, and now that the report is complete, we see this as
+an opportunity to validate those things we are doing well, and to
+identify and act upon those things we need to do better. With your
+permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a copy of the report
+for inclusion in the record.
+ Overall Mr. Chairman, the Inspector General concluded that ODP has
+been successful in the development and management of its grant
+programs, and that ODP has assessed, processed, and awarded its grants
+in a timely and effective manner. At the same time the Inspector
+General concluded that there are several ways in which ODP could better
+assist States and local communities in distributing and dedicating
+homeland security funds, as well as monitoring and tracking these funds
+once they have been awarded. The Inspector General concluded that
+various impediments to the timely distribution of funds at the State
+and local level should be addressed, and while some of these
+impediments may be unavoidable, others could be reduced. Most important
+the Inspector General concluded, and we at ODP agree, that it is more
+desirable for States to distribute funds wisely and prudently, than to
+distribute funds in haste.
+ Among the report's recommendations were:
+ For ODP to institute more meaningful reporting by the
+ States so that ODP can track progress more accurately, both in
+ their distribution of funds and in building their preparedness
+ capabilities, and to better assist States when necessary.
+ For ODP to improve its communications with State and
+ local jurisdictions in order to keep them better informed as to
+ program requirements and opportunities for assistance.
+ For ODP to accelerate the development of federal
+ guidelines for first responder preparedness, including
+ capability levels, equipment, training, and exercises, in order
+ to enhance the ability of States and local jurisdictions to
+ develop preparedness strategies and target resources.
+ For ODP to work with State and local jurisdictions to
+ better identify impediments at the State and local levels to
+ the timely distribution of funds, identify ``best practices,''
+ and make recommendations to overcome these impediments.
+ I am happy to report, Mr. Chairman, that ODP, in consultation with
+the Secretary and other Department components, is already addressing
+many of these recommendations. For instance, for Fiscal Year 2004, ODP
+is implementing new reporting and monitoring guidelines. These new
+procedures will enable ODP to better track each State's progress in
+allocating funds and meeting the objectives outlined in their 2003
+State Strategies and Assessments. Further, prior to the start of Fiscal
+Year 2005, ODP will establish a Dedicated Audit Team in order to more
+closely audit grant expenditures and better ensure compliance with
+program requirements.
+ Also during the past year, ODP has greatly improved its
+communications with State and local officials to assist them to better
+understand program requirements and better plan for the use and
+allocation of program funds. As an example, ODP, along with other
+Department components, participates in bi-weekly conference calls with
+the various State homeland security directors. These conference calls
+provide direct access among Federal and State representatives and
+facilitate the quick flow of information. Similarly, ODP, as part of
+its administration of the Fiscal Year 2003 UASI, instituted conference
+calls among ODP staff and mayors and other State and local officials
+representing the various urban areas comprising the UASI sites. Again
+the use of conference calls expedited and facilitated the exchange of
+information and ideas among the parties.
+ Further Mr. Chairman, this past February, Secretary Ridge provided
+each State's governor with a report on homeland security funds awarded,
+obligated, and spent within the State. These reports are being updated
+on a regular basis. Keeping the governors informed in this manner has
+enhanced their ability to maintain oversight over these monies. These
+efforts are in addition to ODP's continuing efforts to provide customer
+service, including the ODP Helpline, and technical assistance and
+monitoring visits by ODP staff to State and local jurisdictions. Within
+the past six months, staff from ODP's State and Local Management
+Division, the ODP component responsible for the administration of the
+homeland security grant funds, have made 22 monitoring trips and, in
+the last 12 months, have made 300 technical assistance trips to State
+and local jurisdictions.
+ ODP is also continuing its efforts to develop preparedness
+standards and to establish clear methods for assessing State and local
+preparedness levels and progress. As you will recall Mr. Chairman, on
+December 17, 2003, the President issued ``Homeland Security
+Presidential Directive (HSPD)-8.'' Through HSPD-8, the President tasked
+Secretary Ridge, in coordination with other Federal departments and
+State and local jurisdictions, to develop national preparedness goals,
+improve delivery of federal preparedness assistance to State and local
+jurisdictions, and strengthen the preparedness capabilities of Federal,
+State, territorial, tribal, and local governments. HSPD-8 is consistent
+with the broader goals and objectives established in the President's
+National Strategy for Homeland Security issued in July, 2002, which
+discussed the creation of a fully-integrated national emergency
+response capability. Inherent to the successful implementation of HSPD-
+8 is the development of clear and measurable standards for State and
+local preparedness capabilities.
+ The standards that will result from HSPD-8 implementation build on
+an existing body of standards and guidelines developed by ODP and other
+Federal agencies to guide and inform State and local preparedness
+efforts. Since its inception ODP has worked with Federal agencies and
+State and local jurisdictions to develop and disseminate information to
+State and local agencies to assist them in making more informed
+preparedness decisions, including capability assessments, preparedness
+planning and strategies, and choices relating to training, equipment,
+and exercises. Again, with your permission Mr. Chairman, I would like
+to submit for inclusion in the record, a summary of standards and
+guidelines issued by ODP over the last several years.
+ Earlier this year, the Secretary delegated to ODP the
+responsibility for the implementation of HSPD-8. And ODP, together with
+Secretary Ridge, other Department components, Federal agencies, and
+State and local governments, firmly believe that the successful
+implementation of HSPD-8 is essential and critical to our Nation's
+ability to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism. In
+March, the Secretary approved these key items: first, a strategy for a
+better prepared America based on the requirements of HSPD-8; second, an
+integrated, intra- and inter- governmental structure to implement HSPD-
+8; and third, an aggressive timeline for achieving HSPD-8's goals and
+objectives. Implementation of HSPD-8 involves the participation of
+Federal, State, and local agencies, and, among other things, will
+result in the development and dissemination of clear, precise, and
+measurable preparedness standards and goals addressing State, local,
+and Federal prevention and response capabilities.
+ Further, I would like to reemphasize the importance of ODP's State
+Homeland Security Assessments and Strategies that were submitted to ODP
+by the States and territories this past January. And, it is important
+to note that this is not the first time States have been tasked with
+providing assessments. The information contained in these reports
+provides critical data describing State and local capabilities and
+requirements for use by both the States and the Federal Government,.
+This data provides a critical benchmark from which ODP can assess both
+past and future progress in their development of preparedness
+capabilities. The current assessments and strategies are being compared
+to the first group of assessments and strategies submitted in Fiscal
+Year 2001. Then, the current group of assessments and strategies will
+provide a mark from which ODP can compare future assessments and
+strategies. In addition, the current assessments and strategies will
+help guide ODP's decisions regarding State and local training,
+equipment, planning, and exercise requirements.
+ Also critical to the implementation of HSPD-8 is the improved
+delivery of homeland security assistance, including homeland security
+funding to State and local governments. This too was examined by the
+DHS Inspector General's report, which concluded that although ODP has
+been able to distribute funds to States in a timely manner, there were
+some impediments that slowed the further distribution of funds from
+States to local jurisdiction. These impediments did not exist in every
+State or in every jurisdiction, and, as the Inspector General noted,
+some impediments are unavoidable, and some can be corrected. For
+example, some delays in the distribution of homeland security funds can
+be linked to State and local procurement laws and requirements. Other
+delays resulted from the local planning process and the need to form
+consensus across multiple jurisdictions. Some delays were the result of
+deliberate decisions by State and local leaders who chose to spend more
+time planning rather than to spend funds quickly. Yet, despite these
+difficulties, ODP and the Department are committed to finding ways to
+further improve the distribution of homeland security funds.
+ To that end Mr. Chairman, on March 15, 2004, Secretary Ridge
+announced the creation of the Homeland Security Funding Task Force.
+This task force--chaired by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and co-
+chaired by Akron Mayor Donald Plusquellic, and comprised of several
+governors, mayors, county executives, and a representative of tribal
+governments--will examine DHS' funding process for State and local
+assistance to ensure that DHS funds to the Nation's first responders
+move quickly and efficiently. It will also identify ``best practices''
+in an effort to offer solutions to both the Department and State and
+local jurisdictions. By directly involving the States, territories,
+local communities, and tribal governments, this task force will provide
+an ongoing source of information to assist DHS and States and
+localities to do a better job. And, the formation of this task force
+underscores the Secretary's commitment to a partnership between the
+Federal Government and its State and local counterparts, and his
+approach to homeland security as ``One Mission, One Team.'' This task
+force, Mr. Chairman, will provide a report to the Secretary by mid-May,
+which we will share with the Congress.
+ An additional and important step toward improving how homeland
+security assistance is provided to States and local jurisdictions is
+contained in the President's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request. As part
+of the effort to improve the distribution of homeland security funds,
+the Administration has requested that the Secretary be provided
+increased flexibility under the distribution formula for ODP's Homeland
+Security Grant Program as contained in Section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT
+Act. This request is consistent with the Department's long-standing
+position that the PATRIOT Act formula be changed.
+ Our request to change the formula is designed to ensure that we can
+target Federal dollars in a manner consistent with protecting the
+nation in the most efficient and effective manner. It is designed to
+enable the Secretary to consider critical factors such as threats and
+vulnerabilities--factors this Committee has recognized as important.
+This Increased flexibility will allow the Secretary to move Federal
+resources to respond to changes in vulnerabilities and threats.
+ This more nuanced approach does not mean, however, that minimum or
+base funding levels for the States and territories will be eliminated.
+As you are aware, Secretary Ridge has consistently stated that a
+minimum amount of funds should be provided to all States and
+territories, and that for the nation to be secure, all States and
+territories must have the resources to address their particular and
+unique security needs.
+ Secretary Ridge is also taking steps to ensure that its staff and
+program offices can more efficiently support States and localities. On
+January 26, 2004, the Secretary informed the Congress of his intention
+to consolidate ODP with the Office of State and Local Government
+Coordination to form a new office--the Office for State and Local
+Government Coordination and Preparedness.
+ This consolidation is in direct response to requests from the
+nation's first responders to provide the emergency response community
+with a ``one-stop-shop'' that is a central focal point for grants,
+assistance, and other interactions with the Department. Further, this
+consolidation places 25 varied State and local assistance programs and
+initiatives within one office to ensure simplified and coordinated
+administration of these programs. Finally, this consolidation also will
+eliminate the duplication across program lines and heighten the
+complementary and synergistic aspects of these programs, and, by
+linking these programs to the State strategies and assessments,
+maximize their ultimate impact on States and localities.
+ At the same time, grouping these programs under one consolidated
+office ensures that the grants administration staffs and a limited
+number of program subject matter experts who guide these programs will
+work together, share their expertise, and achieve the Department's goal
+of a better prepared America. The consolidation will enable the
+Department to evaluate programs more accurately, exercise greater
+Federal oversight, and ensure the government-provided resources are
+dispersed quickly and used to maximum efficiency. This decision will
+benefit States and localities by providing them with a unified and
+coordinated means of assistance and support. It also provides a
+platform to ease coordination with other departments and agencies, as
+required in HSPD-8.
+ In closing Mr. Chairman, let me re-state Secretary Ridge's
+commitment to support the Nation's State and local emergency response
+community, and to ensure that America's first responders receive the
+resources and support they require to do their jobs. This concludes my
+statement. I am happy to respond to any questions that you and the
+members of the Committee may have. Thank you.
+
+ ODP
+
+ Office for Domestic Preparedness
+
+ ODP Training and Standards Materials
+
+ Prepared April 28, 2005
+
+ ODP Reference Materials On
+
+ Training, Equipment, Exercises & Program Guidance
+
+ 2003 Prevention & Deterrence Guidelines
+ Executive Summary, ODP Training Strategy
+ 2004 Standardized Equipment List
+ 2004 ODP Training Approval Process
+ Initial Strategy Implementation Plan (ISIP) Guidelines w/ CD
+ROM
+ ODP Training Catalog
+ ODP Emergency Responder Guidelines
+ State Handbook--ODP Strategy & Assessment Guide
+
+ 2003 Prevention & Deterrence Guidelines--A set of
+ general activities, objectives, and elements that organizations
+ as well as those in command positions within the organizations,
+ should consider in the development of prevention plans. The
+ Guidelines are divided into five (5) functional categories:
+ Collaboration, Information Sharing, Threat Recognition, Risk
+ Management, and Intervention
+ (Ties back to the National Strategy for Homeland Security and
+strategic objectives: ``Prevent terrorist attacks within the U.S.;
+Reduce America's Vulnerability to terrorism. and; Minimize the damage
+and recover from attacks that may occur, where prevention is comprised
+of . . .deter all potential terrorists from attacking America. . .,
+detect terrorists before they strike, . . .prevent them and their
+instruments of terror from entering our country, . . . take decisive
+action to eliminate the threat they pose.''
+ Executive Summary, ODP Training Strategy--Addresses key questions
+Who should be trained, What tasks should they be trained to perform,
+which training/instruction methods and training sites need to be paired
+with which tasks to maximize success in training, what methods are the
+most capable of evaluating competency and performance upon completion
+of training, what gaps need to be remedied in existing training? The
+training strategy provides a strategic approach to training and a
+national training architecture for development and delivery of ODP
+programs and services.
+ (The ODP training program develops and delivers specialized
+training to state and local jurisdictions to enhance their preparedness
+and capacity to respond to terrorist incidents involving chemical,
+biological, radiological, nuclear or explosive (CBRNE) materials, as
+well to identify emerging and unmet training requirements. The Training
+& Technical Assistance Division works closely with institutions of
+higher education and professional public safety organizations to
+establish a framework for distributive training efforts, as well as a
+Congressionally mandated distance learning program.)
+ 2004 Standardized Equipment List (SEL)--The list provides the
+foundation for the Authorized Equipment List (AEL) that we provide
+under our grants for state and local procurement. The SEL was developed
+by the Interagency Board (IAB) for Equipment Standardization and
+Interoperability. Officials from U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
+U.S. Department of Justice, the Public. Health Service, the U.S.
+Department of Energy, and state and local emergency response experts
+assisted in the development of the authorized equipment lists. The
+latest AEL comports with the SEL, but has additional categories and
+equipment. ODP does not define equipment standards, but rather assists
+with the implementation of accepted standards through the AEL. For
+instance, to realize improved interoperability of communications
+equipment, beginning with FY 2003 SHSGP Part II all radios purchased
+with ODP grant funds should be compliant with the FCC-approved APCO 25
+standard. In the category of personal protective equipment (PPE), all
+self-contained breathing apparatuses (SCBAs) purchased must meet the
+standards established by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
+and Health (NIOSH).
+ 2004 ODP Training Approval Process--Provides the states and locals
+procedures for requesting Non-ODP Awareness and Performance level
+courses through their State Administrative Agency (SAA), then through
+their ODP Preparedness Officer, who forwards the request to the ODP
+Training Division. Conditional approval will be given pending further
+review by DHS-ODP Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP). The requestor
+will then perform a comparison between the objectives of the course in
+question and the ODP Training Doctrine (ODP Training Strategy,
+Emergency Responder Guidelines, Prevention Guidelines), using a
+template along with course materials for CDP review. CDP has 45 days to
+conduct a review for Awareness level courses, and 90 days for
+performance level courses and provides a recommendation for approval or
+denial to ODP.
+ Initial Strategy Implementation Plan SIP Guidelines w/CD ROM--The
+ISIP is a new requirement under the FY2004 Homeland Security Grant
+Program (HSGP). The goal of the Initial Strategy Implementation Plan
+(ISIP) is to capture in one, standardized format the most current
+information available for planned projects, and estimates of the grant
+funding to be applied to these projects, for all FY 2004 HSGP and Urban
+Areas Security Initiative (UASI) Grant Program funding received. The
+ISIP will uniformly report exactly how the FY 2004 grant funding is
+being obligated through the retention of funds by the state, as well as
+through awards made to subgrantees to local units of government or
+other state entities. The projects to be funded must be linked back to
+the State's or Urban Area's strategic goals and objectives from the
+State or Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy.
+ ODP Training Catalog--A compendium of training that draws on a
+large number of resources to develop and deliver these training
+programs; includes the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium,
+active emergency responders, national associations, contract support
+and other agencies from the local, state and Federal levels. The
+catalog lists training courses by training level (awareness,
+performance, management & planning) for the emergency responder
+community, including fire, law enforcement, EMS, HAZMAT, public works,
+governmental administration, and emergency management. To ensure
+compliance with nationally accepted standards, these courses have been
+developed and reviewed in coordination with other Federal agencies,
+including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the
+Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
+the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Emergency Management
+Institute (EMI), as well as with professional organizations such as the
+International Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire
+Chiefs, and the National Sheriffs Association. Courses listed in the
+DHS Compendium of Federal Terrorism Training For State and Local
+Audiences may also be easily approved by ODP when applicable.
+ ODP Emergency Responder Guidelines--A tool for first responders
+seeking to improve their training and master their craft:, reflecting a
+step-by-step progression from Awareness through Performance to Planning
+and Management training level by discipline (i.e. fire, EMS, police,
+etc.). Moving from one step to the next requires more experience,
+specialized training, and depth of understanding. These Guidelines
+provide an integrated compilation of responder skills, knowledge, and
+capabilities.
+ (These are not official regulations, but informed advice of subject
+matter experts from both the private and public sectors, and have been
+developed in concert with existing codes and standards of agencies,
+such as National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA), and Federal
+regulatory agencies, such as Occupational Safety and Health Admin.
+(OSHA), but offered for considered by the response community)
+ State Handbook_ODP Strategy & Assessment Guide--This handbook was
+designed to be used by the State Administrative Agency point of contact
+for their state to update their State Homeland Security Strategy (SHSS)
+and allocate homeland security resources. It served as a guide for
+completing a risk, capabilities, and needs assessments for their state.
+Each step in the assessment and strategy development process is
+addressed in the Guide, along with detailed instructions for entering
+and submitting the required data using the ODP Online Data Collection
+Tool. This guide provided a standardized format for all states to
+complete their assessment and develop their strategies, which made it
+easier to analyze and formulate recommendations. There was also a
+Jurisdictional Handbook that provided specific procedures for local
+level completion of the assessment data.
+ (In an effort to be consistent with the National Strategy, ODP
+coordinated the revision, development, and implementation of the State
+Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy (SHSAS) Program with Federal
+agencies, state and local representatives. The coordination has ensured
+that the assessment and strategy process is aligned with and focuses on
+the six critical mission areas as defined in the National Strategy.)
+
+ Mr. Shadegg. Thank you very much.
+ I now welcome our second witness, Mr. Dennis Schrader,
+director of Maryland Homeland Security. Again, your full
+statement is in the record. I would appreciate it if you could
+summarize the salient points.
+
+STATEMENT OF DENNIS R. SCHRADER, DIRECTOR, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF
+ HOMELAND SECURITY, STATE OF MARYLAND
+
+ Mr. Schrader. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
+Thompson. It is a privilege to be here on behalf of Governor
+Ehrlich, your former colleague.
+ I also wanted to acknowledge that Congressman Cardin is a
+member from our state, is a member of this committee. And we
+have routine communications with the congressman.
+ I will summarize very quickly the major points in my
+testimony. Governor Ehrlich takes his responsibilities very
+seriously. And we are in an unprecedented mobilization of the
+states, sharing power with the federal government in the last
+36 months.
+ We have not fought a war on our soil since 1865. And
+therefore, the culture of the states is not organized around
+this kind of effort. And it is moving very quickly under the
+tutelage of the Department of Homeland Security.
+ It has been very clear over the last year that Secretary
+Ridge and his folks have had a clear sense of urgency and
+momentum and are working very diligently to keep us organized
+at the state level.
+ Just a few major observations I would like to make and then
+I will discuss it in questions further, three points that--I
+draw these from my conclusions--are: that the Department of
+Homeland Security and the Department of Justice we see are very
+important partners in the war on terror at home; that we have
+to tie these grants to risks that have threat-based
+requirements and are coordinated with ongoing intelligence in
+each state. I will talk about that in a minute.
+ We need to build program management accountability and
+execution into the process. States do not have the kinds of
+program management capability that the Department of Defense
+has had and has been developing since 1947.
+ And finally, we view the UASI program as an excellent tool
+for the states to organize regions and have the carrot and
+stick required to encourage local jurisdictions to work
+collaboratively under the states' leadership.
+ Let me just summarize again the first point. We have
+decided, as part of our state strategy, to align the federal
+strategy and the President's state template initiative as the
+framework for our strategy in the state.
+ And we have reached out to the Anti-Terrorism Advisory
+Committee, which has done a splendid job in helping us organize
+around intelligence. That is where we are looking to develop
+our threat analysis.
+ One resource that we need more than anything else are
+analysts. They are very hard to come by. And at the state
+level, being able to have analysts that can work with us to
+develop actionable plans are critical.
+ The other thing we have done with our resources, the
+governor has established the Maryland Coordination and Analysis
+Center, which is a collaborative partnership out of the Anti-
+Terrorism Advisory Council, working with the Maryland Joint
+Terrorism Task Force. And that effort is going very nicely.
+ We have also added the captain of our port so that our area
+maritime security program is embedded within the Anti-Terrorism
+Advisory Council. And therefore, we are driving towards
+developing a strategy.
+ One thought about vulnerability analysis is that we find
+that there is far too much focus and too many vulnerability
+analyses going on. And that is driving the perceived cost up
+and inflating it, rather than having it focused on threats
+embedded with the vulnerability analysis, as pointed out in the
+GAO Report 02-208T, which was an excellent report.
+ On the program management front, a couple of key points I
+wanted to make are that we really urge you not to reduce the
+money for the EMPG. Our local emergency directors are really
+the front lines of the folks.
+ And we need to be putting more money into them and
+developing them because they need to be developed. And their
+roles have expanded dramatically in the last 36 months.
+ They have to be knowledgeable in grants management, how to
+coordinate with law enforcement. It is a fairly significant
+task. We need to make sure that we continue to provide them the
+personnel resources they need.
+ Lastly, the reimbursement process, we need to change the
+language. The language implies that a Brinks truck shows up at
+the state's bank and cash is deposited.
+ That is not the way this process works. It is a
+reimbursement process. And the local jurisdictions are
+reimbursed. The states do not receive the money. We oversee the
+process.
+ We reimburse the local jurisdictions and then we are
+reimbursed by the federal government. There is a lot of
+misperception.
+ There are things that can be done to facilitate this
+process. But the local jurisdictions need training. And we are
+working with those local emergency directors to teach them how
+to work this process.
+ Lastly, the research, development test and evaluation, the
+one thing that the federal government provides which is
+absolutely critical, things like the U.S.-Visit Program, the
+Radiation Portal monitors that are being provided, the Homeland
+Security Information Network--on and on. These programs are
+invaluable.
+ The state and local governments do not have the kind of
+RDT&E resources to be able to develop that. So I will be glad
+to answer your questions.
+ Thank you, sir.
+ [The statement of Mr. Schrader follows:]
+
+ Prepared Statement of Dennis Schrader
+
+Introduction
+ Good morning Chairman Shadegg, Ranking Member Thompson and members
+of the Subcommittee. I want to thank you on behalf of Governor Bob
+Ehrlich (your former colleague in the House of Representatives) for
+allowing us the opportunity to share with you the State of Maryland's
+perspective and insights on first responder assistance programs and our
+overall approach to homeland security.
+ My name is Dennis Schrader and I am the Director of the Governor's
+Office of Homeland Security for the State of Maryland. My role is to
+direct and coordinate all aspects of Governor Ehrlich's Homeland
+Security program across the state of Maryland.
+ The attacks of September 11, 2001 have created the need to better
+prepare and equip our nation to conduct the Global War on Terror and
+better coordinate the functions and responsibilities of various
+departments and agencies across all levels of government--local, state,
+and federal and the private sector. The lessons learned from September
+11th propelled us to think, plan, and act in an integrated fashion to
+address common concerns, challenges, and mutually supportive
+capabilities. The states have a pivotal role in linking the Federal
+government efforts to our local communities throughout the nation.
+Governor Ehrlich acknowledges his role as a state partner on the home
+front of this war.
+ Let me start by saying that I have been very pleased by the
+extraordinary effort this past year by the newly formed Department of
+Homeland Security (DHS). It is evident that Secretary Ridge is building
+a culture of responsiveness. As I interact with the various agencies
+throughout DHS, there is a clear sense of urgency and momentum that is
+felt at the state level. I have a number of observations that I hope
+will be helpful in moving forward to another level of capability.
+
+Risk Based Funding & Management
+ The goal first and foremost is prevention. The key to prevention is
+intelligence.
+ The first priority of the first responder grant assistance programs
+should be to ensure that the funding is directed to where the
+intelligence and assessments indicate that it is most needed. The
+report by the GAO (GAO-02-208T) discusses a risk management approach to
+homeland security. In Maryland we want to pursue a threat-based
+resource allocation philosophy. Maryland has invested time, energy, and
+money by participating in and supporting the Anti-Terrorism Advisory
+Council (ATAC) led by our U.S. Attorney's office in Baltimore. Our most
+pressing need is for analysts who can provide timely, targeted, and
+actionable advice based on intelligence analysis. Our ATAC has
+established a Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center (MCAC). This
+Center is commanded by a local Police Capt and has resources from
+Federal, State, and local public safety and law enforcement standing
+watch and performing analysis. The ATAC and MCAC are coordinated with
+the Maryland JTTF that is led by the FBI.
+ Vulnerability Analysis--Vulnerability analysis is a critical tool,
+but must be coupled with threat analysis. Currently there are multiple
+levels of vulnerability analysis conducted by components of federal,
+state, and local governments. These ongoing efforts lack integration in
+both their conduct and in their recommendations, resulting in confusion
+of priorities, resource allocations, and gridlock in determining
+appropriate courses of action. In addition, if vulnerability
+assessments are used as the basis for resources without factoring in
+threat analysis, the cost of preparedness will be significantly
+inflated.
+
+Program Management Capabilities / Accountability--States and local
+government must rapidly develop program management capabilities as well
+as state and local points of accountability. Several agencies are now
+asked to program, plan, and execute efforts that are more complicated
+than they were prior to 9/11--yet we have not built-up the skills,
+knowledge, and experiences to do so. (DoD, PPBS Program Management and
+acquisition professional communities provide a high-end example--States
+and DHS are managing $8.0 Billion or more in programs, must follow
+suit).
+ Emergency Mgt & Public Safety Officials Roles & Grant Expertise--
+The key strategy for emergency management is an All Hazards approach to
+readiness. Local emergency managers and public safety officials are key
+partners in the success of DHS and State Homeland Security. They are
+responsible for plan coordination and development, approval, execution,
+and oversight. Efforts need to be made to provide substantive training
+and development of grants mgt; increase EM Mgt/Public Safety visibility
+with local government of their roles in the grants process; and
+increase and strengthen their participation in development and
+execution of state and federal HLS processes, policy, and strategies.
+Our major recommendation in this area is to maintain the current EMPG
+formula for state and local jurisdictions at 50% eligibility for
+personnel costs and consider increasing the focus of FEMA on the
+increasingly difficult job of the local emergency manager.
+ Reimbursement Process--The process is not understood and is not
+part of a clear communication strategy. ODP grants and UASI are
+reimbursable programs. The perception is that the states have been sent
+cash and are sitting on it. The reality is that the state has a
+fiduciary role to ensure that the grant allocations are supported by
+appropriate spending plans and that the reimbursement of state and
+local expenditures is backed up by receipts.
+ Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E)--The Federal
+government is in a unique position to provide RDT&E and acquisition
+support to the states that will attack major issues. Programs such as
+US--Visit, Radiation Portal monitors, and Homeland Security Information
+Network (HSIN) are key capabilities and tools that state and local
+governments could not do themselves. These are very important and
+timely investments. In addition, tools like Infrared (IF) Sensors and
+intelligent object recognition software for surveillance of Key
+infrastructures like rail and seaports could be important but hard
+programs to implement.
+ Sustainability--Homeland Security investments must be sustainable.
+Operational and maintenance costs and contracts must be considered;
+life cycle considerations have not been funded and are not reimbursable
+under the grants (limited service contracts/replacement parts at the
+time of the agreement. Much of these costs have not been considered or
+included in future resource planning.
+
+ Regional Capabilities--The UASI grants are pivotal in coordination
+and integration of government, academic, not-for-profit, and private
+sector capabilities. Through its multi-jurisdictional nature,
+structural requirements, and funding incentives UASI grants provide the
+forum and incentives for dialogue and coordination. Active state and
+local government commitment and participation is critical. Principle
+executives from each UASI region should sign a collective document
+appointing their direct representatives to Urban Area Work Group (UAWG)
+and acknowledging responsibility for directing UASI process. States
+must provide an active/empowered facilitator to each UAWG with both
+authority and ability to promote, communicate, and integrate across
+levels of governments and regions.
+
+Role of a Citizen Oversight Committees--Maryland has begun using its
+Citizen Emergency Advisory committee to review and critique goals,
+principles, strategies, management plans, and grant allocations to
+ensure local public scrutiny of Maryland's efforts.
+
+Conclusion/Recommendations:
+In conclusion, I recommend the following:
+ 1. DHS and DOJ are very important partners in the War on Terror
+ at home. Clearly tie grants to risks that have threat based
+ requirements and are coordinated with the ongoing intelligence
+ efforts in each state.
+ 2. Build program management accountability and execution into
+ the process.
+ 3. Continue to foster regional programs like UASI as a tool the
+ states can use for building regional networks of readiness.
+
+ Mr. Shadegg. Thank you very much for your statement.
+ Let me begin with the first set of questions. And I want to
+start with kind of a fundamental one.
+ The Morning Update which we receive has a headline at the
+bottom of the page which says, ``Eighty Percent of Homeland
+Security Funds Have Failed to Reach Local Agencies.''
+ As I indicated in my opening statement, our reports suggest
+that that headline is, in fact, misleading. Our report would
+suggest that it is true that only 15 percent of the money has
+been spent, but not that the money has not been received by the
+agencies; rather that the money has, to a larger degree, been
+received by the agencies and it simply has not been spent.
+ And in my opening statement, I made the point that there
+may be good reasons for that or bad reasons for that. I guess
+my first question is: do you both agree that this headline is
+in fact misleading and that the actual state of affairs is that
+monies are there; they are in the process of being spent, but
+have not been spent.
+ Ms. Mencer. Thank you. Yes, I think you are right.
+ That is misleading. I think there are a lot of reasons. And
+certainly, the funding task force is looking into these exact
+reasons.
+ I think what they have already discovered, in my attendance
+at some of their meetings, is that there is not a one-size-
+fits-all answer to this pipeline issue. And certainly, as many
+states as we have and territories, that is as many different
+configurations of how this process works with procurement
+issues and drawdown issues.
+ So they are looking at that. There are some fixes that are
+available to states that are having problems. And I am sure
+that their funding report will be able to address some of those
+best practices to share with states that need some additional
+help.
+ Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Schrader?
+ Mr. Schrader. Yeah, I would agree. Our money has been
+obligated 100 percent in fiscal year 2003. And we are just
+about to start the fiscal year 2004 obligation process. That
+clock started ticking in mid-March.
+ We have found that once the budget allocation is given to
+the local jurisdictions, they need time to figure out how they
+are going to spend it. they have to go through appropriations
+processes with their local councils. They have procurement
+regulations they have to deal with. And they are also building
+consensus.
+ I will give you an example. In Central Maryland, where we
+had the Urban Areas Security Initiative, they have formed an
+urban area work group. They have five projects they are working
+on.
+ They are talking about unprecedented projects that would
+not have been possible before this effort; for example, back-up
+911 centers, where one jurisdiction will back another one up
+and getting additional generation capacity. That process has
+taken several months for them to agree to that and also
+figuring out who is going to pay for it so that they can then
+apply for the reimbursement.
+ So I would agree that it is misleading. But it is an
+understandable process.
+ I know in the federal government, execution rates of money
+are a critical indicator of progress. And it is a good one.
+ But I think the front end process of program management
+needs to be dealt with in addition to that because otherwise it
+is misleading.
+ Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Schrader, from your explanation, it seems
+to me this is a new process and we are going through it for the
+first time. And I guess it would be your belief that now that
+we get the cycle going, we will be able to get these fund spent
+for the right assets on a more rapid basis in the future.
+ Is that essentially what you are saying?
+ Mr. Schrader. Exactly. And we are working very closely with
+our regions.
+ I will give you another example. Someone mentioned
+interoperability. In Western Maryland, we have very mountainous
+terrain. We have three jurisdictions who are working together.
+One jurisdiction has the opportunity to get 800 megahertz. The
+other jurisdiction cannot use 800 megahertz, or at least they
+do not believe they can, because it will cost a lot more money
+to put up the number of towers they need.
+ We are facilitating that process with Western Maryland. We
+are spending some of our grant money to do a statewide
+engineering analysis so we have a master plan to build a
+statewide backbone. And we are working with those local
+jurisdictions.
+ That kind of engineering and planning takes a lot of time.
+It would be very easy for them to just run out and buy another
+1,000 masks. That does not help with the real fundamental
+questions on the table.
+ Mr. Shadegg. I need to set a good example and not run over
+in my time. And I am getting short. Let me ask you each a
+question and ask you to respond fairly quickly.
+ Mr. Schrader, I would appreciate it if you would give us
+any suggestions you think we can do to remedy the problem,
+looking at it from a state perspective, at the DHS. And then
+Ms. Mencer, the opposite for you. And if you would keep your
+answers brief, I would appreciate it.
+ Mr. Schrader. Well, I will just take what I have right out
+of the report. I would really encourage DHS and DOJ to work
+collaboratively and make the anti-terrorism advisory councils
+work effectively.
+ I would focus on borrowing the best practices from DOD on
+program management because you are pushing a lot of money
+through a very small pipe and building the capacity of the
+state and local governments to be able to do program management
+to effectively execute these funds. And finally, RDT&E, I
+cannot emphasize how important that is.
+ Mr. Shadegg. Ms. Mencer?
+ Ms. Mencer. Yes, I would agree. And I am happy to report we
+are partnering with the DOJ on some of their best practices for
+grant management, as we have always done. We used to part of
+DOJ, so we are very familiar with that.
+ And they have been doing grants for a very long time too.
+So we are looking at better ways to partner with them and make
+sure that the states partner at their level too because the
+states have Department of Justice grants that they have always
+processed as well.
+ But it is the first time that we have seen this much money
+come this quickly, with the expectation that it be spent so
+rapidly. And that is a great burden on the states. And I
+commend all the state homeland security advisers and their
+administrative people that are dealing with this and then
+having to suffer the headlines in the paper that they are not
+spending fast enough.
+ It is a very difficult process.
+ Mr. Shadegg. Thank you.
+ The chair would now call on the ranking member for his
+questions.
+ Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Ms. Mencer, on two different occasions, the inspector
+general has indicated that DHS does not have the performance
+standards necessary to measure what they are doing with the
+states. Have we established those standards at this point?
+ Ms. Mencer. Sir, we have had standards for awhile, going
+aback to the first weapons of mass destruction grant in 2000
+and, prior to that, with the Nunn-Lugar grants that were done
+in 1997 and 1998.
+ Mr. Thompson. Let me be a little more specific for you. The
+inspector general said on December 31, 2003 that you do not
+have them. In April 2004, they followed up the report and said
+that what you have created does not fully address the federal
+funding for preparedness and response capabilities. Are you
+aware of that?
+ Ms. Mencer. Yes, sir.
+ Mr. Thompson. Okay.
+ Ms. Mencer. And if I may respond to that? You are
+absolutely correct.
+ There needs to be a better system for measuring
+preparedness, which is I think the kind of standards you are
+referring to. How do we measure if the state is able to a
+handle a nuclear attack or a chemical attack?
+ And that is indeed what HSPD-8 does direct us to do. And so
+we have begun to have a cooperative effort among all agencies--
+Department of Defense as well--to partner with us and to look,
+with states and locals too, to look at: how do we measure
+preparedness?
+ We have had standards in place in terms of equipment
+standards. And those have been in place for a long time and
+validated by agencies that look at equipment standards. So that
+has been there.
+ Preparedness measures are something that we are working on
+now to determine how prepared are we? And at what level do we
+need to be prepared?
+ Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
+ So you would say to the committee this morning that that is
+a work in progress, more or less?
+ Ms. Mencer. There are parts of it that are in a work in
+progress, yes. There are parts of it that states have been
+doing for quite awhile. And we also required that in our state
+strategies this year for 2004, saying that they had to have
+goals and objectives tied to their state strategy.
+ And now the funding requests, as they come in, they must
+link their request for their purchase to a goal and objective
+that they themselves had set for their state.
+ Mr. Thompson. Okay. Well then explain to me why we have a
+$697 million reduction in the amount of money requested to do
+just that.
+ Ms. Mencer. Well, you know, we would have to go
+specifically point by point through those reductions. But we
+believe that the 2005 budget meets the needs, as outlined in
+the budget, for our first responder community.
+ Actually the budget request of 2005 is over by a few
+million the request in 2004. So are very consistently asking
+for the resources necessary.
+ Mr. Thompson. But you are asking for less money.
+ Ms. Mencer. No, sir. We are actually asking for a few
+million more than we did for our 2004 budget.
+ Mr. DeFazio. They had a supplemental last year.
+ Mr. Thompson. Well, I do not want to get into semantics.
+ Mr. DeFazio. Well, that is what she is doing.
+ Mr. Thompson. Yeah, I mean, the original budget, not the
+supplemental.
+ Ms. Mencer. No, sir. The requested budget that we requested
+in 2004 is less than what we requested in 2005. We were funded
+at a higher level for 2004.
+ Mr. Thompson. Okay. Well, it is still semantics.
+ Thank you.
+ Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman.
+ The chair would now call on the chair of the full
+committee, Mr. Cox, for questions.
+ Mr. Cox. Thank you very much. I appreciate very much both
+of your testimonies. And I want to congratulate you on: first,
+of course, the things you are already doing so well; second, on
+helping us identify where the problems are--in your testimony,
+you both did that; and third, jumping on it right away.
+ Because some of this is a work in progress. And it will be
+for several years, if not decades. And I think we are all
+shirking our responsibility if we do not own up to that. I
+think in your testimony you have done a very good job of that.
+ And so I do not want to dwell on those things that would
+have been my questions had you not laid them out that way, such
+as the areas where the inspector general's report, which you
+included with your testimony, says we need to do better. You
+are working on that.
+ I am pleased to hear that we are all focused on these
+issues together and we are going to fix them. But I want to ask
+about something else that is part and parcel of this; and that
+is, the way that we allocate the money and the degree to which
+the department has discretion to allocate to the states and
+localities within the states based on risk.
+ DHS follows a formula set by Congress, as I mentioned, that
+I strongly disagree with--and so do you, I think--that
+guarantees every state a specific amount simply because it is a
+state. It has nothing to do with the nation's security or
+terrorism.
+ It is just a number. It is a completely arbitrary number.
+But that completely arbitrary number consumes almost 40 percent
+of the pot. And that leaves a little more than 60 percent
+thereafter.
+ Why, Ms. Mencer, did ODP choose to allocate that remaining
+60 percent entirely based on population? Doesn't that compound
+the problem of a formulaic allocation of the funds?
+ Ms. Mencer. I think what we attempted to do in the budget
+request is to balance both issues. By putting more money in the
+2005 request for Urban Areas Security Initiative, we have
+addressed the risk vulnerability, critical assets and high
+density population areas, which we believe are deserved of
+increased funding because of those things that they do have
+there, but at the same time, maintain a minimum amount of
+funding for each state.
+ Because I think what we saw in Oklahoma City and what we
+saw in the Midwest with the pipe bomber who went around and put
+pipe bombs in mailboxes, we never really quite know where the
+next attack will be. So I think this provides some measure of
+fiscal contribution to all the states, as well as the urban
+areas, which by necessity need the majority of the funding.
+ Mr. Cox. Well, I want to put the question again perhaps
+more directly. The state formula grants comprise a component
+that includes the state minimum and the entirety of the 60
+percent or so that remains after that was awarded by ODP based
+on population alone with no other consideration taken into
+account.
+ I want to know why that is not just as formulaic as the
+small state minimum and why we are not doing it on the basis of
+risk. And I need to understand whether you think that you
+cannot do it and you need legal help because it cannot be done
+administratively.
+ Ms. Mencer. Well, I think the budget allows the secretary
+the flexibility to put funds where he feels the needs are the
+greatest. And I hear your concerns. I think those are good
+ones.
+ I think certainly we need to take risk into consideration
+in a lot of things. I think there are some rural areas out
+there who would say that they are at risk as well because of
+their power plants.
+ Mr. Cox. Precisely. And that is why I find it inadequate to
+suggest that, in the other program, in the $596 million that
+represents high-threat urban area grants, that that is the
+entirety of our claim to be allocating monies on the basis of
+risk, as if there is a synonymous relationship between being
+urban and being at risk.
+ That is not necessarily the case at all. We have this whole
+IAIP directorate. We have TTIC. We have the FBI. We have the
+CIA. We have all these defense intelligence programs.
+ What is it all worth if in the end we allocate the monies
+on the basis of population and then we have a smaller pot and
+we give it to cities and we say that is the risk part. We might
+as well get rid of this multibillion investment in
+intelligence.
+ Ms. Mencer. As you know, we have increased--doubled--the
+amount going to the urban areas under risk and threat
+vulnerability assessments.
+ Mr. Cox. And that is part of my complaint because I do not
+think it is right to say that it is just a tautology, that
+urban and risk is the same thing. It just cannot be.
+ And I jump on this at the very point in your response where
+you were telling me a point I agree with, which is that rural
+areas face threats too. And areas with no population whatsoever
+might contain some of the nation's most vital infrastructure.
+ Certainly, agricultural areas need to keep track of the
+risk to the food supply and on and on--water and other
+resources. So it just cannot be that we should check the box
+that says ``urban'' and then say we have taken care of risk.
+ Neither should it be the case that all urban areas are the
+same. And the mere fact that there is a big city does not mean
+that that is precisely where we should be targeting our funds.
+We have to be a lot smarter, the way we do this.
+ So the question then dissolves into: do you believe you
+have sufficient administrative authority to do this right away?
+And are there plans to do so?
+ Ms. Mencer. I do believe that the secretary has that
+flexibility. And I know he has expressed an interest, as you
+had stated earlier, to look at this funding formula and to work
+with Congress in determining what that should be.
+ Mr. Shadegg. The time of the gentleman has expired.
+ The chair would now call upon the ranking member, Mr.
+Turner, for his questions.
+ Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that
+caught my attention in the statement that you submitted, Mr.
+Schrader, which I think is critical, is that is you have a
+comment on vulnerability analysis is a critical tool, but that
+must be coupled with threat analysis.
+ Mr. Schrader. Yes, sir.
+ Mr. Turner. And I am going to have a little different angle
+on it than you do because what you were asking for is greater
+assistance to carry out threat analysis. And it seems like what
+we lack here, in addition to the items that Chairman Cox was
+referencing, is that we have not yet decided who is supposed to
+carry out these analyses.
+ I mean, obviously, you have the perception that for
+Maryland, you are supposed to do it. And your request, in your
+statement here is that, you need the threat analysis capability
+to be able to wisely expend the funds that you receive.
+ And yet, we have another group here at the Department of
+Homeland Security, IAIP, that is supposed to carry out that
+task for the country. Somehow, we are going to have to come
+down to the point where we decide who is making these
+decisions.
+ Our legislation calls for the creation of essential
+capabilities for preparedness. And perhaps we can agree,
+through a process that we suggest in our bill, as to what the
+essentials are. But we have to be able to have some capability
+to make decisions for the country regarding threat.
+ I am not convinced that we are going down the right path
+having you in Maryland trying to decide how you are going to
+build the capability in Maryland to do your threat and
+vulnerability assessments, when we claim to have another group
+in Washington that is supposed to be doing the same thing.
+ So I think we may have a real need to sort those
+responsibilities out.
+ Mr. Schrader. May I clarify the question?
+ Mr. Turner. Yes.
+ Mr. Schrader. We may have a misunderstanding. What we are
+doing in Maryland is a partnership with the federal government.
+In fact, the folks that are actually doing the work are the FBI
+with the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
+ And in the information sharing process, we have developed a
+collaboration between federal, state and local law enforcement
+because the theory is that information sharing between the
+three levels of government will allow us to protect ourselves.
+And therefore, we have reached out. And Attorney General
+Ashcroft, in his wisdom, established these advisory councils
+after 9/11.
+ Our assistant U.S. attorney in Baltimore has done a
+marvelous job in pulling that together. But that is a
+collaborative effort with the federal government.
+ We do not intend to build our own capability. What we are
+doing is learning how to reach out to the federal government
+and work collaboratively with the federal resources.
+ Mr. Turner. I understand. I think that is wholly
+appropriate. But you point out another problem, and that is at
+the local level and the state level, you are working with the
+FBI to do these threat and vulnerability assessments.
+ We have a Department of Homeland Security that has that
+responsibility nationwide. So we are going down two separate
+paths, I guess, with two separate federal agencies.
+ Because I suppose the FBI has a longer tenure with working
+with local governments, they are down there working with them
+and these task forces and groups that are created to try to
+deal with this. And yet, we have given, through the Homeland
+Security Act, the responsibility to the Department of Homeland
+Security, the IAIP Directorate.
+ So we have some things that obviously need to be sorted
+out.
+ Another thing that I have noticed, Director Mencer, when I
+tried to get a hold of three of four copies of State plans. My
+impression when I was reviewing them is that they vary widely
+in terms of their quality.
+ For some of them, I think you could hire a graduate student
+at a good university and tell him or her that you need a State
+plan in the next 6 months, and you would probably get about
+what you get in some of these plans. I think there is a real
+need here--again--to try to sort out who is making the
+decisions.
+ You expect to get a state plan from State governments that
+contains a threat and vulnerability assessment. You are now
+requiring that they link what they want to receive in
+assistance to a goal they have, which presumably is based upon
+a threat analysis.
+ And yet, most of our states have very little capability to
+produce a real threat and vulnerability analysis. So I think
+the frustration that many of us are feeling is that we are
+spending millions of dollars in a very unfocused, misdirected
+way.
+ Nobody really has settled out as to who is in charge,
+whether it is the IAIP or whether it is the FBI and the local
+task forces at the state level. We have not made those
+decisions yet.
+ I think those of you who are closest to the issue should be
+able to see it even more clearly than we do, and should have
+some suggestions for us as to how we ought to sort that out and
+where those responsibilities should be placed. And I might ask
+Director Mencer to comment on that.
+ Ms. Mencer. Sure, I would be happy to.
+ We have allowed, in our allowable funds for the state's
+portion of the money going out, for administrative costs and to
+hire, if they need to, personnel to assemble plans and do
+whatever they need to do administratively in the state to
+manage that. In addition to that, we do have a validation
+project that is underway. We called in some states to look at a
+validation tool.
+ So they have the next six-month period to validate their
+strategies and to make whatever changes they need to perhaps
+enhance them and make them a better product. We have also
+worked very closely with our technical assistance folks in ODP
+to help the states shore up or increase or better the document
+that they produced in the process, but after the fact as well,
+during this validation period.
+ So we are making efforts to address your concerns. And I
+cannot speak for General Labutti obviously, for IAIP. But I can
+assure you that IAIP works very closely with the FBI at the
+national level, as well as at the state level with the joint
+terrorism task forces.
+ So it is working. There is a cooperative effort at the
+national level too, without going too far into IAIP because
+that is not my area.
+ Mr. Schrader. May I comment on that, sir? Because I think
+it is important, you have raised an important issue that I
+think, from the state's perspective, caught my attention.
+ The state and private sector in the states own these
+assets. So we do not perceive IAIP as telling us exactly what
+we ought to be doing. We see them as partners in facilitating
+our thinking and helping us.
+ We know--it is fairly self-evident--where the airport is
+and where the bridges are and where the tunnels are. And we are
+monitoring those things.
+ So we would be distressed if there was a federal initiative
+to come down and tell us how to do it.
+ Mr. Shadegg. The time of the gentleman has expired.
+ The chair would call upon the gentleman from New York, Mr.
+King, for questioning.
+ Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Director Mencer, I am still trying to work my way through
+the funding issue. And I have read the chairman's report and I
+was listening to his questions carefully this morning.
+ And I say this with a bit of bias, coming from New York.
+Last year, we did begin the terminology of the high-threat
+urban areas. And the focus of that, the purpose of that, was to
+get the money where it was needed most.
+ But I just question whether now that we have, I think, 30
+cities included in that, are we minimizing the impact, as the
+chairman said, by putting so many cities in? If you have 30
+cities that are high threats, how many of them really are?
+ Are we spreading it out too thin? And when I look at the
+numbers from the chairman's report, I see, other than New York,
+of the other 29 cities of those 30, they have only drawn down
+five percent of the monies available to them.
+ And I do not mean this in an argumentative way. But if they
+are at such high risk, why are they only drawing down five
+percent of the money?
+ I can understand other areas of the country who may not
+feel that direct risk, why they would be a little slower in
+coming up with plans. But if you have 29 cities only drawing
+down five percent--I understand New York City has drawn down
+almost everything that it could possibly be getting--isn't that
+an indication of where the real threats are?
+ And again, I am not trying to make just a case here for New
+York City. I am really making the case as to whether or not we
+are just focusing on urban areas or we are focusing on high
+population areas.
+ And you can have an area where there is no population that
+can be under tremendous threat. You can have other cities, such
+as New York, which are always going to be under the gun.
+ And I am just wondering: do you feel that you have the
+flexibility now, even before we pass our legislation, to
+address that? Because, you know, all of us are involved in
+politics. We all know what pork barrel legislation is about.
+ We can make a mistake on a highway bill and send the money
+to the wrong place or a public works bill and somehow it will
+work itself out over the course of time. If we keep sending
+homeland security money to the wrong places now, it could be
+life or death.
+ We really do not have that luxury of playing the pork
+barrel game or sending money just because more people happen to
+live there or they have two senators there.
+ So I guess I am, in a roundabout way, asking you: do you
+feel that we can come up with a more targeted way of getting
+the money to the areas that need it, whether or not they are
+urban, whether or not they have high population, and a greater
+way of determining who needs the money the most, who is under
+threat?
+ I know, like when it comes to the F-16s, we have a way of
+determining who is going to have F-16s flying over their area,
+as far as threats. Can we somehow incorporate the same logic
+into getting monies to the high-threat areas in the country?
+ And that is a roundabout way of asking a very convoluted
+question. So I will let you answer any way you wish.
+ [Laughter.]
+ Ms. Mencer. No. Without belaboring the point on the
+drawdown issue, which we have discussed before, there are a lot
+of reasons why the urban areas have not drawn down the funds
+that they have obligated already.
+ An obligation means that they have designated uses for this
+money. And because they have not drawn down yet, there is a lot
+of different reasons, some of which are equipment backlogs at
+the companies, because as you can imagine, these vendors that
+sell these products are overwhelmed with requests from the
+state for this equipment.
+ There are also procurement issues. There are legislative
+issues. Some states require that all federal grants go through
+their legislative bodies. Their funding streams require that.
+ So there are all kinds of issues. So I will not go any
+further with that. But that is an issue.
+ Mr. King. Can I just ask you on that, though? I can accept
+all that to an extent. But as proud as I am to be from New
+York, are we that much more advanced than the other 29 cities?
+ Ms. Mencer. Absolutely, sir.
+ [Laughter.]
+ Mr. King. Oh, okay.
+ Ms. Mencer. Was that the right answer?
+ Mr. King. Give her whatever she wants.
+ I mean, seriously the point I am making is I am just
+wondering if the whole thing could not be expedited more for
+the others.
+ Okay, I interrupted you.
+ Ms. Mencer. No, I think you are right. I think we do look,
+when we expanded the urban areas, we looked at not just high
+density population. But it was a very complicated matrix, which
+included the threat information from the FBI and the
+intelligence community.
+ So these other areas do have a risk associated with them,
+which is why they were included in the urban areas. So it is an
+all-inclusive process when we look at how to determine what is
+an urban area to be included in the grant process.
+ Mr. King. Okay. Thank you.
+ Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman for his questioning.
+ The chair would now call upon the gentlelady from the U.S.
+Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen, for her questioning.
+ Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome,
+Directors Mencer and Schrader.
+ Director Mencer, as I read your testimony, it seems as
+though I am seeing some of what we have been calling for
+through many of our hearings and what is included in H.R. 3266.
+Can I assume from that that the department supports our first
+responder bill?
+ Ms. Mencer. I think I had a meeting with Chairman Cox the
+other day. And we talked about many issues in the bill. And I
+think there are some very good initiatives in there.
+ And we are working closely with you all on that.
+ Mrs. Christensen. That is not a real endorsement of our
+bill. But we will keep working on it.
+ This question is to both of you. I think the reminder of
+the process that you gave, Director Schrader, that it is
+reimbursement, that the Brinks truck does not just stop and
+drop off the money, was helpful to have us really focus in on
+what may be happening with the money. And the money that is not
+being spent, where is the problem?
+ Because we hear from, as we have traveled around the
+country, that the first responder agencies have sometimes spent
+the money and they are not being reimbursed. Is that where the
+problem is, that the fire, police, all of the first responders
+see the need? They are attempting to address the needs of their
+community with regard to homeland security and the
+reimbursement is not coming?
+ And if that is the case, where is the problem? And what is
+being done to fix it? And that is a question for both of you.
+ Mr. Schrader. Let me just start by saying it is almost, you
+have to take it on a case-by-case basis. What I have found,
+going around our state, is I hear similar things. But the
+reality is that we have allocated those decisions to the local
+jurisdictions to make.
+ So for example, if a local jurisdiction decides they are
+going to focus their resources on a particular area, but a
+municipality in that jurisdiction is left out, then that
+municipality would say, ``We have not seen any of the money.''
+ Mrs. Christensen. How fast do you reimburse?
+ Mr. Schrader. We are in about a 60-day cycle.
+ Mrs. Christensen. And your cycle with the department?
+ Mr. Schrader. About the same. So once the invoice comes and
+we pay, it is a pretty rapid turnaround.
+ I think a lot of the issue is in the decision process and
+the local processes of appropriating. Like, for example, you
+have a local council. A lot of the local councils, if their
+emergency director comes and says, ``We have been allocated
+$100,000 worth of authority. We want to spend this money,''
+well, then they have to appropriate that through the local
+jurisdiction.
+ A lot of them will be concerned about how that money gets
+spent. For example, they do not want to add additional cost
+that cannot be sustained.
+ And so they are very careful about how that money is being
+spent. And then the procurement regulations, there is
+oftentimes an issue.
+ Mrs. Christensen. I am going to come back to that.
+ Mr. Schrader. Sure.
+ Mrs. Christensen. But where is the problem? Is it that80
+percent of the money is still unspent? Is that--?
+ Ms. Mencer. You know, I think it is less than that. But I
+think that is what the funding task force is looking at trying
+to resolve--not resolve so much as find out where these
+problems are and how to address them.
+ So they are looking, in this funding task force, not only
+at identifying where the problems are, but where are the best
+practices, so that we can share this information with other
+states. There are some states that have done a great job of
+kind of getting around some of these procurement issues and
+kind of even passing legislation within their state to
+facilitate this process.
+ And in some cases, that is what it might take, some
+legislative changes. Again, because we have never moved money
+this quickly, there are some procedures that are too slow to
+process.
+ Mrs. Christensen. I do have a lot more questions, but I see
+my time is almost up. Let me just ask about the Urban Areas
+Security Initiative. I assume that is based on assessment of
+unique vulnerabilities of urban, high-density areas.
+ Is that the case? Has that assessment been done? And has a
+similar assessment been done of rural areas and territories
+which have some unique vulnerabilities? And what can we look
+for, for initiatives for them?
+ Ms. Mencer. In the first part, yes, those things are all
+looked at. It is the matrix I described earlier, where there is
+input from the intelligence community as to threats and
+vulnerabilities, as well as high population, critical
+infrastructure. All those things are included.
+ And yes, we have been working with the territories as well.
+And certainly their strategies should have defined--and I am
+certain they did--particular risks, such as cruise ships and
+things of that nature, that you all deal with.
+ So we do look at that in the state strategies as well and
+make sure that their requests match what they have defined as
+their goals and objectives.
+ Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
+ Mr. Shadegg. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
+ The chair would recognize the gentlelady from Washington,
+the vice chair of the full committee, Ms. Dunn, for
+questioning.
+ Ms. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
+ I wanted to ask you, Ms. Mencer, if the administration
+supports allowing regions to apply for grants?
+ Ms. Mencer. I think certainly under the Urban Areas
+Security Initiative, we have allocated money to regions. I
+think in Chairman Cox's bill, he discusses--.
+ Ms. Dunn. That specifically.
+ Ms. Mencer. Yes. I think that is a very good idea of a way
+to combine resources. And I commend that initiative. I think as
+long as--and we discussed this the other day--the states
+maintain the primary responsibility for the application process
+and the disbursement of these funds, particularly so we can
+coordinate these requests with the state strategies so we do
+have a unified effort in the state and the state does not lose
+control--or sight really, not control--but the management
+oversight over how these funds are being spent, so we do not
+duplicate effort. We do not duplicate the funds going out.
+ Ms. Dunn. So that would be your caveat? As long as the
+state stays in control of the dollars, you support regional
+grants?
+ Ms. Mencer. Well, certainly for me it would seem logical,
+that that would be a good thing. I think anytime, particularly
+when you look at what a weapon of mass destruction is, by
+definition it overcomes the capability of any one community to
+deal with it.
+ So by necessity, I think all the states have gone to
+regional approaches within their state so that they can combine
+their resources at the state, local and federal level within
+the state to address an incident.
+ Ms. Dunn. And so how would it work with Mr. Schrader's
+request for more analysts? Are the states capable of handling
+this kind of thing right now? Or would you share in information
+provided by the Department of Homeland Security?
+ Or how would that work?
+ Mr. Schrader. Well, a lot of the threats are local. So for
+example, if you are in the State of Maryland, we know there is
+a couple of hundred key assets. We have our seaport and the
+airport. Working with the FBI, what we need are analysts that
+can work with the local information to say,``Here are the three
+things that we need to be focused on in the next 30 days. And
+here are the targets.''
+ So it is the targeting. So we are getting general threat
+information at the federal level. And of course, there is
+generalized information that is more specific information at
+the local JTTF.
+ But if we had more analysts working with us in these joint
+centers, we could do more targeting. And that would be helpful.
+ Ms. Dunn. In our legislation, we do away with the
+reimbursement policy, which in your report and in the report
+that we released yesterday, is a problem and results in the
+lack of spending that we have seen in our report. You mentioned
+that reimbursement policy.
+ In our legislation, we would require the priorities of the
+region in how they would spend the money and so forth. How is
+this reimbursement policy causing you trouble in getting
+dollars down to the local levels, down to, for example, the
+small community that does not have any money to spend in the
+first place and has to wait around and wonders if it is ever
+going to be reimbursed by the government?
+ How is that really working in a practical sense?
+ Mr. Schrader. Well, we could make it work if we had to, so
+I do not want to suggest that it is an impediment. But what it
+does do is it makes it more complex for the local jurisdictions
+in that they have to legislate the money. They have to put it
+upfront. And then they have to apply through the process to get
+the money.
+ I was in the Urban Area Work Group 3 weeks ago in
+Baltimore. And we were talking about their joint process to put
+a backup 911 center in.
+ Well, then the discussion came around to, ``Well, you know
+this is reimbursable.'' And the folks in the room said, ``Oh,
+yeah, that is right. We had not thought about that.''
+ So then we said, ``Well, which jurisdiction is going to put
+the money up first?'' So if we had the cash flow to be able to
+move on some of these initiatives, it would move faster. It
+would put a lot more responsibility on the state, which we
+would deal with.
+ I think the problem is that the reimbursement process is
+not well understood. We are beginning to understand it at the
+state level. And we are pushing that word out.
+ But down at the local level, grantsmanship is not something
+that they have a skill set in.
+ Ms. Dunn. That is true. Final question to Ms. Mencer: you
+said in your testimony to us that it would be much easier to do
+one-stop shopping. Can you explain how this would be easier?
+ How you would like to see that work? What needs to be done
+to make sure that it can work?
+ Ms. Mencer. Yes, ma'am. I think the states, for practical
+purposes, I think already believe that our Office of State and
+Local Coordination and ODP are one office because we are
+together all the time on the conference calls. So that part of
+the consolidation, I think, is very understandable to the
+states and accepted.
+ I think the part that is of interest to most people are
+moving some of these grants into ODP as well, as part of this
+consolidation effort. From a state homeland security director
+perspective--and I will defer to my deskmate here for any
+confirmation or not of that--I think it really helps to have
+one point to go to for all grants concerning preparedness.
+ We have been able in ODP to consolidate some of the grant
+applications in this process. We now have consolidated our
+state homeland security grant, the Citizen Corps grant and the
+law enforcement terrorism prevention grant into one
+application. So that is a big help to the states as they
+looking at putting the pencil to paper kind of application
+process.
+ But it is all computerized now. But you know, I think that
+has been a big help to the states. So that is what we mean by
+the one-stop shop, having one place for them to go for these
+grants.
+ Hopefully, it will be a good thing. And I will defer.
+ Mr. Schrader. Well, I think the more we can do that, the
+better. Actually, DHS sent us out, as part of their most recent
+initiative for program management, to give us their summary
+analysis of all the money they thought was out there.
+ Fortunately, when Governor Ehrlich appointed me back in
+August, I had started doing the same thing, because we get
+money from CDC, HRSA. We got money in 2002 from DOJ because
+that is where the money was previously.
+ FEMA puts money out for interoperability grants. So being
+able to consolidate and focus, I think in the long run will be
+a good thing.
+ Mr. Shadegg. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
+ The chair would now call upon the gentleman from North
+Carolina, Mr. Etheridge, for questioning.
+ Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for
+bouncing in and out, but I have another hearing going on at the
+very same time this morning.
+ Ms. Mencer, if I may for you, please? North Carolina is one
+of those states that has extensive experience, unfortunately,
+in floods and hurricanes and ice storms. And the list is long--
+tornadoes.
+ So we have had a lot of experience in it. And we sort of
+take an all-hazards approach to our preparedness.
+ And with the consolidation of most emergency response
+grants into the Office of Domestic Preparedness in the
+Department of Homeland Security has become one of the sole
+sources of federal preparedness funding for most states and for
+ours as well. The administration's budget reduces state
+flexibility. And restrictions are put on much of the funding.
+And it is targeted really toward terrorist activities.
+ If you are a local unit of government and have a flood or a
+tornado or a hurricane or whatever and you have lost
+everything, it does not make a difference who does it.
+ Whether it be intentional or by natural disaster, you have
+a disaster. And you have some of the same problems associated
+with it.
+ And I recognize that anti-terrorism must be the highest
+priority of the department. I do not think any of us disagree
+with that.
+ But is it the administration's intention that states and
+municipalities bear the entire cost of natural disaster
+planning, training and the response? And if not, how does ODP
+believe states should balance their responsibilities?
+ Ms. Mencer. Yes, sir. I think on a couple of points here
+you are correct. I think in a lot of cases, when it is not a
+tornado or a flood or a hurricane and you do not know the cause
+yet, then certainly the response is the same.
+ If there is an explosion and you do not know if it is a
+man-made explosion or a gas leak or something of that nature,
+so the response is the same. I think you are absolutely correct
+in stating as well that the number one priority of the nation
+right now is terrorism and to detect, deter and respond to a
+disaster such as that.
+ I think anything we do for terrorism helps with the natural
+responses as well. Because in most cases, communication is the
+key. And I think that the dollars that are being spent in
+terrorism preparedness and response capabilities will enhance
+natural disaster responses as well.
+ But indeed, the states do have to assume some financial
+responsibility for preparing themselves for the everyday
+occurrences that they have always done.
+ Mr. Etheridge. All right. That being given, under the
+current funding, the President's proposal will have significant
+impact, I think, on emergency preparedness on the state level
+because currently they can have pretty flexible dollars.
+ Under the current proposal, only 25 percent of the grant
+funds will be available at the state level to support state and
+local emergency management personnel salaries that are
+critical, having personnel on the ground to respond, whether it
+be terrorism or otherwise. As I have said currently, in March
+of 2003, a survey by the National Emergency Management
+Association found an additional 5,212 local emergency
+management positions were needed nationwide, with 3,960--or 76
+percent--of those positions being full-time directors needed
+for a host of issues.
+ Under Secretary Brown and others have informed this
+committee that the limitations on the use of EMPG grant funds
+for personnel costs will result in increased state and local
+training funds and exercise money. My question is: without
+effective people on the ground, even though we have training
+money, how will they be able to participate in training and
+exercise if we do not have people to participate in training
+and exercise?
+ Ms. Mencer. Yes, sir. And I hear you. And I have heard the
+concerns--.
+ Mr. Etheridge. Well, I understand you hear me. But what we
+really need are some answers.
+ Ms. Mencer. Right.
+ Mr. Etheridge. And I hope you will take that back to some
+folks to understand that it is fine to say we are getting more
+money. But if we are taking the money from another pot that is
+absolutely imperative that we use, at the end of the day, we
+are not any better off. And we may be worse off because we do
+not have people on the ground to do the job.
+ Ms. Mencer. And I commit to you that I will take that back.
+ Mr. Etheridge. Will you follow that up and get back to me
+with a written answer, please?
+ Ms. Mencer. I will, indeed.
+ Mr. Etheridge. I thank you.
+ Ms. Mencer. You are welcome.
+ Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Schrader, for you, in your testimony,
+you also commented on the need for the EMPG to maintain
+flexible funding for personnel costs.
+ Mr. Schrader. Exactly.
+ Mr. Etheridge. I hope you will comment, because you have
+some experience at it, as how this 25 percent restriction is
+going to affect your state. I know how it affects mind.
+ I think people need to understand what this does and where
+we wind up.
+ Mr. Schrader. Well, our state strategy revolves around an
+all-hazards approach.
+ Mr. Etheridge. Right.
+ Mr. Schrader. We need those people on the ground because
+they are the infrastructure that we rely on. We do not have a
+homeland security workforce and an emergency management
+workforce.
+ We are double tasking those folks. So therefore, we need to
+actually expand their capabilities and give them more money and
+more training.
+ But at a minimum, we have to maintain what we have. If we
+start to reduce that workforce, we are going to lose our
+ability in the local jurisdictions to execute these programs.
+ Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
+And I just want that on the record. And I hope others in the
+committee--I think it is important to understand that the
+department has a charge.
+ But the important thing is to understand that there are a
+lot of other things that these local jurisdictions have to do.
+And they cannot have two different groups.
+ And we have to understand that as we are reaching down, as
+we put out administrative rules and policies, because otherwise
+it will impede and put us in a position of not getting the job
+done we really want to get done because of the other things we
+have to do.
+ Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Cox. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman. The
+gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania,
+Mr. Weldon, is recognized.
+ Dr. Weldon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for
+testifying.
+ Mr. Chairman, as I read through this testimony, Ms. Mencer,
+one item catches my attention and will be the focus of my
+discussion. Because ODP is urged by the inspector general to
+accelerate the development of federal guidelines for first
+responder preparedness, including capability levels, equipment,
+training and exercises.
+ You know what really amazes me? The first responders in
+this country have been here longer than the country has been a
+country.
+ There are 32,000 organizations in America that are
+organized. Many of them do not belong to any government. They
+are private non-profits.
+ They have been responding to every disaster this country
+has had longer than the country has been a country. And they
+have not had to have federal guidelines on how to do their job.
+ I was the fire chief in a town of less than 5,000 people in
+1974. We had the largest incident in America. Two ships
+collided.
+ Twenty-nine people were killed. It burned out of control
+for 3 days. And 80 other departments responded.
+ We did not have to have ODP come in and tell us how to do
+our job. That could have been a terrorist attack.
+ And I resent the idea that somehow the federal government
+is going to come in and tell these people, because for all
+these years they have not known how to do their job. And that
+is the attitude that the emergency responders in this country
+receive, that somehow Washington is now going to come in, even
+though they have handled blevies on rail lines, even though
+they have handled hazmat incidents, even though they had fires
+in chemical plants that have been as toxic as any chemical
+weapon that mankind could create.
+ Even though they have handled all of that, all of a sudden
+now, the federal government knows how you better do your job.
+And you better pay attention.
+ And so in the end, I have to ask the question, as I travel
+around the country--and I have been on almost every disaster we
+have had since I have been here in Congress. I ask the first
+responders: how are we doing? And they look at me and they
+laugh.
+ They said, ``Are you kidding me?'' The first 30 minutes to
+an hour in any incident are the most critical. You are not
+going to have an ODP person on the ground that first hour.
+ You are not going to have a FEMA bureaucrat. You are not
+going to have an inspector general.
+ When the sarin gas attack occurred in Japan, the first hour
+determined how many people were overcome by sarin gas. When
+Chief Marrs arrived in Oklahoma City at the Murrah Building, it
+was the first hour that determined how successful he would be.
+ And you know what, Mr. Chairman? We still do not have the
+basic answers available to them.
+ Let me just give you some examples. I was in your state,
+Landers/Big Bear Northridge earthquake. And I am walking the
+freeway that had sandwiched on top of itself with the fire
+chiefs of Oakland and San Francisco.
+ Was that 12 years ago? And I said to the chiefs, ``Why
+aren't you using thermal imagers, using dogs to try to find
+people that are trapped in these vehicles?'' And the two chiefs
+said, ``What are thermal imagers?''
+ I said, ``Well, the Navy developed them 10 years ago to
+find people on ships that might still be alive.'' The federal
+government had not even told of the technology available to
+first responders.
+ So I came back from that incident and I introduced
+legislation to create a computerized inventory of assets that a
+first responding chief could have in his hand, so when he
+arrived--whether it was Chief Marrs in Oklahoma City or the San
+Francisco or Oakland chief in that incident--if they needed a
+structural engineer, if they needed a sensor, to plug it in and
+know where to get it.
+ Do we today have computerized inventories available for
+first responders? Is it available?
+ Ms. Mencer. Yes, I believe it is, sir.
+ Dr. Weldon. No, it is not.
+ Ms. Mencer. Computerized, no. We have lists though of--.
+ Dr. Weldon. Twelve years ago, I introduced legislation to
+create a national computerized inventory so when a chief
+officer arrives on the scene, whether it is a terrorist
+incident or a man-made disaster, where do I go to get
+structural engineers? Which federal agency can give me thermal
+imagers?
+ Who can I get to get a specialized testing capability in
+here? We still do not have it. And we play these games with,
+``Well, we have this protocol. We have that study underway.''
+ Let's answer the most basic question from the bottom up.
+ That is where the answer.
+ They know what to do. They know how to respond. They need
+the training resources. They need the dollars to buy the
+equipment. They need us to get out of their way.
+ I think of communication, when Tom Ridge was in office, the
+first week he was in, I met with him because he is a friend of
+mine. I said, ``Tom, you have to do two things. We have no
+integrated domestic emergency communication system for our
+first responders.''
+ And here we are, 3 years later. We still do not have an
+integrated domestic communication system for a number of
+reasons: lack of frequency spectrum allocation and lack of
+funding to implement a broad, integrated communication system.
+It was Chief Marrs' biggest problem in Oklahoma City.
+ So I guess I get down to a fundamental question: why don't
+we cut through all the--excuse my French--bullshit and listen
+to the first responders who have been telling us, for the last
+20 years, what they need? And for the state bureaucracies that
+take the money and build big bureaucracies and not give the
+money down to the locals is outrageous.
+ Now does that mean we should allow them to buy anything
+they want? To have a fire company buy a $500,000 truck they do
+not need? No. And that is why planning is so important.
+ But I can tell you, in the years that I have seen,
+especially since 9/11, our attempt at responding to the first
+responder has been outrageous. And I can only say to you both--
+and I think the gentleman from Maryland knows the power of his
+fire service very well and the emergency response community
+because it is very strong in your state and does an excellent
+job.
+ Do you know we have no ODP funding for fire training
+centers in the country? The primary training center for these
+first responders in every state are the state fire training
+centers. You have a great one in Maryland.
+ Do you know we cannot use ODP funding for that? So why
+don't we cut through the BS. That is what the firefighter grant
+program did. Would you agree that is one of the most successful
+programs we have ever created?
+ Mr. Schrader. Very successful, very popular in our state,
+yes.
+ Dr. Weldon. Very popular, because the money goes directly
+to those people who have their necks on the line to respond,
+whether it is a small town or a big city.
+ Mr. Chairman, I am sorry for expressing my sense of
+frustration. But it is very real to me because I would not be
+in this job were it not for these people. And it frustrates me
+to see us spinning wheels about how to get money.
+ And I know you are trying to do a good job with your
+legislation, which I fully support. We have to find a way to
+have the local emergency response leaders, who are going to be
+the first people on the scene in every incident, have the
+tools, the equipment, the training and the resources they need.
+And I do not think the federal government should be able to
+tell them how to do that. Thank you.
+ Mr. Cox. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
+has done more work on first responders than anybody in Congress
+that I can think of, except possibly Mr. Pascrell, who is
+recognized.
+ Mr. Pascrell. Well, I want to say to Mr. Weldon, comma, not
+period. I want to continue, if I may, if you will allow me that
+opportunity.
+ This to me is a sham. And I am sorry we have to go vote
+now. But the budget's program assessment rating tool--get this,
+Curt--declared that ``the fire grant program is unfocused and
+has not demonstrated its impact on public safety.''
+ This is a fraud. And the fact is that this program has
+positively impacted--ask the firefighters, please--public
+safety by providing $2 billion for such things as-unfocused!--
+infrared cameras, hazmat detection devices, improved breathing
+apparatus, advanced training and fitness programs, fire engines
+and interoperable communications system.
+ Now I want to give you an example. I want to give you an
+example. I think it is a good one. And I do not care if I miss
+the vote. I am sorry, comma.
+ The leading cause of firefighter death in America, do you
+know what it is, Ms. Mencer? Do you know what the leading cause
+of death is to firefighters?
+ Ms. Mencer. Heart attacks?
+ Mr. Pascrell. I am sorry?
+ Ms. Mencer. Heart attacks.
+ Mr. Pascrell. That is correct. Thank you. It occurs either
+at or returning from a fire. In my district of Bloomfield, New
+Jersey, firefighter Dan McGrath can tell you a thing or two
+about the need for cardiac fitness.
+ When McGrath went to his physical, mandated--and you are
+taking this out of the Fire Act. Oh yeah, you care about fire
+responders. You really do.
+ A physical mandated program, funded by the 2002 Fire Act,
+the fire grant, it was discovered that he needed immediate
+heart surgery. No one had any idea he was in danger prior to
+that physical. He did not certainly.
+ He had successful bypass surgery and valve replacement
+surgery and is on the job today.
+ With all this in mind, why would the President's budget
+request, which you are here to defend, eliminate funding for
+programs to enhance the level of cardiac fitness among
+firefighters? And I am waiting for a good answer.
+ Ms. Mencer. I believe that the focus for the Fire Act
+grants are on the items that we consider to be priorities in
+view of the terrorist acts in the Homeland Security Department,
+which is training and safety equipment for firefighters.
+ Mr. Pascrell. Do you know that you have eliminated nine of
+the 14 categories? And that is one of them? Do you know that?
+ Ms. Mencer. Yes, sir.
+ Mr. Pascrell. Well then, how can you simply say that you
+are taking that into account? You have eliminated it in the
+President's budget. You have eliminated nine of the 14
+categories that were funded directly to local communities.
+ No bureaucrat, no state bureaucrat can skim off the top. It
+is the most successful program, like the COPS program.
+ You are cutting this program by $250 million. You are
+cutting the COPS program, which has nothing to do with you, by
+$660 million. This is an absurdity.
+ Do you know Exhibit A, B, C and D? Exhibit A, fire
+departments across the country have only enough radios.
+ I know you guys want to end it now, but let me finish
+because this is important to me. I was a mayor and I was on the
+line when these guys and gals gave up their lives. So you are
+not going to put this into a political situation.
+ There is not enough radios to equip half the firefighters
+on a shift. And breathing apparatuses for only one-third of all
+the firefighters in this country.
+ Police departments in cities nationwide do not have the
+protective gear to safely secure a site following an attack
+with weapons of mass destruction. Most cities do not have the
+necessary equipment to determine what kind of hazardous
+materials emergency responders may be facing.
+ All terrorist incidents are local. That is what Curt Weldon
+was saying. They are local. At least we can start at that
+particular point.
+ How can you, in good conscience, cut the Fire Act? How can
+you, in good conscience, say it is unfocused?
+ How can you simply try to communicate to the American
+people when you know quite well that not too long ago, former
+Senator Warren Rudman said, ``The United States remains
+dangerously ill prepared to handle a catastrophic attack on
+American soil?'' And in three instances, that has been
+supported. And let me tell you where the incidences are.
+ The report of an independent task force sponsored by the
+Council on Foreign Relations: ``emergency responders
+drastically underfunded,'' et cetera. That came out in June of
+2003.
+ The fourth annual report to the President and the Congress
+of the advisory panel to assess domestic response capabilities,
+that came out December 16, 2002. And the General Accounting
+Office, their own report: ``grant system continues to be highly
+fragmented,'' April 2003.
+ We have this. It is documented. We do not even have a
+national assessment of where we are most vulnerable.
+ And darn it, I have a right to be angry today because I am
+talking to someone who is very bright and knows--you are the
+messenger. I know that.
+ But we are not going to take it anymore. We are not going
+to take throwing across the screen that we are safer now than
+we were before when we do not even have a coordinated effort.
+We zeroed in into interoperable communication. Zero amount of
+dollars.
+ When you heard Mr. Weldon say it is the most critical
+problem facing us today, how do you explain this to the
+American people? You tell me.
+ Mr. Shadegg. [Presiding.] The chair appreciates the
+gentleman's passion. His time is expired.
+ Mr. Pascrell. It is not just passion. It is facts. Passion
+without facts is meaningless
+ Mr. Shadegg. The chair appreciates the gentleman's passion
+and would like Ms. Mencer to be able to answer the question.
+ Ms. Mencer. Yes. For the first regard, as far as the
+funding being reduced, I just want to point out that it is
+equal to the funding request of the 2004 budget, showing the
+secretary and the President's commitment to the firefighting
+community.
+ It was funded for more than that in 2004. But our request
+remains the same.
+ And as to your other comments, sir, I understand your
+concern. And I think it has long been the responsibility of
+each of us to make sure our health insurance is current and
+that we have sufficient for our safety and our public health
+concerns.
+ And I think that remains the focus of the Fire Act monies.
+By their own request of the fire agencies that we consult with
+for the Fire Act, they have stressed the terrorism aspect of
+these funds for this year. And indeed, that reflects it in the
+budget.
+ Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Chairman?
+ Mr. Shadegg. The chair would like to--.
+ Mr. Pascrell. If I may? One final comment.
+ Mr. Shadegg. A brief comment, as opposed to a question,
+certainly.
+ Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Chairman, the melding of programs is one
+of the biggest gimmicks tried by both political parties over
+the last 30 years. When you meld it, you lose it. It is the
+easiest way to do it, so you do not ever have to have a
+proposition to do away with the Fire Act.
+ Put the Fire Act and move it, a successful program. You cut
+it by $250 million when you need we should be going to $1
+billion from the $750 million that we have.
+ You meld it into terrorism. The Fire Act occurred before 9/
+11. These are basic needs that fire departments--small and
+large--need.
+ And if we are not going to respond to the basic needs, Mr.
+Chairman, we are not going to prepare America. Thank you.
+ Mr. Shadegg. Certainly.
+ As the gentleman well knows, the ultimate responsibility
+for the budget remains with the Congress. And again, I
+appreciate his passion and his concern. And Ms. Mencer is the
+messenger. I think she heard the message.
+ I want to thank both of our witnesses for their appearance
+here today. I think this has been a healthy and productive
+dialogue.
+ Ms. Mencer, I recognize that you were just confirmed in
+September of last year. You are new to this job. And indeed, it
+is a very challenging task.
+ The gentleman, Mr. Pascrell, mentioned that the melding of
+departments, he went on to say, is a way to get rid of them. I
+thought he was going to say it is one of the toughest things
+you do in government, because that is what is happened here in
+the Department of Homeland Security.
+ We have melded 20 parts of--or all of--22 government
+agencies. And I frequently say in this town that the second
+toughest job in the entire town is that of your boss, the
+director of the Department of Homeland Security.
+ I think this is a massive undertaking. I will tell you, I
+at times have been critical and would like to have seen the
+department do better. And I would like to see it continue to
+improve, as would the American people.
+ But I want to commend you. I know you bring great
+experience here.
+ Mr. Schrader, I was very impressed with your testimony. I
+was a colleague, when I came in as a freshman, of your boss,
+the governor, Bob Ehrlich. I think he has done a superb job in
+selecting you for the task. And I commend you on your hard work
+and appreciate both of you doing your jobs.
+ It is a difficult task. The sorting of these priorities is
+a challenge for the Congress. And we will do our best, with
+your input.
+ And we certainly appreciate your testimony and your efforts
+on behalf of the people of America. We are in new times. And
+these are challenging and different.
+ We have never faced this kind of threat to our nation
+before. And you have been tasked with the front line job of
+doing it and of sorting out all of those issues.
+ And as you saw the passion of two of my colleagues, one on
+each side, people get wrapped up about these issues. People who
+carry a single interest in the United States Congress and who
+believe it is their job, for example, to work for one
+particular interest can become extremely passionate about that
+interest.
+ And I think we have seen a little bit of that here today.
+And it is true that all great things, I think, are accomplished
+by people who act with passion on a single-minded focus.
+ Both of the gentleman who have just spoken are passionate
+about that issue. They are experts in that field. They care
+deeply about it. And I think we appreciate their testimony.
+ That does not mean that you do not have a tough task and
+that you are not doing your best under extremely difficult
+circumstances. I want to thank you both.
+ I think it was tremendous to have both the department's
+perspective, kind of looking down on this process, and the
+perspective of a state director, looking up. I think that has
+provided us with great perspective on a tough issue.
+ I am very pleased and hope that the press reports
+accurately that headlines like this that say, ``Eighty Percent
+of Homeland Security Funds Have Failed to Reach Local
+Agencies,'' I hope that from this hearing, Americans will
+understand that is not true, that in point of fact, it is a
+much finer point; and that is, 80 percent perhaps have not been
+spent and that there may be, as you pointed out in your
+testimony, both good and bad reasons for that.
+ I think the American people want these funds spent
+properly. And Mr. Schrader, as I think you pointed out, this is
+a whole new process. It is like trying to set up something that
+has never existed before and address a brand new issue.
+ The notion that it could be done overnight and done
+properly, I think, is silly.
+ Ms. Mencer, in your testimony, I think you made that very
+point. The department has concluded it is better to roll this
+money out a little slower than we had hoped, but to spend it
+wisely. And I think the American people would agree with you on
+that.
+ So I appreciate your being here and your testimony.
+ Members of the committee will have additional questions for
+the witnesses which they may submit to you in writing and which
+we would ask you to respond to. And the hearing record will be
+open for 10 days.
+ With that, this hearing is adjourned.
+ [Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
+
+
+ A P P E N D I X
+
+ ----------
+
+
+ Questions and Responses for Director C. Suzanne Mencer, Submitted for
+ the Record
+
+ Questions from the Honorable John Shadegg
+
+Question: 1. What is the current status of the assessment that focuses
+on barriers and obstacles that independent or non-government EMS units
+are facing in receiving DHS first responder grant funds that was
+mandated in the FY 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill?
+ Response: The Department's Office for Domestic Preparedness (now
+the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness
+, OSLGCP) was tasked with drafting this report. This report was
+delivered to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on June 15,
+2004.
+
+Question: 2. Concern has been raised that OSLGCP regulations are
+written without taking into account the unique geographical differences
+of the Western US. One example is that the current UASI definition of a
+core city and its contiguous counties. In the West, very few cities
+overlap counties, but a county may have a dozen cities. What is being
+done to correct these sorts of anomalies for the future?
+ Response: OSLGCP has incorporated flexibility into the
+implementation of its guidelines by ensuring State and local
+participation in the final definition of urban areas. OSLGCP selects
+the core city based upon a risk analysis and nominates a corresponding
+core county in order to help build viable regional prevention,
+response, and recovery systems. The core county is defined as the
+county that the core city resides within either geographically or
+politically. The State, core city, and core county then further define
+the urban area to ensure it incorporates all appropriate jurisdictions
+and mutual aide partners. The respective State, core city, and core
+county make the final determination on defining each urban area.
+
+Question: 3. What is OSLGCP doing to communicate and coordinate with
+EP&R on the assets that cities, counties, and states are purchasing
+with SHSGP and UASI monies? Are you working on a comprehensive,
+nationwide, state-by-state inventory of first responder assets? If a
+terrorist attack were to occur in Phoenix tomorrow, would you know what
+response assets exist in the City, contiguous cities, Maricopa County,
+or the State of Arizona? Would FEMA/EP&R know?
+ Response: Most OSLGCP efforts and programs are focused on capacity
+building at the State and local level. We gather information on
+capabilities, and the impact our programs have on those capabilities,
+through the Homeland Security Assessments and the resulting State and
+Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies. These multi-year strategies
+and assessments were updated in the fall of 2003 and steer all of the
+funding provided by OSLGCPP to States and urban areas with an emphasis
+on identifying and enhancing prevention, response, and recovery
+capabilities at the State, local, and regional levels. This assessment
+and strategy development process was a comprehensive effort that took
+approximately nine months to complete and required the participation of
+all States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and their
+respective local jurisdictions. The reported data illustrates how
+States and urban areas allocate grant funds and define benchmarks for
+monitoring their impact, and this information is provided to OSLGCP
+regularly. FEMA actively participated in the design of the assessment
+and strategy development process. Additionally, they were an integral
+part of the intra-DHS review board that reviewed and adjudicated all
+State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies. As such, FEMA has
+access to all OSLGCP data of current State and Local capabilities and
+shortfalls.
+ As the automated data demonstrating the impact of the FY 2004 funds
+becomes available, OSLGCP can share it with FEMA to enhance their
+situational awareness.
+ The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate is completing
+the Federal Response Capability Inventory. State and local
+jurisdictions have inventories of existing capabilities and resources.
+They will be expected to update and compare those inventories to the
+Baseline Capabilities Lists for the appropriate Tier, in order to
+develop their Required Capabilities Lists in Fiscal Year 2005. The
+Baseline Capabilities Lists are being created as part of the National
+Preparedness Goal required by Homeland Security Presidential Directive
+(HSPD)-8.
+ Additionally, DHS, through FEMA and the National Incident
+Management System (NIMS) Integration Center, is conducting a resource
+``typing'' project to standardize descriptions and characteristics of
+common response teams and equipment. Resource typing ensures accuracy
+when incident a managers are requesting or providing resources through
+mutual aid. For example, a ``fire department strike team'' will be the
+same, whether it comes from an adjoining city or several states away.
+To date, resource typing is complete for 120 of the most commonly
+exchanged resources, including personnel, teams, and equipment.
+Resource typing provides the foundation for a comprehensive inventory
+of federal, state, and local response assets. A resource ordering,
+tracking, and status system is an essential part of the NIMS. States
+and local jurisdictions may use their FY 2005 SHSGP and UASI funds to
+develop or update resource inventories in accordance with FEMA's
+resource typing. At the federal level, DHS, through FEMA, is developing
+a federal inventory of response resources, based on the resource typing
+definitions.
+ OSLGCP will provide national guidance to the States and those urban
+areas presently participating in the Urban Area Security Initiative,
+including the Baseline Capabilities Lists, organized by Tier, and
+metrics, after the President reviews and approves the National
+Preparedness Goal.
+
+ Questions from the Honorable Curt Weldon
+
+ 1. ODP is now funding State training courses and its own
+specialized courses for first responders. Currently, almost all
+volunteer and career firefighters are trained at state and county fire
+training facilities. These facilities are the principle sources for
+testing and evaluating equipment, experimenting with new response
+techniques and they were the first to provide WMD training. However,
+these existing resources are not receiving any funding from ODP or the
+States.
+
+ Will the ODP take a good look at the fire training facilities at
+the state and local levels to perform WMD and other terrorist
+preparedness training? The Department should utilize these experienced
+and trusted assets to prevent redundant and inadequate alternatives.
+ Response: OSLGCP concurs that states and UASI areas should
+integrate existing public safety academies into the state training
+implementation plans. Since Fiscal Year (FY) 2003, the use of the fire
+training academies has been addressed in grant application guidance
+from OSLGCP. State and local training efforts should reinforce the use
+of state and metropolitan fire training academies along with other
+state and local academies, junior colleges, community colleges, and
+technical colleges. . However, to avoid dictating the training process
+to the states, OSLGCP provides funding directly to the state, not the
+state fire training academies. Thus, the state manages who conducts the
+training.
+
+ 2. Both the Inspector General and Select Committee on Homeland
+Security Committee reports on first responder funding identify
+Reimbursement systems as a principle source of delay to get new
+equipment and training. Under the current system, to what extent are
+states able to use federal homeland security grant funds in order to
+front the purchases for local governments?
+Response: Through FY04, OSLGCP grant guidance required grant funds to
+be expended on a reimbursement basis, but this policy was modified for
+FY05.
+ Fiscal Year 2004 grant guidance requires states to obligate 80% of
+funding to local units of government within 60 days. This funding is
+provided in the form of a sub grant award, which allows local units of
+government to make equipment purchases, accomplish planning, or make
+training or exercise decisions. If a locality makes a request to the
+state for them to hold monies on their behalf, the local unit of
+government may enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
+state, whereby the state centrally purchases equipment or other
+services (such as training and exercises) on the locality's behalf.
+This MOU must be initiated by the local unit of government, and must
+specify how much money is being held by the state and the purpose of
+the MOU. This will allow states to alleviate some of the financial
+strain on local units of government.
+ The FY 2005 DHS Appropriations Act exempted several state and local
+grant programs from the Cash Management Improvement Act, though a
+similar change could also be made administratively. In keeping with
+this exemption, SLGCP grant guidance for the FY 2005 Homeland Security
+Grant Program allows grantees and subgrantees to drawdown funds 120
+prior to expenditure as opposed to the previous 3-5 days prior to
+expenditure.
+
+ 3. Both the Inspector General and Select Committee on Homeland
+Security Committee reports on first responder funding identify a lack
+of communication from the federal government on intelligence and risk-
+based priorities as a source of confusion with what must be purchased
+and where it should be located. What is the Department doing to correct
+this problem? To what extent will the proposed national preparedness
+plan take into account the individual risks, hazards, characteristics
+and other qualities that are only known by the local responders?
+
+Response: Part I:
+ As a requirement to receive their Fiscal Year 2004 Homeland
+Security Grant Program funds, and additional funds in FY 2005, states
+conducted threats and vulnerabilities assessments and, based on that
+information, developed homeland security strategies. The states were
+required to provide completed homeland security strategies to the
+OSLGCP on January 31, 2004. OSLGCP provided comprehensive guidelines,
+and conducted regional workshops, to assist that States in
+understanding the State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy
+Process (SHSAS) and conducting the assessments and developing their
+strategies.
+ These strategies are critical resources to the states in their
+efforts to distribute funds in the most effective manner to address the
+homeland security needs. The SHSAS process also provided States and
+localities the ability to determine their homeland security needs and
+assess their gaps in preparedness. Based on these assessments, States
+and localities could make informed decisions on the types of equipment
+that they could purchase with their OSLGCP funds to meet their
+identified needs and vulnerabilities.
+ These strategies are also extremely important because they allow
+the Department to match the preparedness needs as outlined in the state
+homeland security strategies with resources available from the federal
+government. The information provided in these strategies will allow the
+Department to make informed decisions on how funds will be distributed
+and what factors the Department will use to make this determination.
+Per HSPD-8, to the extent permitted by law, adoption of approved
+Statewide strategies will be a requirement for receiving Federal
+preparedness assistance at all levels of government by September 30,
+2005.
+
+ Part II:
+ One of the objectives of the national preparedness plan as required
+under Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 (HSPD-8), is the
+review and approval of ``all hazards'' state strategies. Building on
+the present OSLGCP model for comprehensive strategies based on CBRNE
+threats, the Department has established HSPD-8 ``Integrated Concept
+Teams'' (ICTs) to develop and implement a process for the submission,
+review and approval of all hazards based state strategies. These
+strategies would require local jurisdictions to provide information on
+threats, vulnerabilities, needs and capabilities as matched against the
+readiness metrics and national preparedness goal established by HSPD-8.
+The local jurisdictional assessment, using the data that is best
+identified by the local responders, would be sent to the states for
+their review and analysis. Using this ``bottoms up'' approach, states
+could then craft a comprehensive strategy that outlines the type of
+equipment, training, planning and exercises required within that state.
+
+ Part III
+ Under the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
+Directorate, the Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP) is
+responsible for the protection of critical infrastructure and key
+resources (CI/KR). The Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP) is
+intended to extend the zone of protection--the buffer zone--around
+specific critical infrastructure and key assets from the site perimeter
+into the surrounding community. Working with State Homeland Security
+Advisors, IP is providing material and technical assistance to state
+and local law enforcement and first responders responsible for the
+protection of CI/KR within their jurisdiction. IP provides templates,
+training, and on-site assistance when necessary to help state and local
+law enforcement and first responders develop and implement BZPPs. This
+focused program identifies specific assets and assists local entities
+in developing detailed mitigation strategies, thus providing
+comprehensive information intended to improve the protection of CI/KR.
+
+ 4. The Inspector General report recommends a consolidation of all
+first responder grant programs as a means of simplifying the planning
+process performed at the state level. Does this include terrorism and
+non-terrorism related grant programs for first responders? If so, does
+the Department prefer the non-terrorism programs to be based upon a
+risk-based assessment with a terrorism focus?
+ Response: The Secretary has provided for the consolidation of
+several first responder grant programs through the consolidation of the
+Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) and the Office of State and
+Local Government Coordination (OSLGC) into the Office of State and
+Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (OSLGCP) in March of
+2004. This consolidation provides a ``one stop shop'' for preparedness
+grants within the Department of Homeland Security and streamlines the
+process for state and local jurisdictions to apply for these grants.
+ Within the OSLGCP, there are grants that cover terrorism, such as
+the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) and the Urban Areas Security
+Initiative (UASI). There are other grants that address terrorism as
+part of their ``all hazards'' approach, such as the Citizen Corps
+Program (CCP) and the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG).
+OSLGCP incorporated both terrorism and all hazards grants within a
+single grant application for FY 2004 and FY 2005.
+
+ 5. The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program awards fire
+prevention and fire safety grants to nonprofit organizations to fund
+great programs such as burn research, education in schools, smoke alarm
+distribution, and many other things. Congress never intended for this
+program to require a funding match because these non profits such as
+the Burn Foundation are not affiliated with the state or local
+governments and operate on a shoe-string budget. This past month, your
+office began announcing this year's awards and changed the rules--with
+no notice--to require a hard match. Due to this abrupt change in
+policy, I am hearing that critical programs will be rejecting grants
+because they are unable to come up with 30% of the funding.
+ Why did your office decide to make this rule change with no notice
+and no consultation with the fire service organizations? Do you intend
+to continue to make rule changes to fire fighter grants with their
+consultation?
+ Response: The grants to which you refer are actually associated
+with the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 appropriation. The decision to require
+the cash match was a decision emanating from the FEMA's General Counsel
+Office, before DHS was created, which reads the authorizing statute as
+requiring this cash match. Indeed, they believe that it should have
+been required from inception. The requirement however, was not
+established at the time of the awards, but was included in the program
+requirements listed of the Program Guidance (October 14, 2003) and
+Federal Register notice (68 FR 59947-59948, October 20, 2003), both
+published last autumn. OSLGCP will continue its coordination and
+collaboration with the fire service, the USFA and FEMA in its
+implementation of the FY 2004 prevention and safety grants. We will do
+everything we can within the law to maximize applicant opportunity and
+be competitive for grant awards. The Administration is aware that
+existing cash match requirements have posed an obstacle for some
+recipients of these grants.
+
+ 6. Q01716: There is a concern that the Department of Homeland
+Security is not paying enough attention to existing technologies that
+have a proven track-record of deployment and field operation. While it
+is imperative that the Department have a robust research and
+development program (R&D), present day solutions are available for many
+of the Country's security needs. There are a number of examples of
+readily available and deployable technologies exist on the commercial
+market that can and should be used today that address this very issue
+of data collection and real time dissemination for use in emergency
+response. Please describe the Department of Homeland Security's policy
+for fielding off-the-shelf technologies despite the fact that they may
+not provide a 100 percent solution.
+ Response: OSLGCP is keenly aware of the need to deploy available
+technology to meet the immediate threat to the Nation posed by
+terrorist groups. While often less than ideal, these technologies offer
+an immediate enhancement over current capabilities. As such, OSLGCP
+facilitates the deployment of present-day solutions through a variety
+of means. States and key urban areas may procure existing, off-the-
+shelf technologies, including interoperable communications and
+information-sharing systems, through both the Homeland Security Grant
+Program (HSGP) and the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI).
+ To supplement these grant programs, OSLGCP offers a wide variety of
+technical assistance, to states and UASI sites in the identification of
+interoperability needs, design of an enhanced, interoperable
+communications architecture that takes advantage of existing
+technologies such as patching systems, implementation of the enhanced
+architecture, and transition support such as training and exercises.
+OSLGCP is also supporting the Department's RapidCom 9/30 initiative.
+RapidCom 9/30 is intended to provide ten high-risk urban areas with an
+immediate capability for communications interoperability at the
+emergency response level by September 30, 2004. The focus of the focus
+of RapidCom 9/30 is on the deployment of existing technologies to
+provide an immediate, interim solution.
+ OSLGCP also administers the SAVER (System Assessment & Validation
+for Emergency Responders) Program to select, assess, and validate
+specific commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) emergency response equipment.
+This program serves the emergency responder community by providing
+rapid, relevant, dependable, and cost-effective assessment and
+validation of critical equipment to enable decision-makers and
+responders to better select, procure, use, and maintain their emergency
+equipment.
+ The SAVER program, run through the Texas A&M University, provides
+rapid, timely, and cost-effective assessment and validation of selected
+emergency response equipment items such as personal protective
+equipment, explosive device mitigation and remediation equipment, CBRNE
+search and rescue equipment, physical security enhancement equipment,
+decontamination equipment, and the interoperability of emergency system
+components. Through SAVER, OSLGCP and Texas A&M can also provide
+technical support on the use of equipment to the emergency responder
+community.
+
+ 7. Q01717: On January of 1991, I introduced H.R. 237 calling for
+the creation of a comprehensive inventory of resources that are
+available for use or deployment in disaster relief that is easily
+accessible for response to a major disaster or emergency. Are there any
+such inventories of resources available for federal, state, regional
+and local emergency planners? Does the Department of Homeland Security
+intend to create such an inventory or a listing of mutual aid
+agreements with federal, state, local and private entities in the
+future?
+ Response: OSLGCP has established and maintains the Pre-Positioned
+Equipment Program (PEP). PEP consists of eleven geographically
+dispersed ``pods'' containing a suite of response equipment designed to
+supplement, replace and/or replenish specialized equipment that might
+be consumed in the response to a terrorist attack by local and state
+emergency personnel. The PEP ``pods'' contain personal protective
+equipment (PPE), detection, decontamination and communications
+equipment. The PEP sites are activated and deployed by DHS using air or
+ground-based means at the request of a state or territorial governor
+or, in the case of the District of Columbia, the mayor of that city.
+OSLGCP is currently in the process of transitioning the PEP program as
+a response asset to the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate
+(EP&R), which already maintains a sizable inventory of emergency
+response equipment.
+ The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate is also
+completing the Federal Response Capability Inventory. State and local
+jurisdictions have inventories of existing capabilities and resources.
+They will be expected to update and compare those inventories to the
+Baseline Capabilities Lists for the appropriate Tier, in order to
+develop their Required Capabilities Lists in Fiscal Year 2005. The
+Baseline Capabilities Lists are being created as part of the National
+Preparedness Goal required by Homeland Security Presidential Directive
+(HSPD)-8. Additionally, DHS, through FEMA and the NIMS Integration
+Center (NIC), is conducting a resource typing project to standardize
+descriptions and characteristics of common response teams and
+equipment. Resource typing ensures accuracy when incident managers are
+requesting or providing resources through mutual aid. For example, a
+``fire department strike team'' will be the same, whether it comes from
+an adjoining city or several states away. To date, resource typing is
+complete for 120 of the most commonly exchanged resources, including
+personnel, teams, and equipment. Resource typing provides the
+foundation for a comprehensive inventory of federal, state, and local
+response assets. A resource ordering, tracking, and status system is an
+essential part of the NIMS. States and local jurisdictions may use
+their FY 2005 SHSGP and UASI funds to develop or update resource
+inventories in accordance with FEMA's resource typing. At the federal
+level, DHS, through FEMA, is developing a federal inventory of response
+resources, based on the resource typing definitions.
+ OSLGCP will provide national guidance to the States and Urban Area
+Security Initiative Cities including the Baseline Capabilities Lists,
+organized by Tier, and metrics, after the President reviews and
+approves the National Preparedness Goal.
+
+ 8. Q01718: I was disappointed that the President's FY05 Budget
+Request unilaterally, and without any consultation with the fire
+service organizations, limited Assistance to Firefighter Grant Awards
+to only terrorism preparedness, vehicles, equipment and communications
+and Training. This budget leaves out 10 of the 14 permissible uses such
+as EMS, educational programs, recruitment and retention programs,
+certifications, facility improvements and others. In years past, annual
+meetings have been held with all fire service groups to establish
+priorities for grant awards and they generally have agreed with the
+priorities set forth in the President's budget request, however, it
+seems that this process has been bypassed. Will the Office for Domestic
+Preparedness continue to place an emphasis on annual consultations with
+the fire service groups to set priorities for grant awards? Does the
+Department intend to continue the peer review process utilizing peer
+reviewers recommended by the various fire service organizations? In
+addition, is it the intent of your office for terrorism preparedness to
+be the number one priority for Assistance to Firefighters Grants?
+ Response: OSLGCP will continue exactly the same cycle of action for
+the implementation of the FY 2005 Assistance to Firefighters Grant
+Program as followed in past years. OSLGCP will encourage the
+participation of the fire service in the program, and values their
+input on funding priorities and the criteria developed to evaluate the
+applications. Consistent with the President's commitment to enhancing
+first responders? terrorism preparedness, the request does reflect an
+emphasis on permissible uses supporting terrorism preparedness. It
+should be noted that the AFG program has previously restricted the
+permissible uses in order to focus limited funds on national
+priorities. OSLGCP recognizes the effectiveness and importance of the
+fire grants as a foundation (especially with respect to equipment and
+training) for the higher-level terrorism preparedness.
+
+Grant Funds for Rail and Port Security and Interoperable Communications
+ In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, ODP carved out a portion of the
+Urban Area grants funds to make specific discretionary grants to ports
+and transportation systems. Your FY 2005 budget materials do not
+include enough information for us to understand how, or if, ODP will be
+issuing grants for rail security, and how you will administer the port
+security grant program.
+ And, although interoperable communications systems remain a
+critical need for the first responder community, the President's Budget
+requests no funds for grants to enhance interoperability, either in DHS
+or in the Department of Justice COPS program. This budget does not
+support the promises of Secretary Ridge, who has stated that
+implementing interoperable communications systems is a DHS priority,
+and that, ``we all must work together to give them the tools to do
+their jobs--in a way that replaces outdated, outmoded relics with an
+interoperable, innovative and integrated system.''
+
+ 1. Do you have plans to carve out any UASI funds for port and/or
+rail and transit security? If so, how much money will you set aside?
+ Response: .The President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 budget request
+includes $46 million under the Urban Areas Security Initiative program
+to support homeland security exercises at selected ports. Additionally,
+under the UASI program, the President's request sets-aside $200 million
+for targeted infrastructure protection. With these funds, OSLGCP will
+continue to work with the Department of Homeland Security's Information
+Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate (IAIP) to identify
+critical elements of the Nation's infrastructure and then fund the
+protection of these elements. Port facilities and transit systems could
+potentially receive support under the targeted infrastructure
+protection program. Otherwise, the Department has no plans to carve out
+additional UASI set-aside for port or transit security. There is
+insufficient information about the impact of previous grants to warrant
+a stand-alone program. States and local jurisdictions retain the
+ability to allocate a portion of their State Homeland Security Grants
+or UASI funds to port and transit authorities, consistent with the
+relative priorities of each jurisdiction.
+
+ 2. If you do plan to carve out some of the Urban Area funds, why
+wasn't this part of the budget request to Congress? Don't you believe
+that Congress should have some say in how much money should be spent
+for these purposes, and how is should be administered?
+ Response: The Department fully recognizes the role of Congress, and
+the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 request reflects the
+Administration's priorities for more than $3.5 billion to support
+OSLGCP programs and activities. The request includes funds to continue
+the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), which includes the State
+Homeland Security Program at $1.4 billion; the Law Enforcement
+Terrorism Prevention Program at $500 million; and the Citizen Corps
+Program at $50 million. Funds are also provided for the continuation of
+the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) at $1.4 billion.
+ Under both the HSGP program and UASI program, States, localities,
+and urban areas are eligible to use their HSGP and UASI funds to
+purchase physical security enhancement equipment (otherwise known as
+``target hardening'' equipment). Among the allowable expenses under
+this category, which is outlined in the program guidance for both HSGP
+and UASI, are: motion detector systems, barriers, impact resistant
+doors and gates, video and radar systems, and chemical agent and
+explosives detection equipment. All of these types of equipment can be
+used to secure a number of different critical infrastructures,
+including rail systems.
+ The Department allows States and localities, under the HSGP
+program, and urban areas, under the UASI program, to make their own
+determinations of how they will distribute their homeland security
+funds. Through the State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy
+Process, which both States and urban areas must conduct to receive
+their HSGP and UASI funds, respectively, States and urban areas are
+given the necessary tools to determine needs and vulnerabilities and,
+in turn, make informed decisions on the most effective means to use
+their homeland security funds. If they chose, States and urban areas
+can use their funds to target harden rail and transit systems. This is
+a decision, however, that States and urban areas must determine with
+the assistance of OSLGCP and DHS.
+
+ 3. What was the process for selecting the recipients of mass
+transit security grant funds under the FY 2004 UASI program? Did DHS
+perform any threat or risk assessments to determine the allocation of
+these funds? Do you have an estimate on total needs for securing rail
+and mass transit systems?
+ Response: The recipients for FY 2004 were limited to heavy rail
+(subway) and commuter rail systems. Systems with the highest numbers of
+riders and track miles were identified for funding. Security
+assessments of rail and transit systems operating in high-density urban
+areas were performed by FTA and reviewed by TSA. DHS required that
+information from these assessments be used to determine the eligible
+uses of these grants. The Department has not developed an overall
+estimate for public transit security.
+
+ 4. Finally, have you considered setting aside a portion of either
+the State Homeland Security Grant Funds or the Urban Area funds to
+address the critical interoperable communications needs of our public
+safety community?
+ Response: The Department of Homeland Security, through OSLGCP,
+administers two programs that provide significant funding levels for
+states and localities to undertake a wide-range of activities,
+including the purchase of communications equipment to improve the
+interoperability of emergency responders. As communications equipment
+is one of the most frequent uses of these funds, the Department does
+not support a new `set-aside' for interoperability at this time. As
+state and local needs vary widely, trying to fix a certain percentage
+or dollar value may distort state and local priorities. Since 2002, ODP
+has provided $1.2 billion in grant assistance to States and local
+jurisdictions to improve interoperability through the purchase of
+communications equipment.
+ In Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, OSLGCP is administering the Homeland
+Security Grant Program (HSGP) and the Urban Areas Security Initiative
+(UASI). Under HSGP, OSLGCP will provide more than $2.2 billion to the
+states for equipment acquisition, training, exercise support, and
+planning. Additionally, under UASI, OSLGCP will provide $725 million
+for 50 high-threat, high density urban areas, and 25 transit systems,
+for equipment acquisition, training, exercise support and planning.
+Under HSGP and UASI, states and urban areas can use their funds to
+purchase communications interoperability equipment, and such
+investments for FY04 exceed $800 million. States and urban areas base
+their funding decisions on homeland security strategies that
+incorporate threat, vulnerability, and risk assessments. The
+President's FY 2005 budget request includes more than $1.4 billion for
+continuation of OSLGCP's state formula grants programs, as well as more
+than $1.4 billion for continuation of the UASI program.
+ In FY 2003, OSLGCP administered the State Homeland Security Grant
+Program (SHSGP), Part I and II. Under both of these programs states,
+territories, and the District of Columbia (DC) are allowed to use their
+allocated funds to purchase equipment that supports communications
+interoperability. OSLGCP provided significant funds under SHSGP, Part I
+and II. Under Part I, OSLGCP provided $500 million for states,
+territories and DC, to purchase equipment, and support training,
+exercise, and planning activities. Under Part II, OSLGCP provided $1.3
+billion for the same purpose areas. Interoperable communications
+equipment is an allowable use of states' SHSGP funds.
+ Additionally, in FY 2003, OSLGCP administered UASI Part I and Part
+II. Under these two programs, OSLGCP provided $800 million for an
+initial 30 high threat, high density urban areas. States and urban
+areas determined how to distribute their funds on comprehensive needs,
+vulnerabilities, threats, and capabilities assessment, and the
+development of a homeland domestic preparedness strategy.
+ In an effort to foster improved communications interoperability,
+OSLGCP program guidance for HSGP, UASI, and SHSGP grant recipients
+requires that all radios purchased with OSLGCP funds should be
+compliant with a set a standards called ANSI/IIA/EIA-102 Phase I
+(Project 25). These standards, developed by the Association of Public-
+Safety Communications Officials, allow for backward compatibility with
+existing digital and analog systems and provide for interoperability in
+future systems.
+ Since its creation in 1998, ODP has provided assistance to all 50
+States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
+the U.S. territories. Through its programs and initiatives, ODP has
+trained over 575,000 emergency responders from more than 5,000
+jurisdictions and conducted nearly 500 exercises. Since its creation,
+Homeland Security has provided states and localities with over $8.2
+billion in State Homeland Security Grants for the purchase of
+specialized equipment to enhance the capability of state and local
+agencies to prevent and respond to incidents of terrorism involving the
+use of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive
+(CBRNE) weapons; for the protection of critical infrastructure and
+prevention of terrorist incidents; for the development, conduct and
+evaluation of state CBRNE exercises and training programs; and for
+costs associated with updating and implementing each states' Homeland
+Security Strategy. Since 2002, ODP has specifically provided $1.2
+billion in grant assistance to States and local jurisdictions to
+improve interoperability through the purchase of communications
+equipment.
+
+ Questions from the Honorable Christopher Cox
+
+ 1. DHS follows a formula set by Congress, which guarantees each
+State 0.75% of the total amount appropriated to DHS for state and
+terrorism preparedness grants. The rest is allocated based on
+population.
+
+ Question: Why did ODP decide to allocate the remaining 60% based
+solely on population, and not based on other risk/threat/vulnerability
+factors?
+ Response: In the FY 2004 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP),
+OSLGCP used both the USA Patriot Act formula and population numbers
+from the census to establish funding formulas for the 56 states and
+territories. The Administration concurs that a risk/threat/
+vulnerability matrix would be ideal. However, as of early FY2004 the
+state-level data was insufficient to rationally allocate over $2
+billion in grant funds. As a result, DHS continued to use population as
+a `proxy' for risk in allocating HSGP funds. In contrast, DHS did have
+adequate data on risks, threats, and vulnerabilities of major urban
+areas, which informed allocation of the Urban Area Security Initiative.
+The President's Budget for FY 2005 proposes allocating these funds
+based on population concentrations, critical infrastructure, and other
+risk factors.
+
+ Question: Are there plans to incorporate factors other than
+population into the formula for the distribution of the non-UASI
+grants?
+ Response: OSLGCP is presently working with interagency teams on the
+Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8) effort. One of the
+directives within this HSPD states that ``In making allocations of
+Federal preparedness assistance to the States, the Secretary, the
+Attorney General,. . . .and the heads of other Federal departments and
+agencies that provide assistance for first responder preparedness will
+base those allocations on assessments of population concentrations,
+critical infrastructures, and other significant risk factors,
+particularly terrorism threats. . .'' In addition, the President's
+Budget for FY 2005 proposes allocating these funds based on population
+concentrations, critical infrastructure, and other risk factors.
+
+ Question: Why does ODP first allocate funds based on the formula
+and then give additional funds based on population? This gives $2
+million more to the smallest States, above and beyond the percentage
+specified in the Patriot Act.
+ Response: In the FY 2004 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP),
+OSLGCP used both the USA Patriot Act formula and population numbers
+from the census to establish funding formulas for the 56 states and
+territories. The Administration concurs that a risk/threat/
+vulnerability matrix would be ideal. However, as of early FY2004 the
+state-level data was insufficient to rationally allocate over $2
+billion in grant funds. As a result, DHS continued to use population as
+a `proxy' for risk in allocating HSGP funds. In contrast, DHS did have
+adequate data on risks, threats, and vulnerabilities of major urban
+areas, which informed allocation of the Urban Area Security Initiative.
+DHS has been working to improve its state-level data on risks and
+vulnerabilities so that these factors can be incorporated into the FY
+2005 allocation criteria. .
+
+ 2. The necessity of establishing preparedness standards was
+identified by the Committee staff report and highlighted both by HSPD-8
+and H.R. 3266. You provided the Committee with milestones to accomplish
+this goal, among others.
+ Question: You state that by July 31, 2004, the Secretary shall
+establish a ``Universal List of Mission-Essential Tasks for the
+Homeland Security Community.'' How specific will these be? Will it
+address the Committee's concern that each community know the level of
+preparedness it should attain?
+ Response: The Universal Task List (UTL) will define the tasks that
+are essential to the ability to perform homeland security missions, the
+organizations that need to perform them, the condition(s) under which
+they need to be performed (which vary by scenario), and the performance
+standard(s) for the task. As part of its training strategy, DHS/OSLGCP
+developed Emergency Responder Guidelines that identify the essential
+tasks that response agencies must perform to effectively prevent,
+respond to, and recover from a threat or act of terrorism, including
+those involving the use of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear,
+or explosive (CBRNE) weapons. Performance measures for the essential
+tasks are being developed for use in evaluating performance through
+exercises. This approach is readily adaptable to the range of standard
+scenarios provided by the Homeland Security Council.
+ The Universal Task List will then be used to establish Baseline
+Capabilities Lists, which will be tailored by ``tier'' to account for
+differences among jurisdictions based upon population density, critical
+infrastructures, and other significant risk factors. Baseline
+Capabilities Lists, created as part of the National Preparedness Goal
+required by Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-8, will
+provide information to communities on the level of preparedness they
+should attain. Baseline Capabilities Lists will not dictate specific
+resource requirements (i.e., how many pieces of equipment to purchase).
+Rather, they will provide a capability standard that enables a
+jurisdiction to consider resource options available internally and
+through mutual aid to meet that requirement. The jurisdiction
+determines how many resources of what type and kind it needs in order
+to meet the standard. This promotes flexibility and will enable DHS to
+compare approaches and identify best practices. Both the Universal Task
+List and the Baseline Capabilities list are integral to the development
+of the National Preparedness Goal, also required by Homeland Security
+Presidential Directive-8.
+
+ You state that by December 31, 2004, the Secretary shall establish,
+``A Complete Federal Response Capabilities Inventory.'' Can you give us
+an update on the progress of this effort? Will DHS also establish an
+inventory at the State and local level?
+ Response: DHS, through FEMA and the NIC, is conducting a resource
+typing project to standardize descriptions and characteristics of
+common response teams and equipment. Resource typing ensures accuracy
+when incident managers are requesting or providing resources through
+mutual aid. For example, a ``fire department strike team'' will be the
+same, whether it comes from an adjoining city or several states away.
+To date, resource typing is complete for 120 of the most commonly
+exchanged resources, including personnel, teams, and equipment.
+Resource typing provides the foundation for a comprehensive inventory
+of federal, state, and local response assets. States and local
+jurisdictions may use their FY 2005 SHSGP and UASI funds to develop or
+update resource inventories in accordance with FEMA's resource typing.
+At the federal level, DHS, through FEMA, is developing a federal
+inventory of response resources, based on the resource typing
+definitions. A comprehensive resource ordering, tracking, and status
+system is an essential part of the NIMS. The Department must identify
+or develop a resource management system to store the inventory data
+once its collected. In the future, federal, state, and local resource
+inventories may be linked through a common resource management system
+to facilitate mutual aid and the exchange of resources.
+ State and local jurisdictions have inventories of existing
+capabilities and resources. They will be expected to update and compare
+those inventories to the Baseline Capabilities Lists for the
+appropriate Tier, in order to develop their Required Capabilities Lists
+in Fiscal Year 2005. OSLGCP will provide national guidance to the
+States and Urban Area Security Initiative Cities including the Baseline
+Capabilities Lists, organized by Tier, and metrics, after the President
+reviews and approves the National Preparedness Goal. The Baseline
+Capabilities Lists are being created as part of the National
+Preparedness Goal required by Homeland Security Presidential Directive
+(HSPD)-8.
+
+ Question: You state that by September 15, 2004, the Secretary will,
+``Submit National Preparedness Goal to the President, including
+National All-Hazards Preparedness Strategy.'' What type of information
+will be provided by this document? Will the unique needs of terrorism
+preparedness be recognized, in addition to all-hazards preparedness?
+ Response: On September 14, 2004, the Secretary approved a National
+Preparedness Goal (or ``Goal''). The Goal was submitted to the
+President through the Homeland Security Council (HSC) for review and
+approval. Based on feedback from the HSC staff, the Department is
+working on revisions to the Goal. Once the revisions are approved, we
+will resubmit the Goal to the President through the HSC.
+ The purpose of the Goal is to establish a consistent ``national''--
+not Federal--approach to strengthen national preparedness. The Goal
+will define measurable readiness priorities, targets, and metrics for
+the Nation to achieve. Federal, State, local, and tribal entities will
+continue to develop their own readiness priorities, targets, and
+metrics for their respective efforts to support the overarching
+national Goal. Measurable readiness priorities, targets, and metrics
+will help officials at all levels of government to improve strategic
+planning and planning, programming, and budgeting efforts for national
+preparedness.
+ The unique needs of terrorism preparedness have been prioritized in
+the context of all-hazards preparedness. For example, prevention and
+deterrence is identified as a national priority, in accordance with the
+National Strategy for Homeland Security, the Homeland Security Act of
+2002, and other strategic documents.
+
+ Question: How has ODP directed resources and planning towards the
+actual implementation of these milestones?
+ Response: HSPD-8 identifies 16 major requirements for OSLGCP, other
+DHS components, and other Federal departments and agencies. OSLGCP
+coordinates and monitors progress for the DHS-wide effort as part of
+the Department's Strategic Goals, Objectives, and Milestones process,
+managed by the Deputy Secretary. OSLGCP has established a project
+management team and directed OSLGCP managers, subject matter experts,
+and vendor teams to support the effort. With guidance and support from
+the Secretary and the Homeland Security Council, OSLGCP has established
+a Senior Steering Committee and three Integrated Concept Teams with
+representatives from DHS components, other Federal departments and
+agencies, and State and local governments, in order to collaborate on
+the development of a common stakeholder vision for a national
+preparedness strategy, a process to balance the Federal portfolio of
+preparedness investments, a national training and exercise system, and
+a national preparedness assessment and reporting system. Once
+completed, the National Preparedness strategy and plans produced by the
+Integrated Concept Teams will provide further detail on how OSLGCP
+resources will build towards the implementation of HSPD-8 milestones.
+
+ 3. The National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC) develops
+and provides the bulk of ODP training to first responders, but ODP is
+in the process of developing a new competitive training grant program,
+which will allow different entities to develop and provide training.
+ Question: How will ODP coordinate the responsibility for training
+among the NDPC, the new competitive training grant program, and
+training that is developed and administered by state and local
+governments?
+ Response: Over the last two years there has been a surge of
+interest in terrorism preparedness training. In recognition of this
+trend, DHS will meet emerging training needs and fill voids in the
+current training curriculum offered by OSLGCP through the NDPC and
+training partners.. The Competitive Training Grants are coordinated to
+complement the OSLGCP Training Strategy. These training needs were
+explicitly addressed in the grant application notification. .
+ The selection process of Competitive Grant recipients will be based
+on emerging training needs in the national training program. The state
+and local training courses supported by Homeland Security Grant Program
+funds are processed through the OSLGCP Course Approval Process. This
+process has been developed to ensure all courses follow the OSLGCP
+Training Strategy and meet the basic competencies for each level of
+training defined therein. The demand for training nationally requires
+the inclusion of quality and ``to standard'' training within the states
+and UASI areas.
+
+ Question: Which entity will be responsible for which type of
+training?
+ Response: The NDPC will continue to define the standard for the
+training offered by OSLGCP and will focus on the upper levels of
+training, Performance-offensive, and Planning/Management. The
+Competitive Grant Recipients will be held to this same standard for the
+areas of their demonstrated expertise for the courses they submit. The
+states and UASI training is currently focused on the lower two levels
+of competency training, Awareness and Performance-defensive.
+
+ Question: Have you found that States are using an appropriate
+amount of funding for training purposes?
+ Response: At this time there is no definitive data on this.
+Currently there is a mix with some states actively involved in training
+and others not so. Although OSLGCP is further addressing the issue,
+OSLGCP believes that states should be devoting a greater proportion of
+their funds to support training. .
+
+ Question: What is the current status of the development of the
+competitive training grant program?
+ OSLGCP announced the Fiscal Year 2004 Competitive Training Program
+in the spring of 2004. The application period for proposals began on
+April 30, 2004 and closed on June 1, 2004. Two-hundred and nineteen
+competitive applications have been submitted, and the evaluation and
+review of the application is currently underway. Awards under the
+program are expected to be announced in late August, 2004.
+
+ 4. Section 430 of the Homeland Security Act provides ODP with the
+primary responsibility to coordinate training programs at the Federal
+level and to work with state and local governments to prepare for acts
+of terrorism. Moreover, the National Strategy for Homeland Security
+clearly stresses the importance of effective training for first
+responders. Specifically, the Strategy directs the Federal government
+to build a national training and evaluation system.
+ Question: Describe for us the progress ODP has made in coordinating
+terrorism preparedness training programs with other Federal departments
+and agencies? If progress has not been made, why? What do you think can
+be done to correct the problem(s)?
+ Response: ODP is working to coordinate terrorism preparedness
+training programs through various methods. First, as the executive
+agent for the implementation of Homeland Security Presidential
+Directive 8 (HSPD-8) on national preparedness, ODP has developed an
+initial version of a Universal Task List (UTL) for Homeland Security
+based on the 15 illustrative planning scenarios developed by the
+Homeland Security Council. The UTL is intended to capture what
+essential tasks must be performed along the continuum of prevention
+through response and recovery, not how they must be executed. This
+approach will provide the flexibility Federal, regional, State, and
+local organizations require to effectively execute their homeland
+security missions. Most importantly, the UTL will form the basis, along
+with the National Incident Management System (NIMS), National Response
+Plan (NRP), and National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) for a
+common language with respect to preparedness training that has not
+previously existed.
+ ODP is currently completing the development of a tiered Target
+Capabilities List (TCL) required to perform the mission essential tasks
+listed in the UTL. The TCL will help decisionmakers at all levels
+direct their efforts and resources towards building required
+capabilities and will also provide agencies at all levels a common
+reference for analyzing their ability to perform essential tasks and
+determine needs. A Program Implementation Plan and Requirements (PIPR)
+was developed for the Training, Exercises, and Lessons Learned system
+under HSPD-8 by ODP in conjunction with other Federal departments and
+agencies as well as local stakeholders. This plan identified the need
+to map currently existing and developmental training to UTL tasks in
+order to most effectively determine gaps and overlaps in training. The
+PIPR is not currently being executed due to lack of committed
+resources. As an interim measure, ODP is working through the Federal
+Training Resources and Data Exchange group in order to update the
+Compendium of Federal Terrorism Training and provide linkage to UTL
+items. Truly effective coordination requires that a comprehensive
+solution, such as is outlined in the PIPR, be implemented. Based on
+this solution, when a valid performance need is identified through
+training, exercises or lessons learned, the need will be matched to an
+existing training solution or highlight the requirement for new
+training development.
+ The NIC is developing a NIMS National Standard Training Curriculum,
+incorporating DHS and all federal training providers, to ensure that
+there is a comprehensive curriculum to support the NIMS. The NIMS
+National Standard Curriculum is essential to the successful
+implementation of the NIMS at all levels of government, and ensures
+that training support is embraced across the federal government, and
+not only within DHS. The NIC will be meeting with all federal training
+providers in February, including ODP/OSLGCP, to discuss the development
+of a National Standard Curriculum and determine what training programs
+are already available to support the NIMS. OSLGCP grant funding could
+then be used to support the NIMS National Standard Curriculum at the
+State and local levels.
+
+ Question: What role does ODP play in coordinating intra-
+Departmental training? Other Directorates, such as the EP&R
+Directorate, conduct training programs. Please describe the
+coordination between ODP and EP&R.
+ Response: ODP's role in the coordination of intra-Departmental
+training is largely informal at present. It is important to note that
+unlike most of the other entities within the Department, ODP's training
+audience is external to the Department itself. ODP coordination occurs
+through the DHS Training Leaders Council and its subgroups facilitated
+by the Chief Human Capital Office as well as through a Federal group
+called Training Resources and Data Exchange (TRADE). Established in
+early 2001, the TRADE group is a forum for Federal departments and
+agencies to coordinate information on existing and developmental
+training related to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. TRADE
+members include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
+Combating Terrorism Technology Support Office Technical Support Working
+Group, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal
+Bureau of Investigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency (Emergency
+Management Institute and National Fire Academy), Federal Law
+Enforcement Training Center, Health and Human Services Office of Public
+Health Emergency Preparedness, Health Resources and Services
+Administration, Information Analysis/Infrastructure Protection,
+Transportation Security Administration, and USDA Animal Plant Health
+Inspection Service. Since its inception, the Emergency Management
+Institute and National Fire Academy have participated in this group and
+currently more than 30 courses developed by the Federal Emergency
+Management Agency are eligible for the use of ODP formula grant funds
+as reflected in the recently release Fiscal Year 2005 grant guidance.
+ Additionally, ODP is working cooperatively with the Emergency
+Management Institute on a web-based revision of an existing exercise
+design and development course. ODP is also working with the Information
+Analysis / Infrastructure Protection directorate to provide a web-based
+pilot capability of its Workforce Antiterrorism Awareness/Prevention
+course. Additionally, ODP is represented on the advisory committee for
+the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) National Center for
+State and Local Law Enforcement Training. Through ODP's sister
+organization, the Office of State and Local Government Coordination,
+there are also staff members assigned for liaison and coordination with
+each directorate not only for training, but for cross-cutting issues.
+Finally, through the implementation process associated with HSPD-8, ODP
+engages in regular coordination with other intra-departmental
+organizations such as the NIMS Integration Center and the Headquarters
+Operational Integration Staff.
+ The NIMS Integration Center (NIC) is developing a NIMS National
+Standard Training Curriculum, incorporating DHS and all federal
+training providers, to ensure that there is a comprehensive curriculum
+to support the NIMS. The NIMS National Standard Curriculum is essential
+to the successful implementation of the NIMS at all levels of
+government, and ensures that training support is embraced across the
+federal government, and not only within DHS. The NIC will be meeting
+with all federal training providers in February, including ODP/OSLGCP,
+to discuss the development of a National Standard Curriculum and
+determine what training programs are already available to support the
+NIMS. OSLGCP grant funding could then be used to support the NIMS
+National Standard Curriculum at the State and local levels.
+
+ Question: Describe for us the progress ODP has made in working with
+state and local governments in implementing terrorism preparedness
+training programs.
+ Response: The Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) in the Office
+of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP)
+encourages States, territories, and Urban Areas to use funds to enhance
+the capabilities of State and local emergency preparedness and response
+personnel through development of a State homeland security training
+program. Allowable training-related costs under SLGCP grant programs
+include: 1) establishment of chemical, biological, radiological,
+nuclear, and explosives (CBRNE) terrorism and cyber security training
+programs through existing training academies, universities or junior
+colleges; and 2) overtime and backfill costs associated with attendance
+at SLGCP-sponsored and -approved CBRNE and cyber security training
+courses.
+ Homeland Security strategies recently submitted to the Department
+of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP)
+indicate that approximately 3.5 million emergency responders require
+chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (WMD) weapons
+awareness training. In an effort to meet this identified need while
+supporting state and local efforts to institutionalize WMD awareness
+training, ODP developed a standardized WMD awareness training program
+and began implementation in Fall 2004. The goal of this program is to
+provide states and urban areas with a mechanism for delivery and
+sustainment of WMD awareness training for the ten emergency response
+disciplines included in their strategies: emergency management,
+emergency medical service, fire service, government administrative,
+hazardous materials, health care, law enforcement, public
+communications, public health, and public works. The standardized
+awareness curriculum covers basic awareness level training; prevention
+and deterrence of terrorism; chemical and biological weapons agents;
+radiological and nuclear materials and explosive devices; and response
+actions. The program relies on a Train-the-Trainer approach to maximize
+the program's reach and facilitate ongoing efforts to incorporate
+Standardized WMD Awareness Authorized Trainers (SAAT) into state and
+local training programs. Each State and Urban Area will receive these
+sessions for the cadre of trainers they designate, including a minimum
+of three trainers per discipline. Since the program's implementation in
+the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2005, 563 trainers in 14 Urban Areas
+and 11 States have received training.
+ As of December 23, 2004, over 739,000 responders had received ODP
+training through the more than 40 courses in the ODP catalog.
+Recognizing the scope of the training needs at the State and local
+level, ODP is committed to the institutionalization of awareness and
+lower level performance training at those levels. Therefore, ODP is
+focusing its efforts on train-the-trainer programs in these categories.
+Additionally, in Fiscal Year 2005, States and Urban Areas are no longer
+required to request approval for personnel to attend other Federal
+courses related to CBRNE terrorism or non-SLGCP courses that fall
+within the SLGCP mission scope of preparing State and local personnel
+to prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism involving
+CBRNE weapons. States and Urban Areas are instead required to submit
+information via the training section of the ODP website on this
+training which they are supporting with SLGCP funds. This information
+consists of such information as course title, level of the training,
+the training provider, the date of the course, the number of
+individuals to be trained, and the sponsoring jurisdiction. Keeping in
+mind that Federal funds must be used to supplement--not supplant--
+existing funds that have been appropriated for the same purpose, States
+or Urban Areas intending to use SLGCP funds to support attendance at
+non-SLGCP courses must ensure that these courses:
+ Fall within the SLGCP mission scope to prepare State
+ and local personnel to prevent, respond to, and recover from
+ acts of terrorism involving CBRNE weapons;
+ Build additional capabilities that 1) meet a specific
+ need identified through the homeland security assessment
+ process, and 2) comport with the State or Urban Area Homeland
+ Security Strategy;
+ Address the specific tasks articulated in the ODP
+ Emergency Responder Guidelines and the ODP Homeland Security
+ Guidelines for Prevention and Deterrence;
+ Address the specific tasks and capabilities
+ articulated in the Universal Task List and Target Capabilities
+ List, as they become available;
+ Comport with all applicable Federal, State, and local
+ certification and regulatory requirements.
+ Lastly, in Fiscal Year 2004, ODP conducted the Competitive Training
+Grant Program solicitation in 6 issue areas derived from needs
+identified in State Homeland Security Strategies. The 14 awards that
+were made under this program are under development and ODP is currently
+conducting data analysis of State and Urban Area strategies and
+implementation plans to define criteria for the Fiscal Year 2005
+Competitive Training Grant Program solicitation.
+
+ 5. Section 430 of the Homeland Security Act provides ODP with the
+primary responsibility to coordinate exercise programs at the Federal
+level and to work with state and local governments to prepare for acts
+of terrorism.
+ Question: Describe for us the progress ODP has made in coordinating
+terrorism preparedness exercise programs with other Federal departments
+and agencies. Have there been specific instances where terrorism
+preparedness exercises have not been coordinated with ODP or with
+DHS?Response: ODP has made significant strides towards coordinating
+terrorism preparedness exercise programs with other Federal departments
+and agencies. Specifically, the Top Officials (TOPOFF) Exercise Series
+has brought together multiple agencies including the FBI, TSA, FEMA,
+and the DOD. This has resulted in the direct improvement of
+communication, deployment of response personnel, and incident command
+management. Also, ODP sponsored the first ever New England Homeland
+Security Exercise Conference in which FEMA and the TSA discussed
+strategic exercise coordination for the entire northeast region.
+ In order to better ensure collaboration between federal agencies
+that exercise on a regular basis, ODP has established the National
+Exercise Schedule (NEXS). The impetus of the NEXS was directed in
+Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-8, which said, ``All
+Federal departments and agencies that conduct national homeland
+security preparedness-related exercises shall participate in a
+collaborative, interagency process to designate such exercises on a
+consensus basis and create a master exercise calendar''. This calendar
+currently resides with ODP and has all federal level exercises, as well
+as state and local exercises placed in it.
+ Frequently, terrorism preparedness exercises occur without the
+coordination of ODP or DHS. However, the level of standardization
+fluctuates among agencies. As a result, goals are often not met, after
+action reports are inaccurate, and improvement plans fail to offer
+realistic solutions to real world challenges. This is one of the
+reasons why ODP has designed the Homeland Security Exercise and
+Evaluation Program (HSEEP). Ultimately, the goal is to eliminate the
+inconsistencies among agency exercises, and set one national standard
+which mandates participants to raise the bar when it comes to
+conducting exercises.
+
+ Question: Describe for us the progress ODP has made in working with
+state and local governments in implementing terrorism preparedness
+exercise programs. If progress has not been made, why? What do you
+think can be done to correct the problem(s)?
+ Response: ODP has made significant progress towards working with
+state and local governments in implementing terrorism preparedness
+exercise programs. Specifically, the HSEEP has nationally standardized
+exercise requirements and expectations. Additionally, the Exercise
+division has assigned individual exercise manages to specific states
+which has improved accountability and communication. Recently, ODP
+sponsored the first ever New England Homeland Security Exercise
+Conference. All of the New England States presented their exercise
+plans and discussed strategic exercise coordination for the entire
+northeast region.
+ In accordance with (HSPD)-8, ODP has worked with the states to
+write exercise plans which will encompass all of their exercise
+activity over a three year period so they may conduct homeland security
+preparedness-related exercises that reinforce identified training
+standards, provide for evaluation of readiness, and support the
+national preparedness goal. These plans cover the types of exercises
+which will be conducted and synchronize other ODP programs (equipment
+purchases, training) so as to have a maximum effect when conducted. The
+plans assist states to combine exercises from other federal programs
+which the state may be required to conduct. To date, ODP exercises have
+been conducted in maximum collaboration with State and local
+governments and appropriate private sector entities, as prescribed by
+HSPD-8.
+ ODP is developing a robust blended learning training program on
+exercise design as well as how to manage an exercise program, based on
+the HSEEP doctrine. This course will be available to all state and
+local governments so they can implement their own exercise program,
+utilizing ODP grant funding. Delivery of this training will be
+conducted in early in calendar year 2005.
+ Within calendar year 2005, ODP directly delivered over 170
+exercises to states and locals, as well as collaborating with Canada on
+a series of exercises. These exercises involved some Federal
+departments and agencies, but the primary focus was on State and local
+governments and the private sector, so as to encourage active citizen
+participation and involvement in preparedness efforts, so as to keep in
+line with the direction put forth in HSPD-8.
+
+ Questions from the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson
+
+Performance Measures
+ To the Committee's knowledge, there are no studies or metrics that
+determine how much states and localities have improved their
+preparedness for acts of terrorism or what needs remain. A December 31,
+2003, report from the DHS Inspector General (IG) found that, ``DHS
+program managers have yet to develop meaningful performance measures
+necessary to determine whether the grant programs have actually
+enhanced state and local capabilities to respond to terrorist attacks
+and natural disasters.'' An April 2004 report from the IG stated that
+the performance measures that ODP has created, ``. . .do not fully
+address how federal funding has increased preparedness and response
+capabilities.''
+ 1. If DHS cannot measure the Nation's progress towards closing
+ the security gaps-either as a whole or on a state-by-state
+ basis-then what is the basis for the proposed $697 million
+ reduction in grant funds to be distributed by the Office of
+ Domestic Preparedness in FY 2005? No Response has been
+ Recieved.
+ 2. Can you provide details on your progress to date in building
+ the terrorism preparedness capabilities of states and
+ localities, how are you measuring this progress, and what is
+ your timeline for building a ``baseline'' level of preparedness
+ capabilities nationwide? No Response has been Recieved.
+
+Guidelines for Equipment. Training. and Exercises
+ The April IG report also noted that first responders do not have
+clear federal guidelines for equipment, training, and exercises, making
+it difficult to determine their highest priority needs and to decide
+how best to spend grant funds. State officials and first responders
+believed that the development of federal guidelines for first
+responders should be accelerated.
+ 1. What is ODP doing to accelerate the development of
+ guidelines or standards for equipment, training and exercises?
+ No Response has been Recieved. Who in DHS has the lead on
+ developing such guidelines? No Response has been Recieved. When
+ can we expect such guidelines to be completed and made
+ available to state and local entities? No Response has been
+ Recieved.
+ 2. As you are aware, this Committee has passed legislation that
+ would require DHS to develop equipment and training standards
+ for your grant program within a relatively short period of
+ time. Do you support this legislation, and if not, what
+ alternative do you propose to address this shortcoming in the
+ grant program? No Response has been Recieved.
+
+FIRE Grants
+ The FIRE Grant program was created by Congress in order to meet
+basic, critical needs of the fire fighting community--including fire
+engines, portable radios, protective clothing, and breathing
+apparatus--which a December 2002 study by the U.S. Fire Administration
+and the National Fire Protection Association found to be significant.
+The Administration proposing to reduce funding for this program from
+$750 million to $500 million, and is also proposing to shift the focus
+of this program to terrorism preparedness.
+ In addition, the Administration's proposal for the fire grant
+program limits the use of grant funds to only four (4) of the fourteen
+authorized uses. This proposal would have a serious impact on
+prevention programs benefiting both at-risk populations and programs
+designed to improve the health and safety of our firefighters. Further,
+in a report on the FIRE Grant program, the DHS Inspector General
+indicated that a greater emphasis should be placed on funding fire
+prevention activities.
+ 1. Why did the Administration unilaterally decide to request a
+ limit on the use of FIRE grant funds through legislative
+ language, rather than selecting specific grant categories for
+ FY 2005 after consultation with national fire organizations, as
+ has normally been the case? No Response has been Recieved. Even
+ if most past FIRE grants were awarded in these four categories,
+ why are you seeking to limit the flexibility of local fire
+ departments? No Response has been Recieved.
+ 2. How does DHS intend to address the shortcomings in fire
+ prevention activities identified by the Inspector General, if
+ funds are not authorized for this purpose? No Response has been
+ Recieved.
+
+Urban Area Security Initiative
+ Although the President's request increases the amount of
+discretionary grant funds to be distributed based on threats and
+vulnerabilities under the Urban Area Security Initiative, you have yet
+to provide Congressional appropriators and authorizers with a detailed
+explanation of the intelligence information that you are using to
+determine which cities receive these grants, despite the fact that we
+have requested this information. In addition, it still is not at all
+clear how the Department intends to measure progress in building our
+preparedness capabilities nationwide, especially when you are reducing
+funds for the State Homeland Security Grant program by almost $1
+billion.
+ 1. When can we expect the Department to provide this Committee
+ with detailed information that supports your selection of
+ specific cities to receive funds under the Urban Area Security
+ Initiative (UASI)? No Response has been Recieved.
+ 2. If your proposal is approved, how many cities do you expect
+ to receive UASI funds in FY 2005? No Response has been
+ Recieved.
+ 3. In years past, ODP has carved out a portion of UASI funds
+ for specific discretionary grant funds to ports and
+ transportation systems. Do you have plans to carve out any UASI
+ funds for these purposes, and if so, how much money will you
+ set aside? No Response has been Recieved. Why wasn't this part
+ of the budget request to Congress? No Response has been
+ Recieved.
+ 4. Given the recent events in Spain, what was the process for
+ selecting the recipients of mass transit security grant funds
+ under the FY 2004 UASI program? No Response has been Recieved.
+ Did DHS perform any threat or risk assessments to determine the
+ allocation of these funds? No Response has been Recieved. Do
+ you have an estimate on total needs for securing rail and mass
+ transit systems? No Response has been Recieved.
+
+ Pipeline Issues
+ Secretary Ridge has claimed that since September 11, 2001, billions
+of dollars that have been allocated by the federal government have not
+yet reached the intended grantees at the local level. On March 15,2004,
+Secretary Ridge created a task force, chaired by Massachusetts Governor
+Mitt Romney, to recommend ways to improve the efficiency and
+accountability of the ``pipeline'' between DHS and state and local
+grant recipients. Most DHS grants for first responders include
+timelines that require States to pass through a set percentage (often
+80%) of funds to the local level in a specified period (often 60 days).
+ 1. Secretary Ridge and several other senior Department
+ officials have stated that there are billions of dollars stuck
+ in the pipeline, neither in DHS accounts or received at the
+ local level. Why doesn't ODP have the tools in place to know
+ exactly where every dime is? No Response has been Recieved.
+ Will those tools be in place to track the FY 2005 grants? No
+ Response has been Recieved.
+ 2. States have to submit a state plan and an application, both
+ of which are subject to DHS review, before receiving DHS grant
+ funds. I assume that the plan and application say something
+ about how the grant funds will be used. If this is the case,
+ why do DHS grants work by reimbursement, rather than allocating
+ funds? No Response has been Recieved. Doesn't this slow the
+ process down? No Response has been Recieved.
+
+Emergency Management Performance Grant Program
+ The President's budget proposal significantly impacts the Emergency
+Management Performance Grant program; only 25% of grant funds will be
+available to support State and local emergency management personnel
+salaries. At present, up to 100% of these grant funds can be used for
+personnel salaries, if required. A March 2002 survey by the National
+Emergency Management Association found that an additional 5,212 local
+emergency management positions are needed with 3,960 (or 76 percent) of
+those positions being fulltime directors needed to manage the programs.
+ 1. Under Secretary Brown and others have informed this
+ Committee that the limitation on the use of EMPG grant funds
+ for personnel costs will result in increased state and local
+ training and exercises. However, without sufficient,
+ experienced emergency management personnel, how will states and
+ localities be able to participate in additional training and
+ exercise activities? No Response has been Recieved.
+ 2. The organizations representing state and local emergency
+ managers have told us that in light of current budget troubles
+ in most states, the proposed 25% cap would lead to a drastic
+ reduction in the numbers of emergency managers. Given the vital
+ role these managers play, why does the Department want to put
+ them out of work? No Response has been Recieved.
+
+Interoperable Communications
+ Although interoperable communications systems remain a critical
+need for the first responder community, the President's Budget requests
+no funds for grants to enhance interoperability, either in DHS or in
+the Department of Justice COPS program. This budget does not support
+the promises of Secretary Ridge, who has stated that implementing
+interoperable communications systems is a DHS priority, and that, ``we
+all must work together to give them the tools to do their jobs--in a
+way that replaces outdated, outmoded relics with an interoperable,
+innovative and integrated system.''
+ 1. Why hasn't DHS created a separate grant program to meet this
+ critical need? No Response has been Recieved.
+ 2. What percentage of ODP First Responder grant funds are being
+ used for interoperable communications, and what guidance are
+ you providing to grant recipients regarding what systems to
+ purchase? No Response has been Recieved. Do you allow funds to
+ be used for patching and connect or technologies that make use
+ of existing communications infrastructures? No Response has
+ been Recieved.
+ 3. There appears to be some duplication as to what
+ organizations in DHS are responsible for developing,
+ publishing, and updating standards and guidance for
+ interoperable communications systems. How are such standards
+ integrated into your grant programs? No Response has been
+ Recieved. If ODP is responsible for these standards, what is
+ the role of the Science and Technology Directorate and Project
+ SAFECOM? No Response has been Recieved.
+
+National Preparedness Goal. HSPD-8
+ A December 2003 Presidential Directive (HSPD-8) requires the
+Secretary of DHS to develop a national domestic all-hazards
+preparedness goal that will be included in the Secretary's FY 2006
+budget request to the Office of Managent and Budget.
+ 1. How do you intend to develop this goal, and what committees
+ or task forces have you created to begin work on this important
+ project? No Response has been Recieved. What organization
+ within DHS is taking the lead on developing this goal? No
+ Response has been Recieved. What other Federal agencies are
+ involved in this process? No Response has been Recieved.
+ 2. How will state and local governments be involved in the
+ development of this goal? No Response has been Recieved. Unlike
+ the process for developing the National Response Plan, I hope
+ DHS has included state and local representatives in initial
+ discussions and meetings, and that the process is open to other
+ interested parties, such as national standards development
+ organizations.
+ 3. How will this goal be integrated into both your current
+ grant programs and your future budget requests? No Response has
+ been Recieved.
+ 4. When do you expect to be completed with this goal, and will
+ you share your findings with this Committee? No Response has
+ been Recieved.
+
+State and Local Training
+ For FY 2005, the Administration proposes $91.9 million for the
+State and local training program, a $103 million reduction from FY 2004
+levels. Traditionally, National Domestic Preparedness Consortium member
+institutions--who conduct most of ODP's training programs--have paid
+the travel costs of state and local personnel attending training at
+their respective facilities. For FY 2005, the Administration intends to
+require state and local governments to pay these travel costs out of
+State Homeland Security grant funds, and therefore has reduced NDPC
+funding.
+ 1. Doesn't the Administration's proposal create a disincentive
+ for increased participation in training, as state and local
+ governments would be forced to utilize limited State Homeland
+ Security grant funds for travel costs, rather than using the
+ funds for planning, equipment, or exercises? No Response has
+ been Recieved.
+ 2. Doesn't this budget request propose cuts to the training
+ program to shift funding for travel to the State Homeland
+ Security Grant Program, and at the same time, cut that State
+ grant program? No Response has been Recieved.
+
+
+
+