[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS,
SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 10, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-1
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2005
20-053 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-00012005
Committee on Homeland Security
Christopher Cox, California, Chairman
Don Young, Alaska Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Lamar S. Smith, Texas Loretta Sanchez, California
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania, Vice Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Chairman Norman D. Dicks, Washington
Christopher Shays, Connecticut Jane Harman, California
Peter T. King, New York Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
John Linder, Georgia Nita M. Lowey, New York
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Tom Davis, Virginia Columbia
Daniel E. Lungren, California Zoe Lofgren, California
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
Rob Simmons, Connecticut Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Mike Rogers, Alabama Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Islands
Katherine Harris, Florida Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Dave G. Reichert, Washington Kendrick B. Meek, Florida
Michael McCaul, Texas
Charlie Dent, Pennsylvania
______
Subcommitte on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology
Peter T. King, New York Chairman
Lamar S. Smith, Texas Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Loretta Sanchez, California
Rob Simmons, Connecticut Norman D. Dicks, Washington
Mike Rogers, Alabama Jane Harman, California
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Nita M. Lowey, New York
Katherine Harris, Florida Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Dave G. Reichert, Washington Columbia
Michael McCaul, Texas Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
Charlie Dent, Pennsylvania Islands
Christopher Cox, California (Ex Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Officio) Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
(Ex Officio)
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Science, and Technology.......................... 1
The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology................ 3
The Honorable Christopher Cox, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security....................................................... 5
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Committee............................................. 6
The Honorable Donna M. Christensen, a Delegate From the U.S.
Virgin Islands................................................. 45
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Washington........................................ 48
The Honorable Katherine Harris, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Florida........................................... 46
The Honorable Nita M. Lowey, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York.......................................... 49
The Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative in Congress
From the State of California................................... 58
The Honorable Michael McCaul, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Texas............................................. 53
The Honorable Stevan Pearce, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New Mexico........................................ 43
The Honorable Dave G. Reichert, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Washington........................................ 54
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama............................................... 41
The Honorable Loretta Sanchez, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California........................................ 41
The Honorable Curt Weldon, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Pennsylvania.......................................... 50
WITNESSES
The Honorable Penrose ``Parney'' Albirght, Ph.D., Assistant
Secretary, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of
Homeland Security
Oral Statement................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
Mr. Matt A. Mayer, Acting Executive Director, Office of State and
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, Department of
Homeland Security
Oral Statement................................................. 16
Prepared Statement............................................. 18
General Dennis Reimer (Retired), Director, National Memorial
Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism
Oral Statement................................................. 26
Prepared Statement............................................. 28
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Record
Questions and Responses for the Record from the Honorable Penrose
Albright, Ph.D................................................. 64
.................................................................
Questions and Responses for the Record from Mr. Matt Mayer,
Acting Executive Director...................................... 75
ENHANCING TERRORISM
PREPAREDNESS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2005
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Science, and Technology,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Peter King
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives King, Smith, Weldon, Simmons,
Rogers, Pearce, Harris, Reichert, McCaul, Dent, Cox, Pascrell,
Sanchez, Dicks, Harman, Lowey, Norton, Thompson, Christensen,
and Etheridge.
Chairman King. [Presiding.] The Committee on Homeland
Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and
Technology will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
Department of Homeland Security's proposed fiscal year 2006
budget relating to enhancing preparedness for first responders.
The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
Good morning. First, let me welcome our distinguished
witnesses. We certainly appreciate their appearance before us
today. As the Chairman of the subcommittee, it is my pleasure
to convene this morning's hearing on President Bush's fiscal
year 2006 budget plans for the Office of State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness and the Science and
Technology Directorate with respect to enhancing terrorism
preparedness for first responders.
It is important to note that this hearing is the very first
to be held by any subcommittee of the newly established
Committee on Homeland Security. Congress's establishment of a
permanent standing homeland security committee is a victory for
the American public and for our nation. This morning's hearing
is testament to that very fact. I want to thank Chairman Cox
publicly for giving me the opportunity to serve as Chairman of
this vitally important subcommittee. I am certainly looking
forward to continuing my close working relationship with the
Chairman.
Also, I must note that it is to me a great privilege to
have as the Ranking Member of the subcommittee my good friend
from New Jersey, Bill Pascrell. Bill and I have worked together
on many issues, and I have absolutely no doubt that we are
going to forge a very solid working relationship. Obviously, my
door will always be open to him, and I am sure that his will
also be. I just want Bill to know that I look forward to this
opportunity over the next 2 years.
Also, I must say that I am a New Yorker. Like many New
Yorkers, I lost many friends and neighbors on September 11. A
number of them were firefighters and police officers. If we
have learned one thing from that fateful day, it is that the
federal government must support first responders because they
are literally on the frontlines of this terrible international
war against terror.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness,
Science, and Technology, I intend to be active in reforming the
first responder grant process. I intend to be active in
ensuring that our nation invests in the necessary research,
development and transfer of homeland security technology to
states, territories and local governments. I intend to be
active in guaranteeing that the federal government can
effectively respond to acts of terrorism and other catastrophic
emergencies.
The purpose of this hearing is to review the
administration's proposed budget request for fiscal year 2006
and its impact on the preparedness of our nation's first
responders. The hearing also will examine the evolving
relationship between the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness, and the Science and Technology
Directorate. I know that some of my colleagues on the other
side will in good faith point out that the administration's
budget request for fiscal year 2006 does decrease spending on
first responders from fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. This is
a debate which I think can be healthy. We can discuss it in
full, certainly as this hearing goes forward and throughout the
year.
I believe, however, that a slightly lower level of spending
should not be equated with a lack of commitment to first
responders, particularly since the Budget actually authorizes
more than was actually spent in the past fiscal year. Indeed,
no other administration in the history of our great country has
requested more funds for first responders. Since September 11,
2001, the administration and the Congress have made an enormous
investment, over $28 billion, in state and local preparedness
programs. Much of this funding, however, remains unspent. For
fiscal year 2004, for example, states and local governments
have spent only $310 million out of the $2.9 billion
appropriated for the State Homeland Security Grant Program and
the Urban Area Security Initiative. The absence of clear
preparedness guidelines has led to some questionable uses of
terrorism preparedness grants by states and by local
governments.
Rather than merely increasing funding, the administration-
proposed budget attempts to resolve such problems by
fundamentally reforming the grantmaking system. With the
reforms contained in the Faster and Smarter Funding for First
Responders Act, which Chairman Cox championed in the 108th
Congress, the administration intends to allocate the vast
majority of federal terrorism preparedness grants on the basis
of risk and to ensure that states and local governments use
such funding to achieve minimum baseline levels of preparedness
in accordance with the national preparedness goal of Homeland
Security Presidential Directive HSPD-8.
With respect to the budget request for science and
technology, the administration intends to consolidate the
Department's various research, development, testing, and
evaluation activities into the Science and Technology
Directorate. Such a consolidation will create significant
efficiencies which will benefit our nation's first responders.
The budget request also increases funding for S&T Directorate
activities designed to support other directorates and offices,
such as the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate and
the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness.
I look forward to the testimony of Secretary Albright,
Acting Executive Director Mayer, and General Reimer. Now, I
recognize the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Chairman King. It is an honor to
be on this committee and an honor to serve with you and the
rest of the members on both sides here.
I want to welcome our witnesses. You have a tremendous
amount of experience in the very areas that we are going to be
exploring over the coming year. You have really shown great
dedication in each of your roles. I have looked at that very
carefully. I commend the leadership you have each displayed
while working on vital endeavors related to national security.
This subcommittee will certainly benefit from your analysis
and ideas on how to improve the preparedness of our first
responders, and I thank you for that. Indeed, the well being of
our men and women on the frontlines is an issue that is very
close to my heart and all of us on this panel. There are no
greater heroes than those who put themselves in harm's way to
protect us day-in and day-out. There is no greater nobility
than the sacrifices of our firefighters and our police
officers. They endure this for the public good.
That is why I am so honored to serve as the Ranking Member
on this very important committee. With a jurisdictional scope
that includes the oversight of federal support to the first
responders, it is my profound hope that this subcommittee will
have a direct impact on improving the capabilities and lowering
the vulnerabilities, once they are indexed, of our uniformed
personnel nationwide. Toward this goal, I am confident in
asserting that we could not ask for a better Chairman. He knows
I am not a patronizer. Just as much as we work together, we
have battled each other. But I am serious when I say we could
not have a better Chairman.
Peter King and I have worked closely on these matters over
the years. I have seen first-hand what a tireless advocate he
is for those in public safety. He knows that homeland security
should be an utterly non-partisan undertaking. I look forward
to working with him in the months ahead. To be sure, our job,
and the job of each member of the subcommittee, will be to keep
watchful eye on how the Department of Homeland Security
contributes to state and local government preparedness and
response, starting of course with the 2006 budget. I am
heartened to see that the administration's budget request
recommends replacement of the formula that has dictated the
allotment of state homeland security grants. We have had a lot
of discussion on that, and discussion and discussion.
The proposal gives the Department of Homeland Security more
discretion in grant allocation in order to achieve a more risk-
based funding system. This is what we should be all about,
risk-based regardless of what subcommittee, regardless of what
the overall committee does. This, I think, has to be the major
criteria for what we do. What is at risk? What is most
vulnerable? As you know, this committee has worked hard to
ensure that homeland security money is based on threats,
consequences, and vulnerabilities, and not pork. I applaud the
administration for the steps they have now taken. The two
formulas that we hopefully will take a look at is the overall
formula, which I have just mentioned and alluded to, and also
the urban area security initiatives, which deals very
specifically with the cities that are eligible for such funds
in this program.
I would even consider, Mr. Chairman, hopefully that we will
take a look at the threshold of those cities, and perhaps look
at smaller cities that are more vulnerable, that are just as
vulnerable. Why shut them out because they do not have millions
of people? I do not think that makes sense.
Of course, there are certain aspects of the budget that I
find disappointing, like in every budget. It probably comes as
no surprise that I take particular issue, and I know members of
this panel take particular issue, and I do not speak for them,
I speak for myself, with the 30 percent cut, $215 million in
funding the very basic Fire Act, the federal program that
provides equipment, training, and staffing to local fire
departments. Just in this past round, 20,300 applications $2.4
billion, and we could fund only $650 million. This has been a
successful program, and I must recognize my brother in this,
who has led the fight, really, Curt Weldon, and the job that he
has done.
These reductions represent a continuing pattern in which
the President has either not included any funding for the Fire
Act, going back 3 years, or substantially reduced funding below
what Congress, in a bipartisan way, appropriated the prior
year. Both Republicans and Democrats have championed providing
sufficient resources for the Fire Act and the SAFER Act, the
program that provides funding to add firefighters to local
departments, career and volunteer. It is my hope that members
of this committee can help bring the funding for emergency
preparedness in our nation's communities up to the levels that
address the major shortages we see in more than two-thirds of
the communities in our country. From grant funding to
dissemination of intelligence, from the development of improved
equipment, to guidance in training and technical assistance,
the federal government has many ways to support our hometown
heroes.
I am excited to assist and oversee these efforts in my role
on the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and
Technology, and look forward to working with all my colleagues
in the months ahead. I am proud to serve with Chairman Cox and
proud to serve with Ranking Member Bennie Thompson. This is
going to be a very different committee, I suspect, than what we
have seen over the last year-and-a-half. So Chairman King, it
is an honor to serve with you.
Chairman King. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
his thoughtful comments, and for the input I know he is going
to make throughout the year on this subcommittee. Now, I
recognize the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Cox.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For our distinguished
witnesses, we had a discussion yesterday in the full committee
about the committee's rules and the way we are going to use
opening statements. Based on the way that discussion went
yesterday, I do not think I am going to abuse the privilege
that I have as Chairman of the full committee to make a lengthy
opening statement.
I do want, however, to begin by congratulating Peter King
and Bill Pascrell for taking over the helm of this
subcommittee. Under your leadership, I know that the Congress
is going to do its job, and that the country is going to be
safer. I appreciate your willingness to do this. The public is
going to be well served by your diligence and your inspired
leadership.
I also want to say that it is fitting that the first
hearing of this subcommittee is focused on how the
administration's budget is going to make the job of first
responders more effective and more successful. The
administration's budget and this committee's first responder
legislation are both focused on trying to move, as Mr. Pascrell
said, away from a formulaic approach and towards a threat-based
and risk-based approach to first responder funding allocations.
I congratulate the department and the President for his budget,
and the fact that it decreases the formula amount of federal
funding that each state would receive under the State Homeland
Security Grant Program, in order to make it possible to
increase the amount of money that goes according to risk. We
have a lot more to do in this area.
The second thing I would note is that the administration's
budget request also proposes to consolidate all the
department's homeland security research, development, testing,
and evaluation activities within the S&T Directorate. The
President intends to consolidate these activities of the
Transportation Security Administration, the Coast Guard, the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and the Information
Analysis Infrastructure Protection Directorate. The
administration's budget request also proposes to improve the
level of technical and research support that the S&T
Directorate provides to other directorates and offices. That
falls squarely within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee,
and I know, Mr. Chairman and our Ranking Member, that we will
focus on that beginning today.
So thank you very much to our witnesses. Welcome to all the
members of this committee. Welcome to the Vice Chairman of the
full committee, Mr. Weldon, whose interest in the subject of
this subcommittee is well known, as Mr. Pascrell points out.
Just looking across the desk here at the Democratic and
Republican members, this is quite a group and we are very much
looking forward to working with all of you and the
administration and in the private sector.
Chairman King. I thank the Chairman for his statement. The
Chairman in his statement mentioned the fact that we adopted
rules yesterday. Seeing the Chairman here reminds me that one
of those rules is the absolute prohibition on the use of cell
phones in the room. So I would just advise those of you in the
audience that the committee rules prohibit the use of cell
phones in the committee room during the hearing.
With that, I recognize the Ranking Member of the full
committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman King, Ranking Member
Pascrell, Chairman Cox. To the members who are witnesses today,
we are happy to have you. This is our maiden voyage as a
permanent committee and subcommittee. I look forward to your
testimony.
I am a former volunteer fireman. I had 20 years experience
before I came to Congress. I got up at all times of the
morning, and delivered six babies in my tenure. One of them
happened to be named after me. I guess it was a successful
delivery. Nonetheless, I have a deep and abiding feeling for
those who volunteer to do good. In that spirit, one of the
things I am very concerned about is, as our good men and women
get up early in the morning to go out to do these things, are
they properly trained. Can they run upon something that they
absolutely are ill-prepared to deal with, and ultimately hurt
themselves in the effort to try to help others?
So I really want us to look at this issue. It is an issue
that is dear to me. So today, we have to start the process of
seeing how we do that. I am concerned, first of all, because it
looks like we are $215 million short in our budget request from
last year. I think that is a real problem. We have to put the
resources there. We have to have planning and training going on
at all times. I am concerned that, like when I was a volunteer
fireman going to an incident, nobody could talk to each other
until you got to the scene. It was a real problem. We needed
equipment that we could not tell others to bring.
Interoperability continues to be a problem. I am interested in
seeing and hearing from the administration as to how we plan to
correct this documented problem.
Apart from that, there is a Presidential Directive Number
8, that talks about all of the things that we are supposed to
do that are still going unmet. So there are some challenges
that I am convinced that this subcommittee, and ultimately the
committee, will have to address.
I am happy that General Reimer is here as our witness. I
look forward to his expert testimony. Good morning; happy to
have you, and apart from that, the administration witnesses
also. Likewise, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, I am happy
to be here, and I look forward to the beginning of the new
committee. Thank you very much.
Chairman King. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
I had always known that the gentleman from Mississippi
delivered for his constituents. I did not realize he carried it
to such a level as delivering babies. I really want to commend
you on that.
I want to welcome our witnesses today. We have Dr. Parney
Albright, who is Assistant Secretary of the Science and
Technology Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security;
Mr. Matt Mayer, the Acting Executive Director of the Office of
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness in the
Department; and also General Dennis Reimer, Director of the
National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism.
As I see the schedule for today, I believe we have our
first series of votes at 11:30 a.m. We are going to ask each of
the witness if they could strive to keep their remarks within
the 5-minute limit. Obviously, we are not going to strictly
enforce, but to the extent you can, it will allow members of
the panel more opportunities to ask questions and you to expand
on your testimony.
With that, the Chair recognizes Dr. Albright.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PENROSE ``PARNEY'' ALBRIGHT
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Albright. Good morning, Chairman Cox, Chairman King,
Congressman Pascrell, Congressman Thompson and other
distinguished members of the committee. I am pleased to appear
before you today to discuss progress the Science and Technology
Directorate is making in the nation's efforts to improve the
emergency preparedness and response capabilities of our
nation's first responders.
Our nation relies on a large and diverse responder
community who face new challenges of a complexity never before
imagined. Improving their effectiveness in protection through
innovative, affordable technologies is at the very heart of the
mission of the Department of Homeland Security. The creation of
the Department of Homeland Security has brought under one roof
a new Science and Technology Directorate, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness, which includes the Office of
Domestic Preparedness.
The deep collaboration between organizations, along with
the first responder community and other federal agencies, are
critical to the successful deployment of new technologies to
the local response community. S&T has worked extensively with
the first responder community to understand user requirements
and operational constraints. We are continuing to work with the
Memorial Institute for Prevention of Terrorism's Project
Responder and the many hundreds of first responders and
emergency managers throughout the country who freely gave of
their time and energy to MIPT in setting and prioritizing our
research and development goals. I want to commend General
Reimer for his leadership of the MIPT.
Two presidential directives, HSPD-8 and HSPD-5 that have
already been mentioned this morning, provide the foundation for
S&T's research programs to enhance preparedness for first
responders. We have engaged industry, academia, and our federal
and international partners in creating and implementing our
research and development strategy. We are identifying and
developing relevant emergency response technology. We are
facilitating the integration of interoperable and compatible
all-hazard emergency response technology into local
communities. And we are developing and coordinating the
adoption of national standards to meet the homeland security
needs.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to elaborate on
each of these activities. With respect to emergency respond
technology, the Science and Technology Directorate is
developing improvements in protection from chemical and
biological hazards for firefighter turnout gear, improving
cooling vests and other protective equipment. This effort
includes the use of innovative signs, such as nanotechnologies,
to provide protection against a multitude of hazards and
improve overall system performance. We are also developing a
unified incident command and decision support system to manage
personnel, direct equipment, and communicate any mission-
critical information needed by incident commanders and
emergency responders during a situation.
We have engaged in the development of a technology
clearinghouse which will not only facilitate research and
development efforts, but will also provide information of
direct and more immediate use to emergency responders. It will
leverage and continue to partner with the excellent work of ODP
and MIPT to enable first responders to access important
information on existing and emerging technologies, training in
relevant standards through a single knowledge portal.
An example of our technology integration activities is the
Regional Technology Insertion Initiative, RTI, which focuses on
making our cities safer and more resilient to attack on certain
technologies to enhance local preparedness. In 2004, we
initiated this with four pilot cities. The RTI initiative is a
collaborative effort between the S&T Directorate and ODP's UIC
initiative. The RTI demonstration program focuses directly on
the needs of the community by examining the entire system life-
cycle at an operational level. The lessons learned from these
demonstrations will be migrated to other urban areas throughout
the country.
Our standards program strives to enable the first responder
community to make informed equipment purchases by linking
federal grants programs to compliance with the minimum
performance standards. The standards program is currently
focused on standards for chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear and explosive detection, personal protective equipment,
and urban search and rescue robots.
Non-interoperable and incompatible equipment and a lack of
standardized procedures for their operation are issues that
have plagued the public safety community for decades. To
address these issues, the S&T Directorate's Office of
Interoperability and Compatibility will coordinate and leverage
the vast range of interoperability programs and related efforts
across the government, and will identify and promote best
practices, minimize duplication in programs and spending, and
coordinate relevant federal activities.
Recent activities include issuing a national statement of
requirements, the first-ever document to define in detail what
kinds, how much, and under what circumstances the first
responders need interoperability. We have conducted RapidCom,
an initiative that accomplished in barely 150 days to
strengthen the ability of 10 high-threat urban areas to
establish interoperability at the command level in 1 hour or
less in a major incident. By working closely with ODP and other
federal grant programs, we have incorporated common grant
guidance in all federal grant programs that touch or may touch
on interoperability to ensure that federal grants are not
working at cross-purposes and hindering, rather than helping,
efforts to achieve interoperability.
S&T has worked hard to ensure next-generation capabilities
are effectively integrated in the response community, and value
our close working relationships with FEMA, ODP and the response
community. We are confident that with your continued support,
lives and property will not be lost because emergency response
agencies lack appropriate equipment or are unable to
communicate or do not have the effective training and education
technologies.
I would be happy to address any questions from this
committee.
[The statement of Mr. Albright follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. PENROSE C. ALBRIGHT
Introduction
Good morning Chairman Cox, Congressman Thompson and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you today to
discuss the progress the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate is
making in the nation's efforts to improve the emergency preparedness
and response capabilities of our nation's first responders.
Our nation relies on a large and diverse responder community.
Today's responders face a spectrum of threats of a complexity never
before imagined. Helping our responders to be more effective and better
protected through innovative, affordable technologies is at the very
heart of the mission of the Department of Homeland Security.
I want to acknowledge up front the importance of our partnerships
with the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness (OSLGCP) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). Bringing these agencies together in one Department has enabled
strong collaboration between the agencies, and the S&T Directorate is
intimately intertwined with both OSLGCP and FEMA on emergency responder
issues. The strategic alliances between our organizations are critical
to the successful deployment of new technologies to the local response
community. Along with the first responder community and other Federal
agencies, these organizations are instrumental in the development of
our research requirements through our Science and Technology
Requirements Council (SRC). I want to thank both groups publicly for
their participation in the SRC and for their cooperation with the S&T
Directorate throughout all stages of our research, development, testing
and evaluation process.
National Policy for Emergency Response Capability
President Bush has made strengthening the nation's emergency
response capability a national priority. Homeland Security Presidential
Directive (HSPD)-5, Management of Domestic Incidents, resulted in the
creation of a National Response Plan (NRP) to integrate Federal
prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation plans into
one all-discipline, all-hazard approach to domestic incident
management. The NRP, using the National Incident Management System
(NIMS), will provide the core organizational structure and operational
mechanisms for Federal support to State and local authorities. HSPD-8,
National Preparedness, established policies to strengthen the
preparedness of the United States by requiring a national all-hazards
preparedness goal, establishing mechanisms for improved delivery of
Federal preparedness assistance to State and local governments, and
outlining actions to strengthen preparedness capabilities of Federal,
State, and local entities. These two policy documents provide the
foundation for the S&T Directorate's Research, Development, Testing &
Evaluation (RDT&E) programs to enhance preparedness for first
responders and provide the core objectives of the nation's emergency
preparedness and response efforts:
The National Incident Management System (NIMS)--This
system provides a consistent nationwide approach for
Federal, state, and local governments to prepare for,
respond to, and recover from domestic incidents,
regardless of cause, size, or complexity. To provide
for interoperability and compatibility among Federal,
state, and local capabilities, the NIMS will include a
core set of concepts, principles, terminology, and
technologies covering the incident command system;
multi-agency coordination systems; unified command;
training; identification and management of resources
(including systems for classifying types of resources);
qualifications and certification; and the collection,
tracking, and reporting of incident information and
incident resources.
The National Preparedness Goal--The national
preparedness goal will establish readiness priorities
and targets for terrorist attacks, major disasters, and
other emergencies. These will lay the foundation for
the more detailed readiness metrics and element,
including standards for preparedness assessment and
strategies, as well as a system for assessing the
nation's overall preparedness.
The Science and Technology Directorate's Efforts for Emergency Response
Capability
The Department of Homeland Security, through the S&T Directorate,
has the mission to ensure that the nation has an enduring capability to
address current and emerging threats through scientific achievement.
The S&T Directorate engages industry, academia, and our Federal and
international government partners in creating and implementing a robust
research strategy. In partnership with our DHS counterparts,
operational end users, and collaborative research partners, we have
already made significant strides in improving our nation's resilience
to catastrophic incidents. The nation's first responder community will
be a primary beneficiary of this work.
The Science and Technology Directorate has the responsibility to
support the achievement of the above objectives by:
Identifying and developing relevant emergency
response technology systems solutions;
Facilitating the integration of interoperable
and compatible ``all-hazard'' emergency response
technology into Federal, state and local emergency
response infrastructures;
Developing and coordinating adoption of
national standards to meet homeland security needs; and
Providing the science and technology
leadership and support for the implementation of HSPD-5
and HSPD-8.
The Science and Technology Directorate focuses on the following
areas to meet those requirements:
Emergency Preparedness and Response Technology
Development;
Technology Integration;
Standards; and
Interoperability and Compatibility.
Now I will discuss each of these areas in detail, including fiscal
year 2004 accomplishments, fiscal year 2005 programs in progress and
fiscal year 2006 plans.
Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP&R) Technology Development
Emergencv Responder Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Safety,
time, and operational effectiveness are among the most precious
commodities to emergency response and homeland security operations
professionals. Currently, a variety of protective garments and systems
tailored specifically for their individual areas of expertise and
occupational environments are in use.
In fiscal year 2004, the S&T Directorate, through its Emergency
Preparedness and Response R&D (EP&R) portfolio, began an R&D program to
achieve near-term improvements in protection from chemical and
biological hazards for firefighter turnout gear, cooling vests and
other protective equipment. In addition to our long-term research
investments, DHS has developed strong partnerships with other Federal
agencies and public and private sector organizations; these
partnerships have allowed us to leverage efforts already underway, such
as: a prototype 3-D locator that allows incident commanders to track
responders and their health, cooling vests, ``Smart Cards'' to allow
rapid identification of on-scene emergency personnel, and the ``Heads
Up'' display that will allow firefighters to identify people and
objects through smoke and debris.
In fiscal year 2005, our focus is on the development and
application of revolutionary materials and technologies that can be
used in multi-hazard environments, are applicable to diverse users, and
function as an integral part of a more complex personal protection
system. We have issued a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) to solicit
ideas from industry, academia and others on ways to achieve better
personal protection systems. Our focus is on the innovative materials
that incorporate surface science, nanotechnologies and other
advancements to create materials that are lighter-weight, have the
ability to withstand the challenges of strenuous activity in unstable
and uncertain conditions and provide protection against a multitude of
hazards. In addition to actual technology development for PPE, we will
also continue our partnership with OSLGCP and other Federal agencies in
the development of a Technology Clearinghouse ``hub and spoke'' concept
to enable first responders to access important information on existing
and emerging technologies, training, and relevant standards through a
single knowledge portal.
In fiscal year 2006, the portfolio will demonstrate several
revolutionary and highly innovative materials for emergency personal
protective equipment (PPE) applications. We will demonstrate prototype
materials and technologies that can that can be made into functional
garments or integrated personal protective systems. Solutions will be
sought for:
materials that can be used in diverse
applications;
materials that can provide protection during
response to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear
and explosive (CBRNE) events;
materials that are self-decontaminating
against chemical and biological agents, provide
localized protection for complex organs susceptible to
radiation exposure, and are self healing upon being
compromised (e.g., ripped, tom); and
materials with increased service life and
flame resistance.
In addition to material prototypes, sensors and detectors capable
of detecting and alerting responders to CBRNE hazards in real-time will
be tested and evaluated as an integral part of the emergency responder
ensemble.
Unified Incident Command and Decision Support: Unified Incident
Command and Decision Support (UICDS) is the ability to manage
personnel, direct equipment, and seamlessly communicate, gather, store,
redistribute, and secure any mission critical information needed by
incident commanders and emergency responders during an emergency
situation. Our research and development program in UICDS uses a systems
approach to seek to harness innovative ideas in an effort to create an
information management and sharing architecture specifically designed
to meet the needs of incident commanders and emergency responders
throughout the nation. This program will confront the technical
challenges associated with the development of an innovative, modular,
scaleable, and secure information management architecture. The
resulting UICDS information management system will enable incident
commanders to capture and analyze important incident related
information, more effectively disseminate mission critical information
to emergency responders and provide highly enhanced situational
awareness for individual responders and emergency responder teams.
In early fiscal year 2005, the S&T Directorate solicited conceptual
designs through a BAA and selected four proposals that offer viable
means to incorporate improved capabilities. These selected proposals
support an open architecture that is compliant with the NIM:S and can
be used at all levels of government for emergency response, situational
awareness and threat assessment. By the end of fiscal year 2005, the
Directorate will evaluate the conceptual designs and down-select to
two.
In fiscal year 2006, the S&T Directorate will perform Advanced
Technology Demonstrations for these two conceptual designs to further
evaluate system performance and interoperability. Future Advanced
Concept Demonstration Projects will take advantage of capabilities
developed in other Federal agencies and adapt them to operating
environments of emergency responders. New systems will accommodate and
integrate other technology advances for first responder such as the
three-dimensional tracking device mentioned earlier. These systems will
assist in creating a holistic picture for the incident commanders.
Extensions of this technology development goal include two-way
communications, health and biometric monitoring, and visualization.
Simulation Based Training and Education: Advanced simulation and
modeling capabilities are key enabling technologies to improve hazards
preparedness for emergency responders. Our current emphasis is on the
use of simulation-based training for incident management and
facilitating efforts to implement HSPD-5 and HSPD-8. The results of
this research will provide a more cost effective training and exercise
capability for large-scale, multi-jurisdictional incidents and will
facilitate the implementation of the NIMS and the National Preparedness
Goal. Simulation based systems will place users in realistic
environments and in interactive situations and will support all
elements of the NIMS.
In fiscal year 2004, the EP&R portfolio identified requirements
through interaction with the responder community. We have enlisted the
assistance of the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism,
the National Institute of Justice in the Department of Justice, and the
Department of Defense in identifying needs and capability gaps. In
collaboration with OSLGCP, FEMA and other Federal partners, the S&T
Directorate has developed a strategy to use advanced technologies to
enhance training and exercises that already exist or will be created by
OSLGCP and others.
In fiscal year 2005, the S&T Directorate will focus on improving
existing simulation capabilities to facilitate planning, execution and
evaluation of training and exercise programs at Federal, state and
local levels.
In fiscal year 2006, S&T will conduct demonstrations of conceptual
designs to better understand functional requirements and operational
constraints for large and complex incidents that cross jurisdictions.
Technology Integration
Interagencv Modeling and Atmospheric Analysis Center (JMAAC): The
IMAAC is a DHS-Ied capability that provides for a single Federal
hazards prediction for airborne release of hazardous material. The
IMAAC coordinates Federal atmospheric modeling and provides hazards
predictions and consequence assessment support to Federal, state and
local responders for incidents of national significance.
In fiscal year 2004, the IMAAC began operation, to support the
National Exercise Program and special events, such as the Democratic
and Republican National Conventions. The IMAAC established connectivity
to the DHS Operations Center and the FEMA National Emergency Operations
Center to provide near real time hazards predictions for airborne
releases.
In fiscal year 2005, the IMAAC will select a suite of products and
implement a process for verification and validation, accreditation of
atmospheric transport and dispersion models to be used in support of
real world operations. The EP&R portfolio will further refine the IMAAC
concept of operations and define scientific research programs necessary
to fully support Federal, state and local responders during incidents
of national significance. IMAAC will improve its response capability
and provide outreach and training to Federal, state and local emergency
response organizations through participation in the National Exercise
Program.
In fiscal year 2006, the EP&R portfolio will enhance IMAAC
capabilities by leveraging Federal resources to provide a venue for
collaborative research, development, testing and evaluation of
atmospheric transport and dispersion (AID) models for hazards
predictions. IMAAC will host researchers from throughout the nation at
its facility and will also participate in virtual collaboration both
nationally and internationally. IMAAC researchers will seek to improve
AID modeling systems to routinely quantify uncertainties, improve
spatial and temporal scale interactions, and incorporate new
measurement technologies to better characterize the urban environment.
IMAAC will explore the feasibility of using data from remote sensing
platforms and meso-nets into ATD models. The portfolio will initiate
research and development in support of other modeling and assessment
requirements including other transport mediums, such as water.
The Regional Technology Integration (RTI) Initiative: RTI
Initiative, formerly known as ``Safe Cities'' focuses on making our
cities safer and more resilient to attack. Implemented in fiscal year
2004, the RTI initiative is a collaborative effort between the S&T
Directorate and the OSLGCP Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). The
RTI demonstration program focuses directly on the needs of the
community and uses a ``bottoms up'' approach to community-based
assessment. The program examines the entire system life cycle at an
operational level, including system effectiveness, human interface,
operations & maintenance, training, and implementation strategies (ie.,
regional. vs. local).
In fiscal year 2005, the program will complete its initial
assessments in four pilot cities and develop technology system
solutions. Also in fiscal year 2005, we will begin the solution phase,
which includes deployment of advanced homeland security technologies
that can be integrated with existing legacy systems and the support of
strategic plans developed for these pilot communities as part of the
UASI grants program.
In fiscal year 2006, the EP&R portfolio will complete
implementation in the first four pilot locations, prepare test and
evaluation plans and conduct operational readiness exercises to
evaluate the overall system performance. Technology systems such as
atmospheric monitoring, detection systems for chemical and biological
toxins, and radiological detection equipment will be integrated with
existing emergency response and traffic management infrastructures and
the Intelligent Transportation System such that a community can create
a virtual emergency operations center. Incorporating these detection
systems with modeling and simulation capability for traffic and
population as well as atmospheric and water dispersion models will
enable local communities to quickly identify terrorist and other major
events and respond more effectively. In addition, using the lessons
learned from the pilot projects, the EP&R portfolio, in collaboration
with FEMA and OSLGCP, will select additional RTI candidate locations.
The Assessment Phase for the next RTI cities will begin in fiscal year
2006.
Standards for Emergency Preparedness and Response
The Science and Technology Directorate has a role and
responsibility to ensure the effectiveness, efficiency, and
interoperability of the tools, technologies, and systems developed for
and used by the emergency preparedness and response community. By
setting consistent and verifiable measures of effectiveness for basic
functionality, minimum performance, interoperability, efficiency,
sustainability, and appropriateness and adequacy for the task,
standards will improve the quality and usefulness of homeland security
systems and technologies. The Science and Technology Directorate's
Standards Program strives to enable the first responder community to
make informed equipment purchases by linking Federal equipment grants
programs to equipment certification and compliance with minimum
performance standards.
The primary activities of the Standards Program in the emergency,
response, and preparedness arena include the promulgation of standards
for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE)
detection equipment; for CBRNE personal protective equipment; and for
urban search and rescue robots. In addition, the program is focused on
supporting ongoing communications standards development for Federal
operational activities as well as coordinating and supporting standards
development activities related to the implementation of the NIM:S.
This program also conducts activities in order to meet the
requirement of the SAFETY (Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering
Effective Technologies) Act in developing certification standards for
technologies related to homeland security.
Standards for CBRNE Countermeasures: The primary focus for
Standards for CBRNE countermeasures has been CBRNE detection technology
performance standards. In fiscal year 2004 and early fiscal year 2005,
an interagency task force was formed to. address the controversy over
the effectiveness and use of lateral flow immunoassays for the
detection of Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) by emergency responders. The
accepted criteria for performance were published as well as testing and
evaluation results of all participating commercially available hand-
held unmunoassays.
In addition, the program supported the evaluation of a five step
method to pre-screen suspicious powders through an effort with Edgewood
Chemical Biological Center (ECBC) and OSLGCP's Center for Domestic
Preparedness (CDP). An effort was also initiated with CDP to develop a
Bio-Protocol for first responders to use to guide their response to a
suspicious powder incident. In the area of radiological and nuclear
detection, four American National Standards Institute standards were
developed to provide performance specifications for four different
types of radiation detection equipment. To date, 63 different models of
radiation detection equipment have been tested to the standards. The
results of all of the radiation detector testing will be made available
to the first responder community in March 2005.
In fiscal year 2006, the Standards Program will continue to utilize
interagency working groups to reevaluate requirements and prioritize
needs for CBRNE countermeasures standards. The portfolio will focus on
developing sampling protocols and guidelines and standardized sample
triage methods for CBRNE countermeasures. In addition, the development
of performance standards for two additional radiation detection
technologies (spectroscopic portal monitors and active interrogation
devices) will be completed. Finally, the program will evaluate the
needs for standards for emerging CBRNE countermeasures technologies
including CBRNE point detectors; CBRNE stand off detectors and urban
surveillance technologies such as Bio Watch, CBRNE facility monitors,
and water distribution monitors.
Standards for Personal Protective Equipment for First Responders:
In fiscal year 2004 and 2005, the Standards Program supported the
development of eight personal protective equipment standards including
three National Institute for Occupation Safety and Health (NIOSH)
respiratory protection standards, one National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) respiratory protection standard, and four NFPA
protective clothing standards. To date, 52 separate models of
respirators have been certified as compliant with the four DHS adopted
standards addressing respiratory protection equipment. And, standards
set by the S&T Directorate will be incorporated into the grant
guidelines governing the type of equipment that can be purchased with
OSLGCP's grant funds.
In fiscal year 2006, the Standards Program will continue
development of standards for current CBRNE personal protective
equipment specifically focusing on completing the suite of respiratory
protection equipment standards to include powered air purifying
respirators, closed-circuit self contained breathing apparatus,
supplied air respirators and combination respirators.
Standards for Urban Search and Rescue Robots (US&R): In fiscal year
2004 and fiscal year 2005, the Standards Program initiated the
development of comprehensive standards related to the development,
testing, and certification of effective robotic technologies for urban
search and rescue (US&R). Several workshops have been held with the
representatives from the FEMA US&R task forces to gather requirements
for the standards. The US&R robotics standards will include evaluation
of sensing, mobility, navigation, planning, integration, and operator
interaction with search and rescue robot systems, as well as ensuring
that the robots can meet operational requirements.
In fiscal year 2006, the program will work to complete the
development and adoption of a suite of standards to address US&R robot
performance.
Standards to Support both the National Incident Management System
(NIMS)and SAFECOM: In fiscal year 2005, the Standards Program
established a formal relationship with FEMA's National Incident
Management Systems (NIMS) Integration Center (NIC) to clarify roles and
responsibilities for standards development to support NIMS. In
addition, the portfolio worked with the NIC to support a preliminary
standards needs analysis for NIMS.
In fiscal year 2006, the program will maintain our relationship
with the NIC, prioritize standards development efforts and adopt
currently available standards to support the NIC, and initiate efforts
to develop high priority standards related to incident management. In a
similar manner, the Standards Program will support the SAFECOM Program
which has initiated efforts to develop standards to support and
supplement interoperable communications standards.
Office of Interoperability and Compatibility
Non-interoperable and incompatible equipment and a lack of
standardized procedures for their operation are issues that have
plagued the public safety community for decades. To address these
issues, the S&T Directorate's Office for Interoperability and
Compatibility (OIC) will work with the NIC to coordinate the Federal
response to the challenges of inter operability and compatibility. By
coordinating and leveraging the vast range of interoperability programs
and related efforts across DHS, the OIC will help the Department
identify and promote best practices, minimize duplication in programs
and spending, and coordinate relevant Federal activities.
The OIC will expand the Federal Interoperability Coordination
Council (FICC) to include all aspects of inter operability relevant to
homeland security. Members of the FICC include those agencies that
provide grants to state and local agencies, such as DHS and the
Department of Justice; those that need to interoperate with each other
or with state and local agencies, such as DHS, DOJ, USDA, DOI, and DoD;
and standards-making and regulatory organizations, such as the Federal
Communications Commission and the National Institute for Standards and
Technology.
The OIC is creating a series of new programs in collaboration with
existing efforts to address the interoperability and compatibility
issues related to the emergency response provider and homeland security
community. Initial programs include interoperability and compatibility
issues related to:
Communications (working with the Safety
Wireless Communications and Interoperability [SAFECOM]
Program;
Equipment; and
Training.
Achieving full interoperability and compatibility is truly a
national endeavor. The Department of Homeland Security's Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Justice's
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) office have partnered to
coordinate more than $230 million appropriated by Congress for grants
specifically to address interoperability. Additionally, since 2001,
FEMA has been the Federal lead for the President's Disaster Management
initiative. This interagency effort, is a critical government-wide
initiative that directly improves the ability of our nation's first
responders to communicate and share information at all levels of
government. The Disaster Management initiative provides one-stop access
through the disasterhelp.gov portal for all Federal disaster
management-related information, services, and planning and response
tools. There are currently over 1,030 user groups in 50 states using
this tool and it has been used to respond to over 40 real-world
incidents, including Hurricane Isabel in September 2003 and the
California wildfires. SAFECOM and OIC will continue to partner with the
Disaster Management initiative in coordination of standards development
and outreach to the first responder community. Also, in fiscal year
2004, total State allocations for interoperable communications projects
from OSLGCP's Homeland Security Grants Program funds totaled $762
million representing more than one-third of the total appropriated
amount for the HSGP. Additionally, from UASI funds, total State
allocations were $239 million, which also represents more than one-
third of the total appropriated amount for the UASI program. Taken
together, these allocations totaled $922 million and funded a total of
4,208 projects in fiscal year 2004 alone. The next step is to ensure
that these projects achieve their intended goals and deliver measurable
improvements in interoperability.
Collaboration with Academia--Homeland Security Center of Excellence
To facilitate the involvement of the academic community in
addressing scientific and technological issues related to first
responders, the S&T Directorate has issued a BAA for a Center of
Excellence for the Study of High Consequence Event Preparedness and
Response. While our country's first responders have immense experience
dealing with wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and earthquakes,
disasters on this scale intentionally caused by terrorists--especially
those armed with chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons
are a relatively new threat. This new Center will perform research to
prepare for high consequence events--with special emphasis on acts of
terrorism. Studies will focus on the following areas: Preparedness,
Prevention and Deterrence, Decision-Making, Effective Response
Networks, and Modeling and Simulation. Its research will address the
technical, systemic, behavioral and organizational challenges that such
events pose. The Center will also engage in mission-oriented research
to significantly enhance the capabilities of first responders. The
Center will highlight innovative research and education that serve the
goals of the NRP.
Interagency Collaboration
Leveraging the significant capabilities of other Federal
Departments and agencies has enabled the Department of Homeland
Security to make some significant improvements in emergency
preparedness and response capabilities. The Department of Defense,
Department of Energy, Department of Justice, Department of Health and
Human Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) and others continue to be valuable contributors to emergency
responder capabilities. All of these organizations participated in the
formulation of HSPD-5 and HSPD-8 and will play an important role in the
implementation of these Directives.
The Interagency Modeling and Atmospheric Assessment Center (IMAAC)
described above has significant interagency participation, including
DOC, DoD, DOE, EPA, NRC, NOAA, and NASA. The IMAAC developed an MOU
that establishes general operating principles and provides for the
development of annexes which detail specific resource commitments. In
addition to the MOU, the working group has produced an interim standard
operating procedure, currently is reviewing the template for annexes,
and is discussing other critical aspects of atmospheric hazard
prediction that will improve the coordination of Federal assets.
The Science and Technology Directorate participates on the Federal
and Interdepartmental Committee for Meteorological Services and
Supporting Research (ICMSSR). We recently co-chaired an interagency
Joint Action Group as part of this committee. A collaborative process
was co-led by the Directorate and with the Army Research Office, with
participation from DOE, DTRA, Dugway Proving Grounds, EPA, NASA, NOAA,
and the NRC to focus on modeling of research needs in the area
Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion (ATD). The Joint Action Group, as
a subset of the ICMSSR, developed an Atmospheric Transport and
Diffusion Research and Development Plan that describes the requirements
to meet ATD user-community needs. The R&D Plan also recommends
strategies to address those needs to achieve reliable ATD modeling
capability.
The Science and Technology Directorate interfaces with other
government agencies to facilitate the development of standards for the
Department of Homeland Security. The Directorate's interactions with
other agencies resulted in several voluntary consensus standards in
concert with US industry and accredited Standards Development
Organizations (SDOs), some of which have been discussed previously in
this testimony.
The Science and Technology Directorate
collaborated with DOD, DOE, USDA, and DOC (National
Institute of Standards and Technology) and developed
standards for radiation.
The Science and Technology Directorate
collaborated with DOCINIST, HHS/Centers for Disease
Control, DOD, FDA, USDA, EPA and FBI resulting in the
development of standards for detection of Bacillus
anthracis (anthrax).
The Science and Technology Directorate
developed standards for personal protective equipment
for emergency responders through collaborative
interagency efforts with DOD, the DOC/NIST, and HHS/
NIOSH.
The Science and Technology Directorate
developed standards for biometrics (facial photograph
standards) by partnering with DOC/NIST, DOJ/FBI and
Department of State.
The Science and Technology Directorate
participates on an OSTP/NSTC Subcommittee on Standards
that includes DHS, NRS, EPA, DOE, HHS, Department of
Labor and DoD. This Subcommittee on Standards developed
Protective Action Guides to provide Federal guidance to
emergency responders with respect to a dirty bomb or
nuclear incident.
Achieving full interoperability and compatibility is truly a
national endeavor. The Department of Homeland Security's Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Justice's
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) office have partnered to
coordinate more than $230 million appropriated by Congress for grants
specifically to address interoperability. Also, in fiscal year 2004,
total State expenditures for interoperable communications projects from
OSLGCP's Homeland Security Grants Program funds totaled $761 million,
representing more than one-third of the total appropriated amount for
the HSGP. Additionally, from UASI funds, total State expenditures were
$239 million, which also represents more than one-third of the total
appropriated amount for the UASI program. Taken together, state
expenditures to develop and/or enhance interoperable communications
systems from OSLGCP's HSGP and UASI funds totaled $922 million and
funded a total of 4,208 projects in fiscal year 2004 alone. The newly
formed OIC will serve as the umbrella program within the Federal
government to help local, tribal, state, and Federal public safety
agencies improve public safety response through more effective and
efficient interoperable emergency response systems. OIC will extend the
SAFECOM model and expand the Federal Interoperability Coordination
Council (FICC) to include all aspects of interoperability relevant to
homeland security. Members of the FICC include those agencies that
provide grants to state and local agencies, such as DHS and the
Department of Justice; those that need to interoperate with each other
or with state and local agencies, such as DHS, DOJ, USDA, DOI, and DoD;
and standards-making and regulatory organizations, such as the Federal
Communications Commission and the National Institute for Standards and
Technology.
Conclusion
Over the last year, the S&T Directorate has made significant
progress both in meeting critical near term needs and in building a
foundation for a strategic RDT&E program for emergency response. We
have worked hard to ensure next generation capabilities are effectively
integrated in the response community and value our close working
relationship with FEMA, OSLGCP and the response community. With strong
Executive and Congressional support, we have established ourselves as
the leader within the Federal government for understanding homeland
security research requirements and coordinating Federal research
efforts, especially for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and
explosive countermeasures; standards; and interoperability and
compatibility. More importantly, we have been a catalyst for new
university and industry efforts to address first responder needs.
We are confident that with your continuing support and the
continuing collaboration and assistance of our many Federal partners,
we will continue to work towards a world where lives and property are
never lost because emergency response agencies lack the appropriate
equipment, are unable to communicate or lack effective training and
education technologies.
Chairman King. Thank you very much, Dr. Albright.
Now, Mr. Matt Mayer, the Acting Executive Director.
MR. MATT A. MAYER, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF STATE
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION AND PREPAREDNESS, DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Mayer. Thank you, Chairman Cox, Subcommittee Chairman
King, Congressman Pascrell and members of the subcommittee. My
name is Matt Mayer, and I serve as the Acting Executive
Director for the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness.
It is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss our
budget for fiscal year 2006, SLGCP's mission, and our mission
relevant to the department's Science and Technology
Directorate. Through SLGCP, the department has a single point
of entry, interaction and information for assisting states and
local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and other
federal agencies and departments to prevent, deter, respond to,
and recover from acts of terrorism and natural disasters.
Since 1998, what is now SLGCP 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, it has trained 837,000 emergency responders from
more than 5,000 jurisdictions and conducted more than 725
exercises. As of the end of fiscal year 2005, SLGCP will
provide states and localities with over $11 billion in
assistance and direct support to state and local preparedness
and emergency response agencies.
Mr. Chairman, SLGCP will continue this assistance into
fiscal year 2006. I would like to take this opportunity to
briefly summarize the President's fiscal year 2006 budget
request. That request totals $3.6 billion for SLGCP to continue
our strong commitment and support for the nation's first
responder community. Of this amount, $1.02 billion is for the
State Homeland Security Grant Program, which has been
significantly redesigned towards allocating funds based on risk
and need and to align these funds with national priorities. An
additional $1.02 billion is for the continuance of the Urban
Areas Security Initiative, which targets funds to the nation's
highest risk urban areas. The President requests that no less
than 20 percent of the State Homeland Security Grant Program
funds and the Urban Area Security Initiative Program funds are
used for law enforcement prevention activities, an increase of
roughly $8 million for law enforcement prevention activities.
Further, the President's request provides $600 million for
a new targeted infrastructure protection program to supplement
state, local and private sector infrastructure protection
efforts based on critical vulnerabilities. The fiscal year 2006
request also includes a strong commitment to our nation's fire
service by providing $500 million for the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program. This request also includes $50
million for the Citizen Corps Program and $170 million for the
Emergency Management Performance Grant Program.
For continuation of our commitment to training our nation's
first responders, the request includes $94.3 million for
SLGCP's State and Local Training Program. Further, the request
includes $59 million for the National Exercise Program, which
includes support for state and local exercises, and for the
national Top Officials exercise series. Finally, the request
includes $10.6 million for technical assistance initiatives for
state and local agencies, and $14.3 million for program
evaluation and assessments.
For fiscal year 2006, the preponderance of DHS grant
funding for state, territorial, tribal and local entities under
the SHSGP program, the UASI program, and the TIPP program would
be distributed based on risk, threat and vulnerability data
which aligns closely with the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission and the legislation that was considered by the House
and the Senate last year as part of the conference and
negotiations for the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act.
Mr. Chairman, SLGCP's preparedness mission recognizes the
interdependency of federal, state, local and private sector
homeland security missions. While SLGCP provides direct support
to state and local preparedness and emergency response
agencies, it also provides general support to all elements of
DHS and to other federal agencies to ensure that the national
preparedness is fully integrated. SLGCP's mission is a national
enterprise that requires a structure and scope of activity to
assess, measure and enhance preparedness.
To accomplish this national enterprise, SLGCP has
established the ability to deliver core preparedness activities
and capabilities to the first responder community through its
national preparedness cycle. This cycle captures both SLGCP's
mission and activities, and demonstrates the interrelationship
between those activities and SLGCP's role in assisting the
nation in achieving preparedness.
The national preparedness cycle is useful in explaining
SLGCP's mission and activities and how those activities
contribute to enhancing the nation's overall preparedness. It
should be clear, however, that these SLGCP activities cannot
exist in a vacuum. As with our preparedness efforts,
considerable work is being done throughout DHS that allows
SLGCP to do its job more effectively and more efficiently. The
S&T Directorate is but one example of how the efforts of one
part of DHS with the primary mission to set technical equipment
standards and conduct vital research and development on new or
nascent technology will help us secure our homeland.
SLGCP's preparedness activities, from the equipment, law
enforcement, and intelligence personnel, can be used to prevent
and deter a CBRNE attack. The equipment first responders can
use to respond and recover from such an attack are grounded in
a large and ever-expanding world of scientific knowledge,
research, new technologies, and improved standards. In order to
understand that world and ground our efforts in the solid
information that exists, there is a need for natural and
critical linkage between SLGCP and S&T.
Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time and in lieu of oral
testimony on the numerous examples of the collaboration between
SLGCP and the Science and Technology Directorate, I refer the
committee to my submitted written testimony, specifically pages
18 to 23.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to
answer any questions that you and the members of the committee
have for us.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Mayer follows:]
PREPARED OF STATEMENT OF MATT A. MAYER
Chairman Cox, Congressman Thompson and Members of the Subcommittee,
my name is Matt A. Mayer, and I serve as the Acting Executive Director
of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office of State and
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP). On behalf of
all of us at DHS, it is my honor and pleasure to appear before you
today to discuss SLGCP's mission, our mission relative to the
Department's Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and our Fiscal
Year 2006 budget request.
SLGCP was formed less than a year ago pursuant to Secretary Ridge's
consolidation of several DHS components, the Office for Domestic
Preparedness (ODP), the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination (SLGC), and several discrete programs from DHS'
Transportation and Security Administration and Federal Emergency
Management Agency, within one, single administrative structure. This
consolidation represents a significant focusing and streamlining of
DHS' preparedness activities that encompasses our mission to prevent,
deter, respond to, and recover from major events. It also fulfills
Secretary Ridge's commitment to the Nation's first responder community
to create a ``one-stop-shop'' to better serve their needs.
On December 17, 2003, President George W. Bush issued Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8) on national preparedness.
HSPD-8 defined preparedness as the existence of plans, procedures,
policies, training, and equipment necessary at the Federal, State, and
local level to maximize the ability to prevent, respond to, and recover
from major events. SLGCP was assigned lead responsibility to coordinate
implementation of HSPD-8 on behalf of the Department. With SLGCP, the
Department has a single point of entry, interaction, and information
for assisting State and local governments, non-governmental
organizations, and other Federal agencies and departments to prevent,
deter, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism.
The Road Forward: The fiscal year 2006 Budget
Mr. Chairman, as you have scheduled this hearing to coincide with
the release of the President's fiscal year 2006 Budget, I would like to
take this opportunity to briefly summarize the request for SLGCP. That
request totals $3.6 billion for SLGCP to continue our strong commitment
and support to the Nation's first responder community. Of this amount,
$1.02 billion is for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which
would be significantly realigned to award funds based on risk and need
while aligning with national priorities. An additional $1.02 billion is
for the continuance of the Urban Areas Security Initiative, which
targets funds to the Nation's highest risk urban areas. To simplify the
number of programs while continuing dedicated funding for law
enforcement's counter-terrorism efforts, the President requests that no
less than twenty percent (20%) of the State Homeland Security Grant
Program and the Urban Areas Security Initiative Grant Program be used
for law enforcement prevention activity.
Further, the President's request provides $600 million for a new
Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program (TIPP) to supplement State,
local, and private sector infrastructure protection efforts based on
critical vulnerabilities that is being consulted with the Office of
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. The fiscal year
2006 request also includes a strong commitment to our Nation's fire
service by providing $500 million for the Assistance to Firefighters
Grant Program. The request includes $50 million the Citizens Corps
Program and $170 million for the Emergency Performance Grant
Program.Sec.
And let me take a moment to highlight the importance of our
preparedness efforts with the Citizens Corps Program. State and local
governments have embraced the concept of Citizen Corps. They are
developing the management capacity of the Councils, conducting public
education, providing training for citizens, and engaging citizens
through volunteer programs. This is evidenced, Mr. Chairman, through
the increasing number of Citizen Corps Councils. Since fiscal year
2003, the number of Citizen Corps Councils have increased 80 percent to
1,330. These councils exist in all 50 States and 5 of the 6
territories. We have also expanded the Citizen Corps Affiliate network
of national non-profits to 21 organizations, which allows us to expand
the resources and materials available to States and local communities
by partnering with programs and organizations that offer resources for
public education, outreach, and training. Additionally, we were able to
mobilize 2,700 recruits from 48 States to support the 2004 Hurricane
Season response efforts.
Equally important as our mission to prepare the first responder
community for a major event is our mission to prepare our citizen
communities, as well. Whether that activity is ensuring a continuity of
service to the special needs community during a major event or is
educating our children on what to do if a terrorist attack occurs,
Citizens Corps is the last line of our preparedness defense that will
allow our first responder community to focus its vital and finite
resources on ground zero with the knowledge that the surrounding
community is self-sufficient and taking care of itself. We must keep
our commitment to build a better prepared America and Citizens Corps is
part of that commitment.
For continuation of our commitment to training our Nation's first
responders, the request includes $94.3 million for SLGCP's State and
Local Training Program. Further, the request includes $59 million for
the National Exercise Program, which includes support for State and
local exercises and for the National Top Officials exercise series.
Finally, the request includes $10.6 million for technical assistance
initiatives for State and local agencies and $14.3 million for program
evaluation and assessments.Sec.
The President's request also makes significant changes to how State
homeland security grant funds are distributed. The large majority of
the funds under the fiscal year 2006 State Homeland Security Grant
Program will be distributed by the Secretary of Homeland Security on
risk and vulnerability.
For fiscal year 2006, the Administration proposes to redesign the
homeland security funding process to award State Homeland Security
Grant Program funds based on an evaluation of risk, vulnerabilities,
and needs, instead of PATRIOT Act minimum formula--.75 percent minimum
for States and .25 percent minimum for territories. Congressional
direction has resulted in the use of population to allocate the
balance. As you know, this formula has been criticized for failing to
adapt to the dynamic nature of homeland security risks, threats, and
vulnerabilities. Awarding funding based on a relative evaluation risk,
threat, vulnerability, and capability needs (gaps) data will better
reflect a results-based planning process that supports achievement of
target preparedness capability levels nationally.
This program would be a discretionary grant program, not a formula-
based program, which would be based on the following guiding
principles:
All 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and the U.S. territories will be eligible for funding.
States will submit detailed applications including
macro-level goals and activities and associated justification
detailing how those activities address capability shortfalls
and enable achievement of the minimum baseline capability
levels laid out in the National Planning Guidance (NPG), to be
disseminated on March 31, 2005.
Applications will be evaluated and funds awarded based
on risk and need, consistent with National priorities.
Funding will be awarded based on a relative evaluation
of risk, need, applications, but each State or territory will
receive no less than 0.25 percent of the total, or $2.5 million
under the Budget request. The actual minimum may be higher
depending the extent to which DHS identifies specific
capabilities that each State should have.
At least 20% of funds awarded will be dedicated to
support law enforcement terrorism prevention activities.
In order to apply for and receive funds under this program, States
will be required to update their existing homeland security strategies
to ensure alignment with national priorities and achievement of the
minimum capability levels established in the National Planning
Guidance. Updated strategies will be submitted in concert with fiscal
year 2006 grant applications, which will include a plan detailing how
fiscal year 2006 grant funds will support achievement of these
priorities and minimum capability levels. State applications will
demonstrate core focus areas, how funding will be used to close
critical capability gaps in support of the National Planning Guidance,
and a funding allocation plan.
Further, the fiscal year 2006 Urban Areas Security Initiative will
be distributed based solely on an evaluation of risk and needs. In
making UASI award determinations, the Department will consider a number
of risk factors, including threat, presence of critical infrastructure,
vulnerability, population, population density, law enforcement
investigative and enforcement activity, and the existence of formal
mutual aid agreements. Additionally, the $600 million requested for the
Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program (TIPP) will be distributed
by DHS to supplement State, local and private sector infrastructure
protection efforts based on risk and needs. For TIPP, the Secretary,
acting through the Executive Director of SLGCP in consultation with
IAIP and other components, will make award determinations on a number
of factors, including relevant intelligence, threat data, and
vulnerabilities identified at specific critical infrastructure sites.
For fiscal year 2006, the preponderance of DHS grant funding for
State, territorial, tribal and local entities - under the SHSG Program,
the UASI Program, and TIPP--would be distributed based on risk, threat,
and vulnerability data, which aligns closely with the recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission and the legislation that was considered by both
the House and Senate last year as part of the conference negotiations
for the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.
The SLGCP Mission
SLGCP achieves its preparedness mission by combining three
distinct, yet interrelated items, along a ``National Preparedness
Cycle.'' First, SLGCP distributes project funding to our first
responder community, which consists of law enforcement; the fire
service; the emergency medical service; public officials responsible
for emergency planning and response; the public health sector; transit
authorities including rail and ports; and non-governmental
organizations. The distribution of the grants and other assistance is
part of an interactive and highly complex series of activities that
include the establishment of State and urban strategies, the setting of
priorities, and the conducting of vulnerability assessments.
As our first responder community obtains the equipment and training
needed to prevent, deter, respond to, and recover from a terrorist
incident, we also engage them in our robust training and technical
assistance programs that teach them the full spectrum of capabilities
(ranging from what they need to know to identify a potential threat to
how to use a particular piece of equipment they recently acquired) they
will need to successfully perform their jobs in today's ever-shifting
threat environment.
The next stage incorporates them to our exercise program that aims
to test their competency and identify vulnerabilities that will require
additional training. Finally, we collect data from these exercises, as
well as from grantee reports and other assessments, to evaluate
improvements in State and local preparedness and better target our
programs in the future. This ``National Preparedness Cycle''--
analytically-based financial support, robust training, and results-
oriented exercises--allows us to efficiently and effectively prepare
our first responder community.
This ``National Preparedness Cycle'' is depicted in greater detail
graphically below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0053.001
Since 1998, what is now SLGCP, 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 it has
trained 837,000 first responders from more than 5,000 jurisdictions,
and conducted more than 725 exercises. And, as of the end of Fiscal
Year 2005, SLGCP will have provided States and localities with over $11
billion in financial assistance and direct support to State and local
preparedness activities.
SLGCP's preparedness mission recognizes the interdependency of
Federal, State, local and private-sector homeland security missions.
While SLGCP provides direct support to the first responder community,
it also provides general support to all elements of DHS and to other
Federal agencies to ensure that national preparedness is fully
integrated. It is, as Secretary Ridge so often said, ``one team, one
fight.''
SLGCP's preparedness mission is clearly defined and established by
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) [Pub.L. 107-296] through the
authorities provided to its component, the Office for Domestic
Preparedness (ODP). Under the provisions of the HSA the Office for
Domestic Preparedness,
``shall have the primary responsibility within the executive
branch of Government for the preparedness of the United States
for act of terrorism. . .'' [HSA, Sec.430(c)] (emphasis added)
Under the HSA, ODP has a broad and defined preparedness mission
covering training, exercises, and equipment support.
Assess and Coordinate
SLGCP recognizes the need to assist States in assessing their
preparedness gaps and vulnerabilities, and to use this information to
guide their allocation of Federal homeland security funds. To achieve
this, SLGCP is continually collecting and examining information from
the field. As an example of this, in Fiscal Year 1999, SLGCP launched
the State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy (SHSAS) process to
assist States in their strategic planning process. The SHSAS process
was repeated in Fiscal Year 2003 allowing States and local
jurisdictions to update their needs assessment data to reflect post-
September 11, 2001 realities, as well as identify progress on the
priorities outlined in their initial homeland security strategies.
However, while the SHSAS process allowed States and localities to
self-assess their threats and vulnerabilities, it did not include the
larger measures of the level of preparedness they needed to achieve.
This deficiency was recognized with the issuance of HSPD-8 and
illustrates another level of SLGCP's effort to assess and coordinate
preparedness.
Mr. Chairman, HSPD-8 tasks the Secretary of Homeland Security, and
through his delegation SLGCP, in coordination with the heads of other
appropriate Federal departments and agencies, in consultation with
State and local governments, to strengthen the preparedness of the
United States to prevent, deter, respond to, and recover from
threatened or actual domestic terrorist attacks, major disasters and
other emergencies. It requires: 1) a national domestic preparedness
goal; 2) mechanisms for improved delivery of Federal preparedness
assistance to State and local governments; and 3) actions to strengthen
preparedness capabilities of Federal, State, and local entities. The
developmental work under HSPD-8 will reach its culmination with the
issuance of the National Preparedness Goal, and accompanying National
Planning Guidance, which are on schedule to be released by March 31,
2005.
Equip States and Localities
SLGCP's Preparedness Programs Division manages and oversees the
implementation of preparedness programs at the State and local level.
Among the Preparedness Programs Division's many tasks is its
responsibility for the Homeland Security Grant Program, which includes
the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Citizen Corps Program,
the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and the Urban Areas
Security Initiative, as well as funds for transit and port security.
The division also manages the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program.
Through these programs, SLGCP is enhancing preparedness by ensuring
that State and local emergency responders have the equipment they need
to improve their ability to prevent, deter, respond to, and recover
from threats or acts of terrorism. But simply providing States and
localities the means to acquire equipment is not enough. Preparedness
means more than acquiring equipment. It also means identifying
commercially available technologies and equipment, understanding its
applicability and usefulness to first responders, and making that
information available so they can make informed choices when spending
Federal funds.
As part of its effort to ensure this, SLGCP, through its System
Support Division (SSD), works to identify commercially available
equipment and technologies, and provide the first responder community
useful information and guidance on that equipment. For example, SSD is
piloting the Technology Transfer Program (TTP), which provides direct
technology assistance to small and rural jurisdictions. TTP is
assisting jurisdictions to enhance their preparedness and meet their
homeland security missions, by providing technologies to small and
rural jurisdictions. TTP focuses on identifying currently available
commercial technology. Importantly, it does not engage in the research,
development, and testing of new or nascent technologies.
Train States and Localities
Training is critical to preparedness. SLGCP's Training Division
identifies, manages the development of, and approves training to
prepare the first responder community for terrorism events. This
function begins with identifying training needs of State and local
communities and culminates with training development, testing, and
delivery. SLGCP's training network and resources are extensive and, as
its training program has matured, SLGCP has placed a high value on
ensuring that its training efforts are credible, structured, and
institutionalized.
For example, the bedrock of all quality training is sound
instructional design. SLGCP has adopted the Analyze, Design, Develop,
Implement, and Evaluate (ADDIE) model of instructional design, and has
promulgated the ODP Strategy for Blended Learning to explain each step
of the training process. SLGCP also provides practical tools for
implementation, as well as examples of best practices to increase the
quality, consistency, efficiency, and accessibility of training.
Another example of SLGCP institutionalizing and structuring
training has been our work with the Memorial Institute for the
Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) to ensure that ``best practices'' from
all SLGCP program areas are assessed, and if validated, catalogued and
posted through the SLGCP sponsored Lessons Learned Information Sharing
portal (www.llis.gov) for all first responders to use in advancing our
collective homeland security.
Exercise
Exercises are also critical in enhancing the Nation's security.
Exercises provide first responders a ``risk free environment'' in which
they practice prevention, reduce vulnerabilities, and sharpen response
capabilities. Our goal is to help States and communities assess their
capacity to prevent, deter, respond to, and recover from a disaster and
provide an opportunity to modify and improve protocols and procedures.
SLGCP's National Exercise Program provides tailored exercise activities
and serves as a primary vehicle for training officials and emergency
response personnel. The NEP enhances the collaboration among all levels
of government, and provides SLGCP an ongoing venue in which to assess
training, protocols, and equipment.
Evaluate and Advise
Through SLGCP's Evaluation and National Assessment Division,
national program data is gathered, analyzed, and interpreted. As the
focal point for information collection and evaluation, it reviews and
assesses the execution of State strategies against the supporting
threat, vulnerability, and needs assessment data. As data is evaluated,
best practices can be identified for replication and knowledge gaps can
be addressed and mitigated. This information is then provided to States
and local jurisdictions as part of SLGCP's ongoing practice to provide
continuous information.
For example, SLGCP's SSD, as do all SLGCP components, works closely
with the MIPT. Three separate initiatives developed between SSD and
MIPT have become models for information sharing among the Nation's
preparedness community, and provide access to information and tools to
assist them in determining their vulnerabilities and needs, thereby
enhancing their overall preparedness. These are the LLIS.gov portal,
Responder Knowledge Base (RKB), and the Terrorism Knowledge Base (TKB).
LLIS.gov serves as the medium for the dissemination of
after-action reports from SLGCP-funded exercises. LLIS.gov is a
vital link between the available homeland security preparedness
information and the first responder community. Ultimately, this
information provides State and local jurisdictions the basis
for the development of their homeland security strategies and
helps determine their preparedness capacity. By sharing best
practices and after action reports, it is our hope that every
jurisdiction will utilize this tool in an iterative manner that
will allow each jurisdiction to learn from the activities of
other jurisdictions so that collectively we start from a higher
point of learning.
RKB provides emergency responders with a single source
for integrated information on existing equipment, including the
InterAgency Board's (IAB) Standardized Equipment List (SEL),
SLGCP's Authorized Equipment List (AEL), and National Terrorism
Response Objectives.
TKB is the one-stop resource library for comprehensive
completed research and analysis on global terrorist incidents,
terrorism-related court cases, and terrorist groups and
leaders. The portal provides the first responder community the
status of terrorism today and takes users through the history,
affiliations, locations, and tactics of the global terrorist
groups.
Mr. Chairman, the National Preparedness Cycle is useful in
explaining SLGCP's mission and activities, and how those activities
contribute enhancing the Nation's overall preparedness. It should be
clear, however, that these SLGCP activities cannot exist in a vacuum.
As with our preparedness efforts, considerable work is being done
throughout DHS that allows SLGCP to do its job more effectively and
more efficiently. The S&T Directorate is but one example of how the
efforts of one part of DHS with the primary mission to set technical
equipment standards and conduct the vital research and development on
new or nascent technology that will help us secure our homeland greatly
impacts our mission to prepare America.
SLGCP's preparedness activities--from the equipment law enforcement
and intelligence personnel can use to prevent and deter a CBRNE attack
to the equipment first responders can use to respond to and recover
from an attack--are grounded in a larger and an ever expanding world of
scientific knowledge, research, new technologies, and improved
standards. In order to understand that world and ground our efforts in
the solid information that exists, there is and needs to be a natural
and critical linkage between SLGCP and S&T.
Like SLGCP, S&T's mission is clearly defined and articulated by the
provisions of the HSA. Under the HSA [see generally Sec.302], S&T is
the primary technical standard setting entity in DHS and the research
and development arm of the Department. It also has the critical mission
of organizing the vast scientific and technological resources of the
Nation to support the Nation's security and safety.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a few examples of how SLGCP and
S&T coordinate our activities:
Equip States and Localities
As you may know, interoperable communications equipment has been
and continues to be an allowable use of SLGCP's Homeland Security Grant
Program (HSGP) funds. Interoperable communications was addressed in 54
out of the 56 current State homeland security strategies, and in 48 out
of the 49 urban area homeland security strategies. Based on data
collected from grantees, through the fiscal year 2004 Initial Strategy
Implementation Plan (ISIP) process, total State expenditures for
interoperable communications projects from HSGP funds in fiscal year
2004 totaled $761,068,742, representing more than one-third of the
total appropriated amount for the HSGP. Additionally, from UASI funds,
total State expenditures were $239,245,356, which also represents more
than one-third of the total appropriated amount for the UASI program.
Taken together, State expenditures to develop and/or enhance
interoperable communications systems from HSGP and UASI funds totaled
$922,286,604 and funded a total of 4,208 projects in fiscal year 2004
alone. To date, more than $1 billion in SLGCP funding has been applied
toward interoperable communications solutions.Sec.
In addressing interoperable communications, SLGCP has worked with
S&T on a number of initiatives. First and foremost, SLGCP and S&T
executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to specify the roles and
responsibilities each have in addressing interoperable communications.
Broadly this breaks down into S&T addressing basic research aspects
including standards development and guidance, while SLGCP will provide
``on-the- ground'' technical assistance and training to emergency
response agencies. As such, SLGCP collaborates closely with the SAFECOM
Program to incorporate standard grant guidance on interoperable
communications equipment into SLGCP's application kits. Recognizing the
need for near-term solutions for interoperable communications, SLGCP
and SAFECOM are also working together as part of the fiscal year 2005
Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) to ensure that a tactical-level
emergency interoperable communications capacity is developed and tested
in the fifty highest risk urban areas in the Nation. This initiative
builds on RapidCom, a SAFECOM lead, and a SLGCP supported effort, which
worked with ten urban areas to provide assistance to improve incident
level interoperability capabilities.
Out of RapidCom, a number of tools were developed to serve the
first responder community. These included:
A process for an interoperable communications table
top exercise that is replicable across urban areas. This
scenario-based exercise provides a forum for discussing
regional communications interoperability capacity, strengths,
and weaknesses.
The Interoperability Continuum which provides a
graphical depiction of the multiple components needed to
develop a successful interoperability solution, beyond just
technology, to include governance, standard operating
procedures, training & exercises, and usage of equipment. The
Interoperability Continuum provides a framework from which all
public safety agencies at the local, tribal, State, and Federal
levels can baseline their planning and implementation of
interoperability solutions.
SLGCP also relies on SAFECOM for standards and guidelines to assist
us in our Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program
(ICTAP). ICTAP is one of our most important technical assistance
efforts and provides operational support to State, local, and tribal
agencies' new interoperability systems. ICTAP provides technical
assistance at no cost to ensure that jurisdictions understand the scope
of their interoperability needs and how to fully utilize new
technology. ICTAP's goal is to enable public safety agencies to
communicate as they prevent or respond to a terrorism attack. ICTAP
also leverages and works with other Federal, State, and local
interoperability efforts whenever possible to enhance overall
communications capacity.
SLGCP also has partnered with SAFECOM and other DHS and Federal
agencies to establish the Federal Interagency Coordination Council
(FICC) to coordinate funding, technical assistance, and standards
development across the Federal government for public safety
communications and interoperability.
To further build on the successful efforts of SAFECOM and SLGCP,
Secretary Ridge established the Office for Interoperability and
Compatibility (OIC) in October 2004. OIC serves as the overarching
program within the Department to strengthen and integrate
interoperability efforts to improve State, local, tribal, and Federal
communication. The SAFECOM Program manages the communications program
area for the OIC. SAFECOM and SLGCP will continue to work together to
ensure that the Nation's first responder community have communications
capabilities they require.
SLGCP's SSD collaborates with S&T on the development and
implementation of the System Assessment and Validation for Emergency
Responders (SAVER) Program. SAVER assists emergency responders by
providing impartial, relevant, and operational validations and
assessments of critical existing equipment. SLGCP provides S&T with
information about performance of commercially available products
evaluated in real world settings and under the SAVER program.
Train States and Localities
The National Training Program builds on three pillars: training
doctrine, training partners, and training technology support tools. S&T
has provided valuable support in developing these components,
particularly in the ongoing development of projects undertaken by many
of SLGCP's training partners, and the development of training doctrine
pursuant to HSDP-8. These include guidelines, protocols, templates,
strategies, process, and procedures developed to guide the
coordination, development, and delivery of training and information.
As a further example, in October 2004, SLGCP began hosting regular
meetings to coordinate agroterrorism projects with other Federal
agencies, including S&T and the Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection Directorate. SLGCP awarded two grants under the fiscal year
2004 Competitive Training Grant Program in the category of
agroterrorism to the University of California-Davis and to Kirkwood
Community College in Iowa. The coordination efforts already in place
with S&T will continue to help shape these projects and S&T and SLGCP
exchange project information and data on complementary efforts.
SLGCP's Training Division has also begun participating in the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Homeland Security
Standards Panel (HSSP) Training for First Response to WMD. S&T is the
sponsor for the ANSI-HSSP in its role as the body responsible for
accepting and promulgating standards for the Department. SLGCP
continues to participate in these working sessions, providing updates
with respect to status and direction of the National Preparedness Goal,
and associated efforts related to the Universal Task List and Target
Capabilities List.
And finally, in fiscal year 2004, the Homeland Security Advanced
Research and Projects Agency (HSARPA) provided funding to the Technical
Support Working Group (TSWG) to support several DHS projects. One of
the requirements advertised in the Broad Area Announcement by TSWG was
for a DHS Advanced Distributed Learning system. The proposals received
under this announcement were reviewed by the DHS e-learning group
including representatives of SLGCP and S&T, and resulted in a contract
award to Vertex Solutions Inc. The execution of this contract continues
to be a joint effort among the DHS Human Capital Office, S&T, and
SLGCP.
Exercise
The National Exercise Program provides many opportunities for
intra-DHS and inter-agency collaboration. SLGCP's Exercise Division
frequently consults with S&T to integrate projects into exercise
planning and activity. For example, during planning for TOPOFF 3,
`plume modeling' utilizing the DHS-led IMAAC (Interagency Modeling and
Atmospheric Assessment Center) system has helped to develop
scientifically accurate predictions of a hazard zone, as well as to
predict the human health effects of a large scale chemical-attack in a
densely populated area. In planning for an upcoming Senior Official
Exercise, the Bio-Watch program managers from S&T have been
instrumental in design of an accurate exercise scenario. Additionally,
IMAAC is supporting the SOE effort through provision of atmospheric
hazard products for planning and exercise play. Planners from SLGCP
also work closely with S&T and the law enforcement and intelligence
communities to confirm the viability of the potential threats addresses
for the entire range of exercise activity. Future opportunities for
integrating equipment and technology evaluation into exercise
activities are under development.
HSPD-8: Coordination for a Roadmap for Preparedness
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Department is moving forward with
the implementation of HSPD-8. As previously stated, HSPD-8 establishes
policies, procedures, and goals that strengthen national preparedness
to prevent, deter, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks,
major disasters and other emergencies by requiring a national
preparedness goal, mechanisms for improved delivery of Federal
preparedness assistance to State and local governments, and actions to
strengthen capabilities of Federal, State, and local entities. Its
significance and anticipated national impact provides SLGCP the context
in which to develop major program initiatives and specific guidance to
State and local jurisdictions. This work also illustrates the
productive connection between S&T and SLGCP.
In fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006, SLGCP will target its
programs and policies to help drive the implementation of HSPD-8
principles across all levels of government. In fiscal year 2005, for
example, grant resources are available for a variety of purposes to
support State and local level planning. Specifically, fiscal year 2005
grant guidance emphasized the importance of building and sustaining law
enforcement terrorism prevention activities as well as interoperable
communications.
HSPD-8 recognizes the importance that S&T plays in national
preparedness. In fact, two of the 16 requirements laid out by HSPD-8
relate directly to S&T. First, HSPD-8 States that ``equipment purchased
through Federal preparedness assistance for first responders shall
conform to equipment standards in place at time of purchase.'' Second,
HSPD-8 states that Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with
other appropriate Federal departments and agencies and in consultation
with State and local governments, ``will develop plans to identify and
address national first responder equipment research and development
needs based upon assessments of current and future threats.'' S&T's
involvement in these two tasks are critical to SLGCP's ability to
execute its HSPD-8 assignment.
The S&T Homeland Security Institute (HSI), a DHS Federally funded
research and development center, has been working in close partnership
with SLGCP on the implementation of HSPD-8. In addition, SLGCP is
working with the HSI on development of a Threat Scenario Portfolio as a
planning, training, research, and exercise reference for the entire
homeland security community.
DHS continues to work with OMB and The White House to finalize the
National Preparedness Goal, which requires coordination with a number
of other Federal agencies. Along with the National Planning Guidance,
the National Preparedness Goal will guide the Nation's efforts to
achieve and sustain nationally accepted risk-based target levels of
capability to prevent, deter, respond to, and recover from major
events, especially terrorism. As SLGCP bases future financial
assistance programs on the guidance and direction provided by National
Preparedness Goal, it will be essential that SLGCP and S&T continue to
work collaboratively to ensure that any future standards that are
developed are incorporated into grant and program guidelines, and that
the research and analytical capacity of S&T, HIS, and its Centers for
Excellence are applied to strengthen national preparedness.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my written statement. I am happy to
answer any questions that you and the Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
Chairman King. Thank you, Director Mayer.
Before we go to General Reimer, Chairman Cox and I are
wondering if there is any way you can change the acronym for
your agency. We are trying to write it down phonetically, how
we can get through it.
Mr. Mayer. I would love to do that, sir.
Chairman King. It is great to start with that tone of
cooperation.
I recognize General Reimer. Before we do, I just wanted to
commend him for his many years of service to our country in the
United States Army. In particular, I remember when he was the
Army Chief of Staff and the great job you did.
With that, we welcome you for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL DENNIS REIMER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL MEMORIAL
INSTITUTE FOR THE PREVENTION OF TERRORISM
General Reimer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members of the committee, good morning. I am
delighted to be here. My name is Dennis Reimer. I am the
Director of the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention
of Terrorism. I have held that job for about 5 years. As
Chairman King mentioned, before that I served 37 years in the
United States Army. So I am delighted to be able to continue in
service.
Let me just say a word about MIPT, the National Memorial
Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. It is the third
component of the national memorial, and as such our roots are
buried deep in the rubble of the Murrah Building bombing. The
family members and survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing felt
very strongly about having an organization that looked to the
future, to prevent what happened in Oklahoma City on April 19,
1995 from happening again. That has been our charter.
Chairman King, we have reached out to the family members
and survivors in New York City. I think that bond has
strengthened even our charter, so we are very pleased with that
relationship. I want to thank the support that we have
received. I want to thank the family members and survivors
publicly for their willingness to share their inner emotions,
their vision. I want to thank the members of Congress for the
resources you provided us in the last four appropriations.
Initially, they were managed by the Department of Justice. Now,
they are managed by the Department of Homeland Security.
I think we have accomplished a lot with the resources that
you have given us. Our accomplishments range from sponsoring an
exercise called Dark Winter, in which we took a look at the
smallpox introduction into the world; to trying to develop a
new treatment for anthrax, which sorely needs to be done; to
developing better chemical and biological detectors, more
sensitive, quicker to identify; provide better protective gear
for firemen; to the three flagship projects, which we currently
manage. One is the Lessons Learned Information Sharing.
Basically what we are trying to do here is to reach out to all
emergency responders and to be able to share best practices,
good ideas, and valid lessons learned from actual events or
from training exercises. We think that is the best way to get
the return on the investment, for everybody to learn from
everybody else.
A second is the responder knowledge base, which makes
available to emergency responders that type of equipment that
is authorized for their use, how they might go about buying it,
where they can get federal grants if appropriate, whether it
has been tested or not, and what are the results of that test.
The third is the terrorism knowledge base, which is basically
an unclassified source of information on terrorism. It is
available to anybody. We have had a lot of good comments on all
three of those projects. We feel that they have provided a
service to the nation, and certainly to the emergency
responders.
That experience has convinced me that the hearing here
today, the subject of how do you enhance the preparedness of
emergency responders, is terribly important. Let me just give
you a couple of thoughts from my standpoint on how we might go
about doing that. First of all, I think it is important that we
have a national system. This must not be just a federal system
or a state or local system. It must be a national system. It
must be based upon that partnership, the partnership among the
federal, state and the local levels of government. There is a
strong component of the public and private sector that has to
be a part of that partnership. That national system has to flow
from the national security strategy. The national homeland
security strategy was issued in July of 2002, so it is already
in place. That national system has to incorporate the guidance
given out by homeland security presidential directives,
particularly 5, 7, and 8. It has to be a part of that national
system, or it has to shape that national system.
It has to institutionalize those things that have already
been accepted. For example, the national response plan and the
national information management system are already accepted
initiatives that are out there for the emergency responders.
The national response plan is simply a battle plan for the
emergency responders, for the first responders. The National
Information Management System is the system of how we do
business, so it becomes very important that we institutionalize
that. The missing link is obviously the national preparedness
goal, which is scheduled to be released in March, 2005. I am
sure that that is going to establish priorities. It is going to
help identify national capabilities that are needed. It is
going to establish a measurement system. That system is going
to allow us, I think, to more efficiently focus our resources
so that we get the greatest return on investment.
I would simply say in summary that that system does not
exist yet. However, I think it is within our grasp and we have
to see it through, and we have to bring it to be. MIPT hopes to
be able to continue our work in this effort to help in this
area and to be able to be true to our charter, which is to help
prevent terrorism or mitigate their effects.
Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the
questions of the committee.
[The statement of General Reimer follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. DENNIS J. REIMER
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee, my name is
Dennis Reimer and I thank you for this opportunity to appear before
you. I am Director of the National Memorial Institute for the
Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) in Oklahoma City, a position I have held
for almost five years. Prior to becoming Director of MIPT I served 37
years in the United States Army.
MIPT has worked diligently for the past five years to try to
prevent acts of terrorism or mitigate their effects. We are located at
the site of the largest domestic terrorism attack in U.S. history, but
September 11th made it clear that the line between domestic and
international terrorism is hard to draw. Today we must defend against
terrorist threats of any origin.
Since our inception our focus has been on improving preparedness of
the first responder community across the nation. We are extremely
grateful to Congress for supporting us through four separate
appropriations. That support has made America's first responders better
prepared to defend us against terrorism. Initially our awards were made
through the Department of Justice but the Department of Homeland
Security has administered our awards since it was created.
Additionally, we have received small discretionary awards from DHS.
Our primary effort initially was to sponsor research to create the
technology and equipment first responders need to deal with terrorism.
We drew up our first research agenda based on discussions with
representatives of the first responder community and representatives of
the research community. We attempted to close the gaps between what was
needed and what was already being done. I think we were very
successful.
Well before 9/11 we were working on over 30 research projects,
including:
a new treatment for anthrax;
more sensitive chemical and explosive detection
systems;
a national technology plan for emergency response to
catastrophic terrorism that focuses on technology investments
to improve capabilities within twelve National Terrorism
Response Objectives (NTROs) that cover the anticipated scope of
first responders' requirements for dealing with chemical,
biological, nuclear, radiological and explosive/incendiary
attacks on the homeland (Project Responder);
a system to kill biological pathogens in heating,
ventilation and air conditioning systems;
a system to collect and disseminate best practices and
lessons learned throughout the emergency response community
(Lessons Learned Information Sharing); and
an unclassified, comprehensive knowledge base of
terrorist organizations and their leaders, terrorist incidents,
and indictments and prosecutions of terrorists within the U.S.
(Terrorism Knowledge Base).
Feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. These projects have made
a huge difference in the way the first responder community is able to
conduct its business.
While the initial efforts of MIPT were heavily weighted towards
research programs, we have gradually shifted to doing more in the area
of knowledge management--the collection and distribution of what we
know about terrorism and how to respond to it. Our three flagship
programs--Lessons Learned Information Sharing (LLIS), the Responder
Knowledge Base (RKB), and the Terrorism Knowledge Base (TKB) have been
widely accepted by the first responder community.
LLIS allows first responders to share best practices
and lessons learned with other members of the community. The
cornerstone of LLIS involves expert analysis of the After
Action Reports from the Murrah Building bombing, 9/11 and
hundreds of counterterrorism exercises. Approved registration
is required because this knowledge base contains sensitive but
unclassified information. Battalion Chief Mike Puzziferri of
the Fire Department of New York said of LLIS: ``LLIS.gov is
phenomenal. I wish we had something like this a long time
ago.''
The Responder Knowledge Base (RKB) provides first
responders with information concerning what equipment is
available; whether the equipment has been tested, and if so to
what standard; what training is needed to operate that
equipment; how they can pay for it and who else is using it.
This is an open system. Mike Lucey of the National Technology
Transfer Center described the RKB as ``a critical resource for
[responders] because they need to know what technology is out
there and what works. Their lives depend on it.''
The Terrorism Knowledge Base (TKB) presents over 35
years of international terrorism information and five years of
domestic terrorism information plus over 20 years of
information on the legal aspects of terrorism cases in the U.S.
This database is unclassified and available to first
responders, analysts, researchers and the public worldwide. As
Heritage Foundation homeland security expert James Carafano of
the Heritage Foundation said of the TKB, ``The information is
very credible, very fresh and authoritative. It's the most
comprehensive [terrorism website] I have seen and the most
user-friendly.''
The topic of this hearing ``Enhancing Terrorism Preparedness for
First Responders'' is one of the most critical issues our nation faces.
In order to enhance terrorism preparedness for first responders, we
must have a national system built upon a strong partnership amongst
Federal, State and local levels of government. Further, with
approximately 85% of the Nation's infrastructure controlled by the
private sector, such a system must facilitate cooperation between the
private and public sectors to be effective. This national system will
require unprecedented information sharing amongst stakeholders. This is
not as much a technical challenge as it is a cultural change. Such a
system does not currently exist, but I believe it is within our grasp.
This system must flow from the National Strategy for Homeland
Security issued in July 2002. This strategy will ultimately determine
the national capabilities that we will require at the Federal, State
and local levels of government in order to combat terrorism on U.S.
soil. These capabilities can then be used to define the actual
requirements for personnel, equipment and training for first
responders. It is important to remember that we are not starting with a
clean sheet of paper--initiatives have been taken and others are
underway that will allow the nation to achieve such a system. We should
leverage those initiatives.
The National Preparedness System must incorporate the guidance
issued in Homeland Security Presidential Directives 5, 7 and 8. The
National System must build on already agreed upon initiatives such as
the National Response Plan and the National Incident Management System
that have been developed by representatives of all levels of
government. Stakeholders know that the NRP defines what needs to be
done in order to manage a major incident, whether manmade or natural,
and NIMS generally defines how it needs to be done. Accepting these two
tools as standard operating procedures will move us a long way towards
a National System.
It must be recognized, however, that we have more work to do in
areas such as achieving national standards, a coordinated national
operational framework and common doctrine. All of these elements are
important to a National System but they can take time to develop and
implement. We need to do it as quickly as we can but to force the issue
and set artificial, short deadlines for the development and
implementation of these elements, I think would be a serious mistake.
We must get it right.
I believe we must build a National System through a bottom up
approach but that approach must be consistent with top down guidance
that provides the operational framework for such a system. Such an
approach recognizes the uniqueness of state and local entities and the
fact that ``one size does not fit all'', but also ensures that there is
sufficient commonality to effect mutual coordination and cooperation.
Such a system should also manage risk by defining that risk,
prioritizing it and allocating resources to get the greatest return on
investment.
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 required the Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security to develop a National Domestic
All-Hazards Preparedness Goal in coordination with the heads of other
appropriate Federal departments and agencies and in consultation with
State, local and tribal governments. This effort will be a critical
link in the National System. This National Goal should identify
national priorities and associate performance objectives and measures
with those priorities.
While we have considerable experience with responding to natural
disasters, we have limited experience--albeit tragic--in preventing and
responding to manmade disasters. We must build upon the all-hazards
experience gained from response to natural and manmade disasters and
attempt to better define the threat we face from terrorism. One way to
accomplish this is by developing a series of Illustrative Planning
Scenarios. These scenarios can help identify what capabilities the
nation needs to prevent, protect against, respond to and recover from
manmade or natural disasters. Illustrative Planning Scenarios are not
intended to predict future attacks, but rather serve as a planning tool
that provides first responders an indication of the kind of events for
which they must be prepared. Achieving the capabilities required to
prevent these events from occurring or to mitigate the damage caused by
these events will require specific actions at each level of government.
Not all capabilities require specific action by each level of
government, but there must be a coordinated, coherent approach
involving all levels of government for all capabilities.
Describing the national capabilities helps first responders
determine the requirement for personnel, equipment and training at each
level of government. Once desired national capabilities are described,
first responders can determine whether they have the means to
accomplish their mission. If they do not then a gap exists in the
National Preparedness System. Gaps can be quantified and, resources
allocated to plug those gaps or operational concepts adjusted to
mitigate the effect of those gaps. Developing national priorities is a
complex task based on managing risk through threat identification and
vulnerability analysis.
States continue to have the primary responsibility for protecting
the citizens of their state. State strategies initially completed in
December 2003 will most likely have to be adjusted to reflect the
assessment of how their state operational framework for preventing and
mitigating the damage associated with the multi-disciplinary, all-
hazards approach to disasters fits into the National Preparedness
System. The best way to conduct this assessment is to assess the
ability of a state and its municipalities to fulfill their roles and
responsibilities associated with the identified national capabilities
necessary to deal with these threats. Such assessments will determine
personnel, equipment and training requirements across the state in
addition to what is needed for day to day requirements if appropriate.
Where excess capability is identified in these assessments, that
capability can help offset gaps that might exist in other parts of the
state. Under the most likely situation where gaps exist, mutual aid
pacts will be required to effect regional coordination and cooperation.
In some cases, it may not be possible to plug gaps by modifying
operational frameworks or through regional coordination. In that case,
these gaps constitute unfilled requirements and risks which must be
managed in order to achieve the desired level of capability.
Creating objective levels of capability is central to this concept.
It is unrealistic with finite resources to believe that the nation can
fund every desired capability against every kind of threat in every
place. We can, however, manage risk by prioritizing our list of
requirements against threats and vulnerabilities and allocating our
resources to the greatest need.
Once we allocate resources at the Federal, State or local level, we
need to assure the effective use of those resources. For example, the
Responder Knowledge Base provides responders the Authorized Equipment
List (AEL) approved by DHS. Much of the equipment on the AEL has not
been tested by an independent testing agency. Therefore, first
responders are often asked to make purchasing decisions based on
manufacturers' claims alone. Given the equipment testing infrastructure
available to the Federal government in both DOD and DHS, we should be
able to quickly assist first responders in making those critical
decisions. Manufacturers could provide equipment to designated testing
facilities where they would be tested by existing testing agency and
the results of those tests made available to first responders through
the Responder Knowledge Base. This would provide meaningful information
on which local governments could better base purchasing decisions. The
concept is not a great deal different from what is done by Consumer
Reports or Underwriters Laboratory. Over time equipment standards will
evolve that ensure compatibility and best value. More importantly, only
that equipment that is compatible with the operational framework should
be on the AEL, and by funding only that equipment and
institutionalizing NIMS, the nation will move to a coordinated national
operational concept.
In order to enhance preparedness of first responders, it is
important to transfer technology already available and needed by the
first responder community. Congress has provided limited resources for
doing that but there is enough available to develop model programs in
various parts of the United States. First Responders in these model
programs would develop the techniques and procedures to use this
technology properly. The results could then be proliferated across the
nation through LLIS and RKB. This concept envisions model programs in a
large metropolitan area, a medium-size city and a smaller community.
Spiral development could be used to embed technology in each of the
communities in order to determine the technology required and the best
techniques and procedures for using that technology. This system would
assure the nation that the technology provided is the technology
required.
Much has been done; much remains to be done.
I believe the National Preparedness Goal is a key element of the
National System. That goal should help identify national priorities,
provide guidance on desired levels of national capabilities, as well as
performance objectives and a system of measurement for first responders
to use against their bottom up assessment. The Goal, scheduled to be
published this March, should tie the system together. One way of
looking at this systemic approach to enhancing preparedness is depicted
on the chart at Appendix A.
While the establishment of a National Preparedness System is
daunting, it is not insurmountable. Much has already been done and the
pieces appear to be coming together nicely. The chore is not
technologically complex, but it does represent a cultural challenge. In
order to change the disparate organizational cultures involved, we as a
nation must understand the threat we face. We must understand the risk
of failing to prepare. Once the American people understand the risk,
there is no doubt that they will do the right thing.
Once again, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to share my views with you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0053.002
Chairman King. General, that was military efficiency. You
finished in exactly 5 minutes. I want to thank you.
General Reimer. The Army taught me something, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman King. Thank you for your testimony. Also, you
mentioned the fact that you have reached out to families in New
York. I am aware of that, and I want to thank you. It is very
much appreciated.
My first question will be to Director Mayer. Certainly, the
issue which is being discussed, that is areas where the
administration has decided not to fund, for instance, the SAFER
grants. I would ask you the rationale for that, and whether or
not you believe that the more targeted funding to risk-based
areas will make up for that and is the more appropriate way to
go. If you could just give the rationale beyond the decision-
making process.
Mr. Mayer. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In terms of the SAFER
program, the rationale the administration has taken is
consistent with their position and our position since the
President was elected, which is the funding of fire personnel
is inherently a state or local obligation, and that the
obligation of federal funds is to enhance the capabilities of
the fire service in order to make sure that we build upon what
the states and locals establish as the base. When we get into
funding of personnel, that becomes something that we believe
strongly is the role of a state and local community.
In terms of the TIPP program, if you could repeat your
question on that, I will go ahead and answer that.
Chairman King. Basically, I guess what I am trying to say
is that of the firefighters, the extent that they are involved
in the war against terrorism, are they being underfunded, or do
you believe more funding is going to go their way as a result
of basing funding on threat? MAYER: I think that the fire
service is receiving an adequate level of funding to meet the
obligations that we have across the nation. In terms of the
risk-based allocation, it will only enhance, I think the
ability of local and state communities to do a better job of
focusing their funding where it is needed, whether it would be
the fire service, law enforcement or other areas of the first
responder community. So yes, I think it will enhance our
ability to target funding in a manner that allows those
capabilities to be built upon what exists at the state and
local level much more effectively.
Chairman King. General Reimer, do you want to comment on
that?
General Reimer. Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it will
enhance the fireman's capability, or the money going to the
firemen or not. I think it has to be based upon the
capabilities that we need as a nation in order to execute this
national prevention system. They could get more money. They
could get less money. I do not know. I think you have to get
that system in place, determine the capabilities that already
exist, determine the capabilities that you are willing to
accept as a nation, and where you want to go. And then the
money will go according to the greatest risk, as people have
already mentioned on the committee. I think that is the right
way to go.
Chairman King. Director Mayer, is the administration
planning to consolidate all the preparedness programs, both
terrorism and emergency, within SLGCP?
Mr. Mayer. I think the issuance of the Heritage Foundation
and CSIS report raised the issue of the consolidation of
preparedness programs and assets in the Department of Homeland
Security. I think that is going to be up to the incoming
secretary to decide. At this point, what we have done is an
inventory across the department to catalog what are the
preparedness programs and assets. Other than that, no
additional steps have been taken and I would defer to the
incoming secretary to choose that course.
Chairman King. What is the status of the MMRS, the
Metropolitan Medical Response System, and how will the need for
states and regions to maintain the system be incorporated
within SLGCP and UASI?
Mr. Mayer. Excellent question, sir. The MMRS program
currently has 124 cities across the country. It is the
administration's position and belief that that is a sufficient
MMRS capability at this point across the country. What we need
to do is to intergrate that program into the State Homeland
Security Grant Program, the SHSGP program, and the Urban Area
Security Initiative Program, the UASI program, so that we can
then maintain that capability through those funding sources
going forward, and to make sure that the capability remains
where it is today and is enhanced as we develop additional
technological solutions.
Chairman King. This would be to either Dr. Albright or to
you. What mechanisms are in place to identify and investigate
and address the issue of misuse of homeland security
assistance?
Mr. Mayer. The Office of State and Local Government
Coordination, and Preparedness has on a routine basis, our
preparedness officers out in the states, and has continual,
daily conversations with the state administrative agents and
homeland security advisers, and are constantly monitoring what
is going on throughout the system. We require reports to come
back periodically from the states on their funding. Whenever we
are made aware of any type of alleged misallocation of funds,
we investigate it or refer it to the OIC OIG accordingly, and
take action where necessary to recoup those funds if we do
indeed find out that they were improperly used.
Chairman King. Do you believe the system is working
adequately?
Mr. Mayer. I believe the system is working adequately. We
can always do a better job, though.
Chairman King. Okay.
Mr. Pascrell?
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the response that you made to the Chairman of this
committee, I do not accept it. It is a blending and melding, as
we say in pinochle, of programs so that we cannot tell what is
the money for basic needs and what is the money necessary for
terror needs. That is why the Fire Act was passed long before
9/11, as you know. The needs were there. The Congress of the
United States in a bipartisan way decided that they do not
accept that the local community and the states have the total
responsibility. That is why the Fire Act has a tremendous
across-the-board support, and has proven so successful.
Two-thirds of all the fire departments throughout America
operate with inadequate staffing. This statistic alone is
pretty striking in communities of at least 50,000 people. I
have in the center of my district a city, but I am talking
about 50,000 or less. We are all in this together, aren't we?
Thirty-eight percent of the firefighters are regularly part of
a response that is not sufficient to safely initiate an
interior attack. You know what that is, right? An interior
attack in a building on a structure, and a structure fire,
because of a lack of staffing. I did not make that fact up and
you did not make that fact up. Congress in an overwhelmingly
bipartisan fashion, we decided and endorsed the goals of the
SAFER Act. We appropriated $65 million for that program. That
was an initiative also long before 9/11, only passed last year
though.
On what basis did the administration decide that this money
was completely unnecessary?
Mr. Mayer. First, I would like to start by saying that the
Assistance for Fire Fighters Grant Program has not been blended
into another program. It remains a stand alone program.
Mr. Pascrell. At the insistence of the Congress.
Mr. Mayer. In the 2006 budget, it remains a stand alone
program that is submitted in the President's budget for this
year. In terms of, again, the personnel costs being borne at
the federal level, it is the administration's position, and I
respect the committee and Congress's disagreement on the
funding of personnel with federal funds, we will administer the
2005 funding for the program accordingly, to the dictates of
the legislation and the authorizing act, but again believe that
it is the federal funding responsibility for us to enhance the
capability of the fire service so that they are prepared if
there is a major event, and to not use the federal funds for
personnel.
Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Mayer, as I said before, there were
20,300 applications for the Fire Act, and about $2.6 billion.
Did any actual firefighters that you know of help in the
administration's decision to reduce the funding by one-third?
Mr. Mayer. The fire program is administered through a very
intensive peer process where we include members of the fire
service community to ensure we get the input of the fire
service. In terms of the crafting of the President's budget, we
did that with deep consultation with the various players that
we work with in the fire service community, to the extent
possible, to craft the budget. The $500 million request is
consistent with our request last year, and we feel it is at
sufficient level funding to ensure that the program meets its
essential needs.
Mr. Pascrell. I will go back to the Chair. Mr. Chairman,
this is something that needs to be examined, if I may
recommend, very, very carefully. This is a sleight of the hand.
This is a disservice to our police officers, that is another
issue, and also fire. But I want to ask you this question. One
thing that is not mentioned today is the role of intelligence
and threat information in aiding first responder efforts. I
hear from law enforcement in my district that they get more
information from newspapers and TV than the Department of
Homeland Security. This is what they tell our office. This is
what they tell me. What comes from the federal government is
often very general.
I would like your comments on what can be done to improve
the flow of intelligence to first responders. General, I would
like your views as an observer from the outside on that
question.
Mr. Mayer. Thank you, Congressman Pascrell. We have built
several different capabilities for us to share information down
to the state and local level. I would ask Dr. Albright to
actually speak more specifically about those, given the work
S&T has done in building those capabilities and identifying
those capabilities. So I would defer to Dr. Albright to address
that question more directly.
Mr. Albright. Actually, the technologies that are in place
have been actually promulgated by our CIO shop. Clearly, the
issue that we are trying to deal with here is how do we protect
classified information. A lot of the information we have comes
from sources that we need to protect. So what you have to do is
you have to develop technology that allows you to share
information across a single network at multiple security
levels, so that the people who are cleared to secret
information or top secret information can have access to it,
and the people who do not end up only seeing the information
below some sort of tear line. That technology is available. It
has been developed. It was originally developed within the
Defense Department as part of some of their efforts associated
with coalition work there. It is being adapted for use to this
environment.
Mr. Pascrell. General?
General Reimer. Congressman, thank you for the opportunity
to comment on that. I have used intelligence for 37 years. I
think I have learned a couple of things from it. First of all,
intelligence is always a little bit fuzzy. Under the best of
conditions, you are not going to get a very clear picture of
what is going to happen tomorrow. It will be a series of events
that possibly could take place, under the very best.
The second thing is that intelligence is a very complex
operation. It requires a pull system from the bottom up, and a
push system from the top down. What I mean by that is the local
responders have got to identify those type of things that they
are interested in in terms of intelligence. It is based upon
their situation. What are the vulnerabilities? What are the
risks that they see? Identify those elements of intelligence
that they want from the federal government. The same thing, the
federal government has to identify from the locals what they
want to bubble up to the top.
That system, I think, has to be in place. I think we are
moving towards that. I think the key is that Joint Terrorism
Task Force that is now being established. I do not think we
should spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to get
everybody classified, or how to get the proper clearances. I
agree with Dr. Albright. There is a need to protect the source,
but I think you can do that in an unclassified way.
What the people at the local level, in my opinion, want is
what do we think is going to happen and what should they be
alert for.
Mr. Pascrell. General, if I may in conclusion, Mr.
Chairman, this committee since its inception, both sides have
stressed the need to have a bottom up situation to secure
America. We cannot have the idea out there that the federal
government is the end-all and is going to solve and protect
everyone of the members of our family. In saying that, I do not
believe, from what I have seen so far, that there is a bottom
up resolution so far. We need to get the locals involved. They
are on the line every day, and they know much more than we give
them credit for.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman King. Chairman Cox?
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have embarked on a discussion, both because of the
questions of the Chairman and the Ranking Member, of the way
that pre-9/11 programs for assisting first responders integrate
or work side-by-side with the post-9/11 programs that are the
rationale for the Department of Homeland Security itself. Prior
to 9/11, we had a COPS program. Prior to 9/11, we had fire
grants. What I am hearing in your presentation of the
department's budget for the next fiscal year is that we are
going to sort of finger paint these things together. There is a
good reason for doing so, and there are some reasons not to do
this.
I think General Reimer pointed out in his testimony, I know
you pointed it out in your written testimony, the fact that we
can learn a lot from our response experience with natural
disasters. The good news is we do not have an experience base
and a knowledge base with man-made disasters that is nearly as
extensive. We do not want to ever acquire that experience-base
if we can avoid it. So we ought to learn as much as possible
from our response to natural disasters, and go to school on
that.
Likewise, our first responders are not uniquely prepared to
deal with terrorism. They do not sit on their posts each day
and wait for the terrorists to come. They also respond to
everything else that happens, so they have to be all-hazard.
But when it comes to finance, we need to keep clear, it seems
to me, how much money we are paying for the pre-9/11
priorities, which were there before we had DHS and we had all
these new responsibilities, and how much is additive because
these are new responsibilities that we are placing on the back
of the first responders.
I think there is a real risk when we meld all these things
together. Yes, we want to be all-hazards in operational terms,
but I am not sure we want to be all-hazards in funding terms
because there is going to be a constant moral hazard of robbing
Peter to pay Paul. Some people have concerns about the COPS
program. Some people have concerns about the federalism aspects
of putting all the first responders on the federal payroll.
Some people have concerns about fire grants for similar
reasons. Certainly, if you are talking about homeland security
dollars, there is a lot of concern about buying everybody a new
fire truck. That may not be the highest counterterrorism
priority.
But we have these pre-9/11 programs and we have the post-9/
11 priorities. It would be not only my advice, but I think the
considered judgment of this committee because we worked on it
for two years as a select committee with field hearings all
across the country, listening to first responders; put together
legislation that passed unanimously in this committee. We have
tried to work very closely with the department. It would be our
advice as reflected in section one of the Faster Smarter
Funding for First Responders Act that we keep separate all
these programs reflecting pre-9/11 priorities, and we
consolidate all of the counterterrorism programs.
My question for you, Mr. Mayer, is whether or not it is the
department's vision going forward that we consolidate not only
all the counterterror programs, but all of the pre-9/11
priority programs as well.
Mr. Mayer. I think what we have learned so far since 9/11
is that there are incredible efficiencies gained by
consolidating programs that have similar functionality, like a
terrorism focus. At the same time, we also recognize the
importance of continuing our obligations that preexisted 9/11.
That being said, a lot of what occurs in the Assistance for
Firefighters Grant Program, for example, is dual use. A fire
department when it gets the bell and they start responding to
an event, they are going to respond to the event and it is not
going to be an issue of whether it was a terrorism event or it
was a structural fire from arson. They are going to respond.
So it is our position that what we try to do is make sure
that we are creating a broad-based overview that we can make
sure that as we allocate resources in terms of the terrorism
funding, that it is not redundant to what is occurring in the
existing programs, and that those programs are matched in order
to reduce those redundancies.
Chairman King. Does that mean that we want to keep them
separate or merge them?
Mr. Mayer. I do not think we have made a decision entirely
on the end-point down the road of whether we are going to merge
every grant program into a single grant program, for example,
or we are going to continue with the state program, the UASI
program, the TIPP program and the Fire Grant Program, as well
as the EMPG Program, Citizen Corps, those types of programs. We
are trying to unify those under a single application so that
for administrative purposes for the states and local
communities, they have a very simplified process to apply for
those grants. But we have not reached an end-point in terms of
these final consolidation into a single grant program.
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
I wonder if I could just on my way out the door, as it were
in terms of my time at the mike here, instigate a conversation
between General Reimer and Dr. Albright concerning your
suggestion, General Reimer, that we have an Underwriters
Laboratory or Consumer Reports-type function more explicitly
set up, either within DHS or under the auspices of DHS.
I wonder if, Dr. Albright, you could react to that?
General Reimer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, the basis of
my suggestion in my written statement was the fact that
emergency responders have a menu of equipment to choose from,
and they seldom have the testing data by a third independent
agency to make that decision about whether to buy or not. I
think this nation has a lot of testing infrastructure
available. I think it is available, and DHS is building some.
DOD has some what I think is underutilized capability. I think
by sharing that testing infrastructure, we could require
manufacturers to require their equipment, or to have their
equipment tested, that the results of that equipment testing be
made available to emergency responders, first responders.
As people use it, they can share ideas about how well it
worked, and it gets into the consumer report-type approach. We
have a system in place with a responder knowledge-base to do
that. That is one of the things I think it is designed to do. I
hope we can see our way through to do that.
Chairman King. Dr. Albright?
Mr. Albright. In fact, actually I think we are in full
agreement with that general notion. There are obviously a
number of different ways that you implement this sort of
activity. For example, in terms of standards for respirators or
for personal protective equipment, sort of a nonprofit kind of
organization is capable of doing these kinds of testing, and
that we would certify as having the appropriate infrastructure
and appropriate protocols is exactly the way to go.
On the other hand, you have things like, for example, the
testing of equipment or the setting of standards for equipment
that would test as to whether or not a white powder is anthrax
or not. That is something you cannot generally farm out the
testing process out to a private or nonprofit laboratory. It is
the sort of thing you generally would have to do within a
federal facility. In the President's 2006 budget, for example,
we have a facility, we are putting $9 million toward a facility
to test radiological nuclear equipment at the Nevada test site
against real nuclear material. That is not the sort of thing,
again, that you can just farm out to anybody.
So what you really need is a collection of assets that span
the space of equipment that you do need to test. The trick here
is to make sure that, first of all, we have appropriate
standards in place. It is really not enough to simply tell a
manufacturer to just go out and validate your performance
claims. It is also important to make sure that those
performance claims in fact are doing useful things for the
first responder community. The first responders typically do
not have within themselves the technical resources to evaluate
whether a certain performance spec that they read on a
radiation detector is the appropriate performance spec. They
are basically at the mercy of the claims of the vendor.
So the thing you have to do is first set the standard, and
then create the laboratories and protocols that validate that
standard and create that Consumer Reports capability.
Chairman King. Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much. I now understand why
Chairman Cox is the Chairman. He sort of took part of my
question. But I want to follow up a little bit on where we are
with respect to standards and testing.
Small departments like large departments are subject to
vendor pressure to buy products, from radiation detectors that
have absolutely no certification or anything like that. Where
are we in this process of setting standards and making
requirements within the department so that people who are
potentially at risk in handling this equipment going to an
emergency scene can reasonably be assured that the equipment
being offered is the equipment that will do the job?
Mr. Albright. We have a fairly robust standards effort
within the department. We, for example, have issued recently
through ANSI a set of standards for radiation detection
equipment. We are about to issue a standard for amino assays
for people who want to sample these white powder incidents. We
have tens of thousands of these incidents that happen every
year across the United States. We have issued standards for,
again, personal protective equipment, including suits,
including respirators. That effort is continuing.
Then we work very closely with ODP to make sure that as
those standards are issued and promulgated that they become
part of the grant guidance that goes out to the states so that,
again, the communities have some assurance that the money will
be spent appropriately. So it is really, on the one hand, it is
a push. We are developing standards. We are issuing them.
Again, we are creating protocols and certifying laboratories to
test against those standards. We have a technology
clearinghouse. We work very close with General Reimer and his
folks to work with the standard equipment list and make sure
that that kind of information as it becomes available is
available to the first responders.
Then at the same time, there is this pull at the other end,
which is that as the grants are being issued, the people know
that they have to buy things that really do conform to the
standard.
Mr. Thompson. General, do you want to make a comment on
that?
General Reimer. The only thing I would say to add to that
is that there is an agency out there called the Interagency
Board for Equipment Compatibility and Standardization, IAB,
which I think does a great job. It has been headed up most
recently by the deputy fire chief in Seattle, AD Vickery. It
brings together the combination of users and federal agencies
and determines those standards that are needed. It helps put
this issue about standards. They have done a great job in
coming up with their selective equipment list, which has now
been blended into an authorized equipment list put out by ODP.
You now have federal grants tied to the authorized
equipment list. So I think it is moving in the right direction.
We do not have standards yet for everything. We need to
continue to keep the pressure on there.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Mayer, one of the issues I think is perhaps
philosophical is that while equipment support is significant
from a federal perspective, the personnel requirement that
somehow the department sees itself not being involved in, and
that is a state and local issue, according to your testimony. I
talk to mayors and county officials all over who feel that you
cannot separate the two; that when we step back from terrorist-
related incidents and not provide personnel support, that is
basically an unfunded mandate on those communities.
I really would like the department at some point to look at
that, this approach that we cannot help with personnel. It is a
major, major issue in a number of communities, both large and
small. As we set policies by which communities are governed, I
want us to be sensitive to the fact that we need to provide
resources in many instances to go with those policies.
Mr. Mayer. We will look into that for you.
Chairman King. The gentleman from Alabama. I would just
remind the panel that we have a vote coming up at 11:30 a.m.,
so I would ask members to try to keep their questioning within
the 5-minute level. No reflection on the gentleman from
Alabama.
Mr. Rogers. None taken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Like Mr. Thompson, I am very sensitive to volunteer
firefighters. My daddy is a retired fireman, and as a local
elected official I had a lot of interaction with volunteer fire
departments. I am particularly sensitive to having their needs
met.
I am curious. The $500 million for the Assistance of
Firefighters Grant Program which you have stated is $150
million below last year's appropriation. Do you believe that
number that we have in the 2006 budget is going to be adequate
to meet the new enhanced needs that our Chairman referenced
earlier in a post-9/11 era?
Mr. Mayer. Congressman Rogers, I do believe it is
sufficient because it is not funds in a vacuum. It is funds on
top of $2.04 billion with the SHSGP-UASI funds and other
streams of funding that can help the state and local
communities prepare in a post-9/11 world. So I do think it is
sufficient, sir.
Mr. Rogers. On a second point, the Center for Domestic
Preparedness is in my district, in Anniston, Alabama. I am
curious, first, as to your general impression of that
installation, whether it is meeting its objectives, what it is
doing right, what it is doing wrong, and how this budget is
going to affect that installation and the role that it is
playing. When it comes to these volunteer units, it is in my
view a wonderful resource.
Mr. Mayer. Yes, the Center for Domestic Preparedness is a
tremendous resource and federal asset to the country. Marion
Cain and the group he has down in Anniston, they do a
tremendous job. I will be down their next week on Wednesday
with the group that will be training there. The number and
volume of first responders that they bring through that
facility to train on the chemical response issues, they really
do a top-notch job. It is just a tremendous facility. It is a
jewel to the State of Alabama, and we are pleased by all the
work they are doing down there.
Mr. Rogers. Is this budget number going to adequately
support their mission?
Mr. Mayer. It is. It is. What we are trying to do,
consistent with moving a number of responsibilities to the
state and local level, is to create a fairly robust training
program. What we are going to try to do, because we have heard
some of the constituency and stakeholder complaints about
trying to get that training out, so we are going to try and put
more emphasis on getting our awareness and lower level training
into the state institutions, the fire academies police
academies and what not, so that places like CDP and our
national domestic consortium partners in the other states, can
focus on more the high-level specific expertise that they bring
to bear, like CDP does with the chemical issues.
Mr. Rogers. Excellent. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman King. Ms. Sanchez?
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being before us today. I just
wanted to echo the issue with respect to trying to help with
the funding of personnel for the local responders. The reason I
say that is that really in talking to all the local responders,
for example in the city of Anaheim which I represent, when we
go on an orange alert, it is about $30,000 extra per day just
to put the right staff in place that the city feels is
necessary, considering that we are a big tourist mecca and we
have so many large venues that generally have ongoing events
simultaneously.
And I understand their hesitancy in wanting to fund
positions, for example. But there might be ways to do it where
we could actually really help the local agencies. For example,
I am thinking of the Joint Terrorism Task Force where the local
agency sends somebody. It has to be a very high-level person.
That takes a lot, to take a high-level person from local law
enforcement, and put them out for two or three hours when you
are having your weekly meeting. That is a big chunk of money,
actually, for the agencies. So maybe there are ways in which we
can help fund specific positions. I know a lot of my law
enforcement agencies have stopped attending those meetings,
even though they have found them very valuable, but they just
cannot take away a high-level person and not really be
reimbursed for that.
I understand the logic in not wanting to fund particular
positions for local law enforcement, and of course our
firefighters, but maybe there are other ways in which we can
help not make it so painful for them to do the right thing,
like attending those meetings.
I also have a question, because I have proposed several
bills in the last Congress and I am going to try to push for
these things again. I have proposed a bill to create within the
Office for Domestic Preparedness an Office of Comptroller to
oversee the efficient distribution of grants funds from DHS to
local first responders. I thought that the directorate would be
the obvious place to put that because of the mission of your
office to coordinate state and local coordination. So I would
like to know, do you think that position would be helpful?
My second question would be, I also introduced a bill to
award the grant funds directly to the local agency. Right now,
we pass them through the state. They have to pass on at least
80 percent of those funds, but the lag-time, or as you continue
to say it, everybody in the system says, well, they are in the
pipeline, they are in the pipeline. But the reality is it
rarely gets down to the local agency. It rarely gets down
there. When it does, it is a long lag-time. What would you say
to sending those funds directly to the local agencies, even
though there would be some oversight by the states as we
currently have it?
Mr. Mayer. Let me address your two questions and your
comment before that in terms of funding. One of the things we
do do, and have done historically and the 2006 budget allows us
as well, is the use of the SHSGP and UASI funds for overtime
during those heightened alert periods, as well as for training.
So when a firefighter has to go to training, it allows us to
pay that overtime, so we help the communities with that money.
So that is one area of how we fund elements of the personnel
costs.
In terms of the comptroller issue, that is an issue out of
the task force on funding that came out last year, that was
chaired by Governor Mitt Romney. One of the issues was grant
oversight. In our office, we are presently in the process of
building that type of business oversight, not an official
comptroller, but that type of accountable individual within our
office who will be the grants management authority. So we
already are on our way to doing that today.
In terms of the direct funding, we do think it is important
to continue to have the states as the single point of contact
to be the responsible entity at the state levels for those
funds, then to get those funds down to state and local level.
You are right, there are issues in terms of getting the funds
delayed and passed back down into the local communities. We are
currently working through our assistance program to find out
what best practices exist across the country that some states
or local communities have done to ensure that that money gets
out faster, smarter. So what we are going to do is once we get
those best practices compiled, we are going to get those sent
out across the country so we can work with the state and local
communities.
Our technical assistance program also works with state and
local communities on helping to identify ways to remove some of
the blocks that may be occurring in getting the funds
distributed. But we do believe that it is important to keep the
state as the recipient of those funds to get those distributed.
We just need to do it better, faster, to get money down to the
local communities.
Chairman King. Mr. Pearce?
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several
questions, if I could squeeze the answers down to yes or no, I
would appreciate it.
Mr. Mayer. I will speak quickly.
Mr. Pearce. Mr. Mayer, when I look at the fact that we have
$310 million out of $2.9 billion, that is all that has been
moved. You put a decimal on a piece of paper, and you put one,
two, three, four, five, six zeroes, and you add a one, it is a
fairly low utilization rate. Do you have a list of the programs
that are not using the funds?
Mr. Mayer. We have a list of all the states in UASI cities,
with their funding, where they have obligated the funds. Most
of the funds have been obligated by the stated UASI cities.
Mr. Pearce. Remember, I have a lot of questions here. I am
trying to press you. You either do or you don't.
Mr. Mayer. We do have a list. We will get you the list.
Mr. Pearce. Is it possible to get those lists?
Mr. Mayer. Absolutely, sir. We will get it to you.
Mr. Pearce. I appreciate that. I would like to inquire, do
any of those programs include fire departments?
Mr. Mayer. The fire departments do receive funding under
the SHSGP and UASI programs.
Mr. Pearce. What states are using, what, zero, zero, zero,
zero, one-tenth of the funds that they were using. Are any of
those include fire department funds? Are the fire departments
all using 100 percent of their funding?
Mr. Mayer. Under the SHSGP and UASI funds, I do not know
the answer to that question. We will get that to you. Under the
Fire Act Program, they are.
Mr. Pearce. I think that is probably a very critical thing.
Do you ever have oversight hearings to see that if a state
takes funds, and if an agency in a local area asks for funds to
be used in a certain way, does the department ever do oversight
hearings to see that the funds are actually used for that
purpose?
Mr. Mayer. We do as part of our daily interaction through
our preparedness offices with the state and local communities,
monitor it.
Mr. Pearce. Is there a high level of correlation?
Mr. Mayer. We think most of the states are doing a pretty
good job of using their funds appropriately.
Mr. Pearce. Do you have examples of states that are not
doing good? Can we get copies of that if you have examples of
states not doing well?
Mr. Mayer. I will get that back for you.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you very much.
Mr. Albright, when you get information on drugs and human
trafficking across borders through the DHS, is it possible to
share that information? Are you all strict with DHS when it
comes down to trafficking and illegal substances, do you share
that information?
Mr. Albright. I can get back to you on that. My impression
is that we do share that information. I know, for example, that
we have a program down at the Arizona border that precisely
does that.
Mr. Pearce. Yes, if you would get back to me, because the
information I have from my district is that it is not a very
good correlation.
Mr. Reimer, on your national strategic plan, there are 200
miles, roughly a couple hundred miles of border in the southern
part of my district with Mexico, and not even a barbed-wire
fence. The Los Angeles Times just ran an article about the
increased activity across there because greater numbers of
agents have been put in Arizona, California, Texas, and it
leads to a funnel effect where New Mexico gets the benefit of
all the illegal activity. So I guess my question is, in that
national plan what do you anticipate doing about that stretch
of border that has some interest for me, and how does it play
into the national plan?
General Reimer. I am not advocating one way or the other on
that. I think it has to be addressed. Obviously, it is
something the nation has to decide what they want to do about
the borders. I have found that in Vietnam, we were very poor at
closing off the border. That is a policy issue. Once the policy
is decided, then you can start putting resources against it.
That is what I have tried to advocate.
Mr. Pearce. I guess my question is, in your national
strategic plan that you testified about and is written up in
your plan, there is not much discussion of areas of the border
like ours.
General Reimer. Are you talking about the national
strategy?
Mr. Pearce. The national strategy plan, excuse me.
General Reimer. I do not know the specifics of what is
written in that. I will have to go back and look at that part
of it.
Mr. Pearce. Okay, fair enough.
Mr. Albright, you mentioned the nano-technology is doing
really great things as far as providing biological protections
for our first responders. Could you give me an example of what
nano-technology has done?
Mr. Albright. For example, in detection systems, one can
develop very sensitive and yet, one of the issues we have with
detectors in general is the lack of specificity. We can get
very sensitive detectors, but then they false alarm all over
the place. With nano-technology, it is possible to develop
exquisitely selective detection systems for certain chemicals
that you really cannot do any other way.
Mr. Pearce. Sure. I appreciate that. I appreciate all your
answers. We got a lot in the 5 minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman King. There is only one vote. Chairman Cox is
going to leave. I am going to stay and we are going to try and
keep the hearing going.
Ms. Christensen?
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
I would like to welcome the guests. I guess I have a few
questions. Some have already been asked, so I will just leave
those alone.
Acting Executive Director Mayer, on the State Homeland
Security Grant Program, I notice that there was a difference in
the amount that the territories had to pay compared to the
states. The territories receive .25 of their funds federally,
while the states received it at .75. You say in your testimony,
I think, that the President's budget for 2006 recommends that
the states have a minimum of .25 contribution. Has any
consideration been given to doing that across the board?
Mr. Mayer. That applies to territories as well.
Mrs. Christensen. It does apply to the territories.
Mr. Mayer. They receive .25 as well.
Mrs. Christensen. Okay, great.
Dr. Albright, you talked about the RTI, I think that was in
your testimony, and the need to expand that, or your plans to
expand that.
Chairman King. Ms. Christensen, could I just interrupt for
one moment? Maybe some of the members who have not asked
questions may want to go over and vote and come back.
Otherwise, we are going to be without members to ask questions.
Mrs. Christensen. Okay.
Yes, given the budget that is proposed for 2006, do you
anticipate that you would be able to do the kind of expansion
that you envision within the budget that you have? For
instance, on RapidCom, would you be able to expand that to the
next 50 metropolitan areas, the other 50, to the full 50?
Mr. Albright. No, I do not believe that. I do not believe
within the fiscal year 2006 budget we have the capacity to do
that. As you know, RapidCom is primarily a technical assistance
program where we work with the locals to put together a plan,
and then to integrate the technology into their communities.
They buy the technology, though, through their grants programs.
It is really more personnel than anything else. To the extent
that we can provide technical assistance, we will.
Mrs. Christensen. Okay. I guess I would ask both of you,
because the grants are going to be more distributed more
closely on the basis of risk and vulnerability and need, have
you already prioritized the different jurisdictions in terms of
the risk priority?
Mr. Albright. In terms of RapidCom?
Mrs. Christensen. For the grants.
Mr. Mayer. We have not. What we will do is we will put
together a working group to really hone down on what should be
involved in this analysis, so that way we get representations
from all levels of government to come up with a good consensus.
Mrs. Christensen. We have long been concerned about, since
the committee has been in existence and the department has been
in existence, some of the delays in getting the different
directorates up to par, staffed, some of the mandates
addressed. There was a report in The Washington Post that
indicated that there was a lot of in-fighting within the
department. You, Mr. Mayer, pointed out that you do not exist
in a vacuum; that you have to work with the other directorates
and agencies within the Department of Homeland Security. Have
you seen the article? I would like to hear your comments on it
because, again, we have been very concerned about the slowness
of some of the directorates.
Mr. Mayer. Yes, I think we have worked extensively across
the department with S&T on the issues where we have
similarities with the Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate, with the Intelligence Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection Directorate. Really, everywhere where there is a
cross-cutting issue, we work closely and coordinate very
effectively.
Attendant to the merger or consolidation of 22 agencies
into a new department, you are going to have bumps in the road.
I do not think that what is reported in the press is
consistent. I think that there obviously are going to be bumps
in the road, but the department is functioning well and it is
working very hard on its missions, whether that is in my office
or Dr. Albright's office or elsewhere.
Mrs. Christensen. So as we have our hearings in this 109th
Congress, we can expect to see some improvement in the speed
and setting up of the different agencies and the directorates
and meeting the mandates.
Mr. Mayer. I cannot make any promises, but we will try.
Chairman King. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentlelady from Florida.
Ms. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
being here today.
Acting Director Mayer, I had a couple of questions. One, I
wanted to align myself with Congressman Rogers's comments on
firefighters, especially post-9/11, when we saw their enormous
courage and sacrifice, as well as the life-saving equipment
that they so desperately need today. Thank you for your
comments about the additional funding that will be coming
through the other channels. We will just continue to monitor
that.
I had a question. The President's budget proposal requires
that the states update and prioritize their existing homeland
security strategies in order to meet a soon-to-be-released
minimum capability level in national preparedness on all of the
priorities. One, I wondered, when do you anticipate that date?
Is it going to be in the near future? How much time will the
states have to comply with those minimum standards? Are there
any states already that are adequately addressing those
standards that are going to be proposed?
Mr. Mayer. Excellent question. The national preparedness
goal and planning guidance will be issued on March 31, 2005, so
roughly less than 2 months from now. What we will then do is
once that is issued and we have guidance, we will do a roll-
out, a series of roundtables and town halls across the country
in order to bring everyone up to speed, and then work with them
as they update their state strategies and their plans to make
sure that they incorporate what we have identified as those
target capabilities. So they will have adequate time to do that
once we get that information out to them.
What was the third part of your question?
Ms. Harris. Have any states already reached that adequate
position?
Mr. Mayer. Because the HSPD-8 implementation process has
been interactive in the sense that we have involved people from
all levels of government, state and local communities, many of
them have participated in the development of those lists and of
that information. So a lot of states are already doing a lot of
work towards knowing this is coming, towards getting up to
speed to prepare for that eventual product.
Ms. Harris. Thank you.
Dr. Albright, as you are aware, Congress has just completed
a massive consolidation of our nation's intelligence functions.
The reforms are primarily designed to facilitate better
communication between all the agencies. The President's budget
has called for an additional consolidation of the science and
technology. What mechanisms are in place that are going to
ensure that those key individuals within the S&T Directorate,
as well as the Department of Justice, Treasury and State, are
going to properly leverage those resources and share the
critical information of S&T with each of the departments, so
they are going to know about all of the different activities
that go on?
Mr. Albright. Right. There are actually a number of both
formal and informal coordination activities that occur across
agencies. The RDT&E consolidation that is in the President's
budget refers to the consolidation of activities within the
Department of Homeland Security. But as you well know, homeland
security writ large is really the activity of almost every
federal agency, and every federal agency that has a research
and development activity clearly has some role to play in
homeland security.
The perfect example is Health and Human Services. They are
responsible for developing medical counter-measures to
bioterrorism events. In fact, their budget is almost twice as
big as ours in total. So what has happened is that at the White
House level, both through the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, the National Science and Technology Council, and then
also through the Homeland Security Council, there are a number
of very formal interagency working groups that I am part of and
staff are part of, that are dedicated to in fact coordinating
and exchanging information, making sure that everybody has de-
conflicted what they are doing, and everybody understands what
their running lanes are.
And then, of course, there is a lot of informal activity. I
personally meet with Tony Fauci, for example, probably about
once a month just on a variety of issues. I meet with the
Department of Energy folks all the time. So it is a fairly
small community and we all kind of know each other. So
informally, there is a lot of coordination that occurs at that
level as well.
Ms. Harris. But Homeland does not have its own R&D? It does
not have its own?
Mr. Albright. Oh, yes it does. Absolutely. In fact, we have
a $1.4 billion budget.
Ms. Harris. So that is how you formulate it.
Mr. Albright. Absolutely. Right.
Chairman King. I am going to recess the hearing for 10
minutes. Unless the parliamentarian objects, I am going to come
back at 11:40, but give Congressman Dicks the opportunity to
make a statement to General Reimer.
Mr. Dicks. I just wanted, first of all, to say hello to
General Reimer, who I have always seen in a different venue
over at the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I did not know
you were doing this. I think it is outstanding. I had a chance
to read your statement when I got here, because I was over at
the Defense Subcommittee.
How do you think we are doing overall?
General Reimer. Congressman, I think we are making
progress. I think the question is, are we making progress fast
enough. I think we are in a race with time. I think, as we used
to say in Oklahoma City, it is not a matter of if this happens
again, but when it happens again. I think we certainly have a
threat that we are going to have to deal with. I think it is of
some urgency that we do it as quickly as we possibly can.
I think the creation of a national preparedness system will
allow us to start to focus on the threat, the vulnerabilities,
and provide us a good means of allocating resources. So I am
optimistic that we are making progress. I would just hope that
we could do it a little bit faster.
Mr. Dicks. On your three key programs, your flagship
programs that you mentioned, are they out to all these people?
Are there Web sites? Can they be drawn upon?
General Reimer. Yes. The LLIS, the Lessons Learned
Information System, was launched last April 19. It is a
national system. It is available to emergency responders.
Because it has sensitive information, not classified
information, but sensitive, emergency responders must go
through a registration process, but we have tried to minimize
the hassles associated with that.
Responder Knowledge Base is available. It is an
unclassified system. It is something that emergency responders
can go in and look at the authorized equipment list to get
comments concerning how well that authorized equipment list
works; make decisions about where federal grants are and get
help in putting federal grants against that. The other one is
totally unclassified. It is a Terrorism Knowledge Base which
allows anybody anywhere in the world to come in there and to
bore down in specific areas on unclassified information. I
basically took the RAND database that they had accumulated for
35 years and put it in a one-stop shopping center. It has been
very, very helpful to emergency responders, researchers,
everybody.
Mr. Dicks. Keep up the good work. I will come out and see
you there.
General Reimer. Thank you, Congressman.
[Recess.]
Mr. Cox. [Presiding.] The hearing will resume, and the
first question goes to Ms. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the panel. I would like to follow up on an
issue that was briefly alluded to by, I believe, Mr. King and
maybe Mr. Pascrell with regard to formula. Perhaps I should
direct this to Mr. Mayer. I applaud the President's efforts to
better target out first responder funding to areas with
increased risk and threat of a terrorist attack. Certainly,
many of this feel this is long overdue.
We have distributed billions of dollars to areas with a low
risk of attack, and this is somewhat related to Mr. Pearce's
comments before, wanting to know where the money is that has
not been used. The most vulnerable cities are left without
sufficient funds to prepare for terrorist attacks. One of my
top priorities, and I know it is one of Mr. King's, Mr.
Pascrell's, and Mr. Sweeney's, several of us, has been to
ensure that New York receives its fair share of homeland
security funds.
Quite frankly, it really does amaze me that we have gone
this long allocating such a large portion of homeland security
funds based on everything but the risk of a terrorist attack to
a particular area or region. It seems to me that the solution
is not to specify in the budget every single year how we want
funds to be allocated. I know there was an adjustment, and you
will probably tell me that New York did get a pretty fair
allocation, but it is still not in the change of formula which
many of us requested.
You probably know that in the 9/11 bill, we had a change of
formula in the House bill. I do not know why the Senate did not
concur, but they did not. So it seems to me and to many of us
that the solution should be to make permanent changes to the
funding formula to ensure that our dollars go to those who need
it the most. Maybe you can tell me, how would a permanent
change in the way that these homeland security dollars are
allocated benefit a high-risk city such as New York? And what
is most important, your office's capability to plan in advance
to work with states on the planning process? Mr. Mayer?
Mr. Mayer. Thank you, Congresswoman Lowey.
Yes, the President's 2006 budget indeed does request a
change in the formula from the .75 base and the rest done by
population, to a .25, and then the remainder done by risk and
need, which is the SHSGP Program. The UASI Program, which is in
its fourth year, is and has been based on risk and threat, in
which New York has consistently been the top city in that
program.
So as we progress through those two programs in the 2006
budget, what you will find, I think, is with the UASI Program
being risk as it has been, and then the change of the SHSGP
program from the PATRIOT Act formula to a .25 base minimum, and
the rest done by risk and threat, that we are doing our best to
make sure that we focus our finite resources in both personnel
and funding to those areas that are of most interest to our
enemies, and therefore are of the most concern to our nation.
So we are doing that in the 2006 budget.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I assume you would like to see a formula
change permanently so that you can plan ahead, and that those
states with the greatest risk would know in advance, and it
would make it easier for you to allocate.
Mr. Mayer. That is correct. The 2006 budget we hope is a
permanent change.
Mrs. Lowey. Now, I also am looking at the budget request,
Mr. Mayer. I have noticed that many programs have been moved
from one program area to another. One example, port and transit
authorities which received around $300 million under the Urban
Areas Security Initiative Program in fiscal year 2005 are now
placed in the new Targeted Infrastructure Program. UASI Program
funding is distributed to high-threat, high-risk urban areas,
and the proposed Targeted Infrastructure Program does not
appear to be restricted to high-risk areas.
I appreciate the fact that the President's proposal does
incorporate, as you said, the idea that funding should be
directed to areas most in need of the programs, but why isn't
the policy of distributing money based on the threat of
terrorist attack put into place in more of the grant programs?
Mr. Mayer. Thank you. The TIP program will be based upon
risk. So what we have done is consolidate a number of programs
into a larger infrastructure protection program.
Mrs. Lowey. Is it restricted? Am I wrong? Is it restricted
to high-threat areas?
Mr. Mayer. It is not restricted to the UASI areas. It is
restricted to sensitive, critical infrastructure and high-risk,
whether it is port, transit, or critical infrastructure, inner-
city bus, those types of issues. So it is not restricted to the
UASI jurisdictions, but we are trying to take a national
capabilities-base view. So there may be critical
infrastructure, let's say Los Alamos, where we would want to
help that critical infrastructure be built, but the focus is
going to be on risk.
Mrs. Lowey. I guess I will have to save the
interoperability question. I see the red light, Chairman King.
Chairman King. [Presiding.] As you know, I would be very
hesitant to ever shut you up. But now that you have shut
yourself off, I will.
Mrs. Lowey. Oh, no, no, no.
[Laughter.]
Chairman King. Yes. The Vice Chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Weldon.
Mrs. Lowey. Always a gentleman, Chairman King.
Mr. Weldon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to working with you.
Let me start off by thanking the distinguished Chairman for
allowing me to travel to Moscow last week and give the opening
speech at the first U.S.-Russia Homeland Security Conference.
There were 25,000 people in attendance. As I walked the exhibit
area, it was amazing to see not just the hundreds of American
companies that were there, but the unbelievable technology that
Russia has. That group will be coming over here, and perhaps we
can even learn from some of their technology. I appreciate the
Chairman supporting that effort.
I am going to raise a series of priorities. First of all,
and I am sure Mr. Pascrell already brought this up, the lack of
funding for the SAFER Program. Here is my problem. The
administration continues to support money for the COPS program,
not under your jurisdiction. But the COPS program is designed
to put more police on the streets. Is a police officer more
important than a firefighter? The point is, if the SAFER
program is not appropriate because the federal government
should not be involved in supporting local fire protection
efforts, then why is the federal government supporting money
for local police efforts?
The fact is, if you take all the money under our
jurisdiction for first responders, and you add in the money
under DOJ, which includes half the cost of protective vests. I
used to be a local mayor. The federal government pays for half
the costs of that. Is the life of a police officer more
valuable than the life of a firefighter? We lose 100
firefighters each year.
So my question is that needs to be answered this year, and
it is one that you are going to hear from these members, why is
there a discrepancy? The last time I calculated, we are
spending $4 billion a year on local police officers and law
enforcement. I am a strong supporter of the police. But how do
we differentiate between a police officer and a firefighter?
Specifically, the SAFER program, which passed with an
overwhelming majority, has no money. Then if that is the
priority, then why are you funding the COPS program?
Clearly, it is a double standard as far as I am concerned.
AmeriCorps needs to be re-implemented. I know it is not under
our jurisdiction, but you need to know that the volunteer fire
service in this country, 32,000 departments, are hurting for
manpower. That is why we put into place the SAFER program,
which also provides grants for volunteer companies to recruit
more volunteers.
It was amazing for me to find out a few years ago, but it
does not surprise me in this city, that the AmeriCorps program
which was designed to create volunteers did not think it was
politically correct to support volunteer firefighters. So in
the first 5 or 10 years of the existence of AmeriCorps, the
32,000 fire departments and the 1 million volunteers were not
eligible for the AmeriCorps program. Talk about stupid. There
has been some movement. I would encourage you as a no-brainer
and a no-new-dollar element to use your influence to have the
AmeriCorps program aggressively support volunteer fire and EMS
organizations. It does not cost any more money.
If they put out guidelines specifically for fire companies
and paramedic units that are volunteer, you could go a
tremendously long way to help, because we cannot fully fund the
SAFER bill. It does not solve that problem, but it is a way
that we can help. Your influence, because we do not have
jurisdiction over that, can be a big help to us.
The third thing is, we need to get involved in some very
specific technology. I am going to mention two areas. For the
past 5 years as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee
and a member of the Science Committee, and former Chairman of
Defense R&D, I am appalled that we have spent taxpayer money to
develop GPS technology, and we have not mastered it in the
military for both vertical and horizontal. We have also
mastered sensor and transmitter technology for our soldiers.
The question becomes, why then haven't we developed a
technology application that you can have a firefighter or
police officer wear that tells you where they are and how well
they are doing at every incident? If we had had that in Boston,
we would not have lost six firefighters. When their air supply
ran out in the warehouse, the chief did not know they were
laboring, did not know they had collapsed. He sent four more
firefighters in to get them. All six died. If they would have
had GPS transmitting devices on them, and if they would have
had the transmission devices monitoring heart rate, pulse,
breathing conditions, we could have gone in, known where they
were, and gotten them out. It is a no-brainer.
So this year, this session, as our homeland security
leaders evolve with emergency response, that has got to be a
top priority because that saves lives. It saves the lives of
firefighters and police and paramedics who are killed every
year by these circumstances.
The same thing applies to a situation that I uncover when I
visited the Loma Prieta Northridge earthquake. Was that 12
years ago, Mr. Chairman? I was walking the freeway with the
chiefs of San Francisco and Oakland, and with the incident
commander from California, Jim McMullin. They were looking for
people trapped in vehicles in between the freeway. I said,
chief, why aren't you using thermal imagers, because your dogs
cannot get down into the crevices between the two layers? The
chiefs of Oakland and San Francisco, two very capable
departments, said: What are thermal imagers? They were not
aware that the military developed thermal imagers 10 years
earlier, yet thermal imagers have a tremendous value for
emergency response.
So we came back and put a bill into play 12 years ago to
create a national computerized inventory that could be accessed
through a Palm Pilot, so an incident command officer on the
scene, whether it is a fire chief or whatever it is, if they
needed, say, like Chief Marrs when Oklahoma City needed
structural engineers. He could go into that, punch in
``structural engineers,'' and know where to get that help
immediately because he had people trapped in that multi-story
building.
That kind of capability, we ought to be developing for
homeland security because that gives the incident command
officer the kind of tool that lets them deal with problems
immediately. The technology is there. The resources are there.
So I would ask you to look at that as a challenge and a
priority for this year.
Finally, interoperability. It was mentioned by the Ranking
Member and others. It is a number one issue. You cannot have
departments come together and not speak to each other. When I
was at the first World Trade Center in 1993, with Fire
Commissioner Safir, he sent me down to the command post. I
said, what is your biggest problem, Commissioner? He said, the
fire department cannot talk to the port authority; the port
authority cannot talk to the police. That was in 1993. Eleven
years later, we still do not have an interoperable domestic
communications systems. We need you to help fight the battle on
frequency spectrum allocation. The Congress in 1995, after the
PSAC Advisory Committee reported that certain frequency
spectrums should be set aside for public safety, still has not
done that because the big carriers, the big TV giants, do not
want to give up that frequency spectrum.
Those are the areas that in my opinion need the most
attention for this group of people, and I would appreciate your
help this year.
Mr. Mayer. Just on two issues, Congressman. Of course, you
have done wonderful work in the fire service, and I had the
honor of being at the fire service dinner last year and I think
I have your bobble doll in my office. I feel like a bobble doll
today, but it was a wonderful gift.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Weldon. We will make one for you.
Mr. Mayer. Thank you. As you know, we have launched the
Fire Corps Program under our Citizen Corps umbrella, which is
going to help hopefully to meet some of the needs of the
firefighter and fire departments across the country that could
use that volunteer support. We hope that that program will be
as successful as the Citizen Corps Program.
Mr. Weldon. Is that under AmeriCorps?
Mr. Mayer. No. It is under the Citizen Corps, Freedom Corps
initiative through the White House. So the Citizen Corps
program, which is in our office, and the request is for $50
million in the 2006 budget is so that we can continue to grow
that Fire Corps Program. We launched that back in November,
December of this past year.
In terms of interoperability, you are absolutely right.
Just so you know, in fiscal year 2004, which is where we have
our data, the amount of money spent on interoperable
communication in the SHSGP-UASI program was just under $1
billion. It was the single largest element of money we spent.
Across the spectrum of what we do, interoperable communication
was the number one place where money was spent. So we are doing
good work. We have a lot more to do, and I know that Dr.
Albright and his team are working very hard on the final
solution to that, but we are doing some good work there.
Chairman King. The gentleman from Texas.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to thank the administration for moving
towards a risk-based formula. I think that was a step in the
right direction. I worked in counterterrorism with the Justice
Department in the Western District of Texas for a while. I
think that is certainly the right approach.
I had a question, though, about the UASI grant money. Is
that also going to be allocated on a risk-based formula, or is
that just going to remain with the top 50 metropolitan areas?
Mr. Mayer. Yes, Congressman McCaul, the UASI program
identifies the top 50 areas, but it is based on a risk-threat
formula that includes population, population density, presence
of critical infrastructure, open investigative work by the FBI,
and the ICE, our own Customs folks. So it is a formula that we
designate that then determines what are the top 50 cities that
then get funded through that program, so it is based on risk.
Mr. McCaul. I would remiss if I did not raise my home town,
that is Austin, Texas, which is the capital of the President's
home state. There was a recent Pakistani that was arrested and
charged with making false statements. He took pictures of the
historical landmarks, including the Mansfield Dam. In my view,
that is a city with a major risk factor, a major one, and I
would ask that the administration take another look at that in
their funding calculus.
Lastly, I wanted to talk about the Joint Terrorism Task
Force. I had a lot of experience with them. I think it is a
great way to get various levels of law enforcement together
working as a team. Sometimes you have turf battles, but I was
curious with the formation of DHS how they are coordinating
with the Joint Terrorism Task Force?
Mr. Mayer. It is my understanding that the coordination is
going well. You know, there are always again the hurdles of
getting through the various issues of territory, but I think
they are doing a good job and they are advancing on their
mission.
Mr. McCaul. Are they fully participating? I know sometimes
the FBI is sort of viewed as the lead agency, although
sometimes they try not to be. Sometimes they try to be. Is
there a problem, you think, with the coordination, or do you
think they are fully integrated at this point?
Mr. Mayer. I do not have the level of detail to actually
answer that.
Mr. McCaul. I understand. It is not a funding question.
Lastly on the regional offices, I think again those are
great things for advancing the ball on homeland security. Does
the administration intend to expand regional offices to areas
like my state and other large states?
Mr. Mayer. I think we are going to establish regional
offices. I am not sure they have decided where and to what
level those will be staffed. I think that is still in the
formative stage.
Mr. McCaul. Okay. If you get an answer to that, let me
know. I would be interested in that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman King. Sheriff Reichert?
Mr. Reichert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I like that title,
``sheriff.''
[Laughter.]
It is hard to get used to the change.
Chairman King. I would just like the other members to know
if we need an enforcer, you are the man.
Mr. Reichert. Thank you, sir.
[Laughter.]
My question is obvious, because I am coming from the
perspective of the first responder, specifically from law
enforcement. I spent my career in a patrol car as an
investigator, as a SWAT commander, as a bomb unit commander,
and the last 8 years have been the sheriff in Seattle, which
has also been mentioned as one of the hot spots in the country
as far as a terrorism target.
I would agree that there is a lot of work to do in building
partnerships, but I have seen a lot of improvement and a lot of
progress being made, so I want to congratulate you for that.
Communications sometimes between local law enforcement and the
federal agencies is, to say the least, tough. So there has been
a movement towards partnerships. I just want to focus first of
all on intelligence. It is great to be prepared for an event
that has happened and respond to that, and have all the
equipment and the training that you are talking about here
today. But I think we want to prevent.
One of the most important aspects of prevention is the
gathering of intelligence, as the general spoke about. There
are some things that we have to be concerned about as we gather
intelligence. Working with the Washington Joint Analytical
Center and the Antiterrorism Task Force that is in Seattle, one
of the things that we have noticed, a weakness in the system of
gathering intelligence and having it analyzed then by the
analytical center, is the collection of the data and the first
and real-time information exchanged between those in law
enforcement on the ground in their police cars with their
laptops.
Just an example, not too long ago, one of our police
officers in the State of Washington stopped someone and wrote
them a ticket. They were released. As the ticket processed its
way through the court system, it was discovered this person's
name was one that we should have been interested in as
connected to al Qaeda. He was committing small crimes in the
area and then moving the money to that group. If we had that
real-time information on the street, we would have had that
person in our custody and not had to retrace our steps to
relocate.
I am interested in knowing whether or not there is any
funding that has been set aside or allocated for that kind of
communication system and intelligence gathering, exchange of
real-time information.
Mr. Mayer. Excellent question. The bulk of that work is
being done in our IAIP Directorate, in the HSOC, Homeland
Security Operations Center. What we are doing, prevention is an
incredibly important element of the work we need to do to
secure this country. A fair amount of the work being done now,
especially with HSPD-8 as we come out with those capabilities,
some are focusing on the prevention elements, intelligence
gathering, intelligence sharing. There is a huge, huge lack of
intelligence analysts across the country, whether it is at the
federal level or at the state level. One of our competitive
training grants from the 2004 program to Michigan State
University, which has a very good intelligence program at the
graduate degree level, is to develop a training course on
intelligence so that we can then take that training course and
distribute it as much as we can across the country to the cop
on the beat who is going to be the person that notices someone
filming a physical structure or who pulls somebody over and
does the data check.
So work is being done. I cannot give you the details of
where we are in terms of the ability for a real-time patrol car
to have the intelligence that is up at the federal level or
occurring across the country and elsewhere, but we are getting
there. It is going to take time because of the obvious issue
with intelligence sharing.
Mr. Reichert. That is one of the frustrations that local
law enforcement certainly is experiencing, because since
September 11 it has been a promise that has not materialized
yet.
The other piece of that is the Link system in Seattle, as
you might know, is one of the five sites across the nation that
have been chosen as a test site for Links. I am wondering if
that is still a program that is still being pursued.
Mr. Mayer. I apologize, but I do not have information, but
I can get that back to you.
Mr. Reichert. Okay.
Mr. Weldon. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Reichert. Yes.
Mr. Weldon. There is a program called JRES. Are you
familiar with that?
Mr. Reichert. No.
Mr. Weldon. It is a program that was started in L.A. and
New York that basically is integrating of data for law
enforcement that is very successful. You might want to get a
brief on it. Does that come under your jurisdiction or is that
under Justice?
Mr. Mayer. JRES I believe came out of Homeland Security so
we can definitely get a brief for you on JRES.
Mr. Reichert. Back to the intelligence issue again. FTEs
and federal monies is not a new thing. FTEs are paid for in the
Dangerous Offenders Program Task Force with the FBI and also in
HIDA Task Force. So when you talk about analysts, I think it is
one of the things that I hear locally in the Seattle area is
that maybe there could be some funding set aside for training
of analysts, and also maybe even look at funding some analyst
positions. They do not pay overtime, but they do pay for the
FTE.
Mr. Mayer. In terms of the training, that is absolutely an
allowable expense. It is development of the training courses,
and once we get those, that will be something that is
reimbursed under both our SHSGP and our UASI funding. In terms
of getting into the personnel funding, permanent FTE, that is a
much more difficult question again. It is the same response. We
believe that that is the responsibility of the state and local
community, and we want to enhance that capability through the
training and other elements.
Mr. Reichert. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Mayer. Thank you.
Chairman King. The gentleman's time has expired. I
certainly thank him for the benefit of his real-life
experience. You are going to add a lot to the subcommittee.
We have finished one round of questioning. We have pretty
much gone through everything. I am going to make a comment, and
I know the Ranking Member has, and obviously if the Chairman or
the Vice Chairman want to pursue a questioning or any of the
other members, they can.
Again, I want to thank you for the time you gave us today.
I also certainly as far as the department is concerned want to
emphasize this is likely to be the first of ongoing dialogue
between us, whether it involves formal hearings or just
involves meetings back and forth, whatever, I think it is very
important that we really get ourselves working together on the
same page.
General Reimer, I want to thank you for the tremendous
effort you have made over the years, and certainly your
testimony today. I would just say to the department again, the
thing which is most important to me, and is all important, but
certainly the thing I place the most emphasis on is the risk-
based formula, to make sure the funding goes along that route
as much as possible.
Also on the question of interoperability, one question
which we really did not go into today, we can do it at a future
time, is the whole issue, and I know certain people in law
enforcement do have a concern about being on the same channel
as those who are not in law enforcement as far as whether or
not there is confidential information and how that issue can be
resolved, and how we can have interoperability, but at the same
time retain the confidentiality that law enforcement feels is
necessary in certain regards.
So again, I thank you for your testimony, and I recognize
the Ranking Member.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for a
great hearing.
I thank the witnesses. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the comments and questions from Mr. Dicks that
occurred after the recess began and the comment of General
Reimer in response be inserted into the hearing record.
Chairman King. Unless something was said hostile to me,
without objection.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pascrell. There was nothing hostile to you.
Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points. We are going to need
a lot of dialogue to clear up some discrepancies. I would ask
you, can you give us a general date as to when the risk-based
formula could go into effect?
Mr. Mayer. For 2006?
Mr. Pascrell. Yes. Well, that brings me to B. Could we do
it earlier than that? It does not affect the total amount of
money. It affects distribution.
Mr. Mayer. In terms of 2005, we will do the similar formula
that we did under the UASI Program, which is the risk-based
formula. In terms of the SHSGP program, the authorization and
the appropriation language limits us to the distribution of
that to the PATRIOT Act, so we really cannot do anything in
2005. In 2006, we will absolutely begin the process of forming
that risk-based formula. We will look forward to working with
members to help us do it appropriately.
Mr. Pascrell. So that means January of 2006.
Mr. Mayer. I cannot say.
Mr. Pascrell. If we work through the problems this year.
Mr. Mayer. I guess it would depend on when we actually get
the appropriation.
Mr. Pascrell. You know how critical that is.
Mr. Mayer. It is critical.
Mr. Pascrell. The second question is, I want to reiterate
again interoperability. We have heard this year after year for
three years past. We have to do something about it. What
Congressman Weldon talked about in terms of the bands that are
available, that is absolutely unacceptable.
The next is the Urban Area Security Initiative. When I look
through the criteria, I would simply request that we have
dialogue. If we can reduce the threshold to 100,000, because
when I am looking through these factors here, they are
applicable to many cities that do not have 200,000 people; that
have 100,000 people and are in high-risk areas, where there are
chemical companies, for instance, or different aspects of the
infrastructure. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we could have
dialogue on that as well. I think it is important. I am not
asking necessarily for more money. I am asking that we have a
little bit different division of that money where the need is
necessary. I think that we could come to an agreement on that.
Mr. Mayer. I look forward to a dialogue.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you for all of your testimony today.
Chairman King. I would say to the Ranking Member that my
experience in dealing with him is if he wants dialogue, there
is no choice. We have to have a dialogue.
[Laughter.]
The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren?
Mr. Lungren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being
at competing hearings here.
I know this has been covered and I know that the member
just preceding me just mentioned it, but just so that I get a
chance to mention my great, deep and abiding concern in our
failure to deal with interoperability. I know there are a whole
host of subjects that we need to talk about in the realm of
homeland security and what the federal obligation is and what
the budget concerns are. But at least in my experience on the
outside looking in, and as the former Attorney General of
California, a critical need in this country is the lack of the
capacity of first responders to speak with one another. It is a
question that has to be addressed in terms of band-width. It
has to be addressed with respect to regional cooperation, but
the third area is cost.
While I am not one who believes that we ought to be
spending money willy-nilly, that is one area where a critical
capital investment is necessary that may be beyond the means of
local jurisdictions. It seems to me it is a serious thing that
we, on the federal level, ought to look into.
When that attack comes, as surely there will be an attack
that comes, our response will be very much a function of our
capacity to speak with one another. I know in my own district,
because of the serendipitous nature of the development of
separate communications systems, that there is an inability of
people to speak to one another just on a regular basis. I would
hate to see the loss of life be increased or the loss of
property, well, loss of life more than loss of property, but
lost property as well, damage be increased by virtue of the
fact that we failed to deal with that issue.
I know that Congress has been dealing with a lot of
different things. I know the department has been dealing with a
lot of different things. But fundamentally, if we cannot do
something about interoperability after 3 years, the onus is on
us. I know all the excuses why we have not, but we have an FCC
decision made just a year ago, or within the last year, dealing
with one of the large competing communication systems.
Interoperability, in my judgment, was not seriously considered
at that time. I saw a lack of federal leadership on that, the
Executive Branch, in my judgment, not weighing in that time to
suggest that that might be an opportune time for us at least to
begin to try and provide the capital investment necessary.
So it is a huge issue as far as I am concerned. I know
everybody else has their own thoughts on this. As you can see,
it is not a partisan issue, but if there is a crying need that
I see out there, it is a failure for us to address the
interoperability question. We will not be able to answer our
constituents with any reasonable response after an attack if we
have not at least begun to make progress. I know there is
tremendous progress that has been made at the department with
respect to the department being able to communicate down to the
regional offices. That is wonderful. But if the regional
offices and the offices of the different departments cannot
communicate with one another, that is not going to do us any
good. All you are going to be able to hear about is how bad
things are. We are going to get great reports on how bad it
was, and how much worse it was than it had to be, and that is
not going to be very satisfactory to any of us.
So I would hope that we would seriously look at that, and I
hope you realize it is a bipartisan issue, and I hope you will
realize I am not a communications expert, but I have had enough
opportunity to see that if you cannot talk to one another, you
are going to have an adverse situation exist.
Again, I apologize for not being here to hear your
testimony. I hope I have not repeated something that you have
already addressed, but as far as I am concerned, that is a
deep, abiding concern and a disappointment that I am
registering, having looked at it from the outside for 3 years
before returning here, that we have not done more.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman King. I would thank the gentleman. Just note that
it appears that there were at least 100 firefighters in the
north tower of the World Trade Center that were killed because
of the lack of interoperability.
Chairman Cox?
Mr. Cox. I think Dr. Albright has a comment on this.
Mr. Albright. First of all, thank you for your comments on
that. Obviously, interoperability is a key issue. I think it
was pointed out earlier, it is generally the number one
priority that is raised by the first responder community. The
administration has actually taken significant steps, we
believe, to address the issue, with the creation of the
department. We have an office that is dedicated now to
enhancing interoperability. We have over the last several month
initiated and completed a program that allows for site-specific
interoperability. So something that happens like the World
Trade Center, as the Chairman referred to, there exists boxes,
and it is sort of in the technical community called these
kludges. It is sort of a kludge solution. What it does is allow
you to, allows the firefighters, the emergency response teams
and the police to communicate at a site and have that up and
running within an hour. We have implemented that in the top ten
threat cities this year.
The problem with it, as you pointed out, is that it is not
a particularly efficient use of band width. In fact, it is a
very inefficient use of band width. And so as you get beyond a
relatively, it sounds surprising, but a relatively narrow site
like you had at the World Trade Center, and you start to
contemplate some of the things that could happen, you know, a
massive biological attack or that sort of thing, you clearly
need to move away from that and get into a true regional
interoperable solution. As you have correctly pointed out, that
implies a capitalization issue that tends not to rise to the
top of the priorities. When people get their grants money, they
have the fundamental question. Do I float a $200 million bond
issue, or do I use all of my grants money for an interoperable
solution, or do I have other priorities that are of more
immediate need? Or do I just wait for the current system to
become obsolete and then recapitalize at that point?
Unfortunately, that could be 20 years off.
So even though I think we have made a lot of progress on
site-specific interoperability, to address specifically the
World Trade Center kind of issues, the larger question is one
that really needs to be discussed in some depth, and to think
carefully through how we incentivize communities to in fact get
to that regional interoperability level that we would all like
to see.
Mr. Mayer. Just to follow up, Congressman Lungren. In terms
of the funding, in 2004 our State Homeland Security Grant
Program and Urban Area Security Initiative Program, just under
$1 billion of that money in 2004 was spent on interoperable
communication, which was the single largest investment among
our areas. So there is work being done, but more work needs to
be done. You are right.
Chairman King. Thank you.
Chairman Cox?
Mr. Cox. I just want to again congratulate the department
and the administration for adopting a budget plan which has a
vision for first responder funding that is moving smartly in
the direction that H.R. 10, the Faster and Smarter for First
Responders Act in the last Congress would also have taken us.
The budget document, however, is rather abstract. It does not
tell us with any particulars how this might be accomplished,
specifically how it is that we are going to move funding to the
basis of risk and needs.
With respect to risk, my question for Mr. Mayer is whether
or not this is an IA responsibility, or whose responsibility is
it within DHS to lead the risk analysis and to make the funding
recommendations based on it?
Mr. Mayer. I think it is clearly IAIP's responsibility to
inform the threat-risk element. It is our responsibility to
coordinate appropriately with all of the various elements that
are going to feed into that, including IAIP's contribution, to
then come up with a final allocation of where the money will
go.
Mr. Cox. We are obviously very, very interested, and I
think several of the members have commented on this, in the
maximum use of intelligence to inform these decisions. Indeed,
the definition of risk is the intersection of threat and
vulnerability, and the billions of dollars that we already
invest in intelligence, some amount of it at the department
itself, focused on determining terrorist intentions and
capabilities, matching those against our known vulnerabilities,
another responsibility of DHS, ought to lead to the focal point
for this funding. I want to make sure that instead of just
allocating across the country according to automatic formulas,
political formulas, every state gets the same amount or
everybody gets it according to population, that increasingly we
view this as national security. That is what homeland security
really is.
Mr. Chairman, I just want again to reiterate what I think
several of us said, and I know all three of us said, and that
is that when it comes to the COPS and Fire Act monies, I hope
that we do not put these in competition with the idea of risk-
based funding for first responders. If there are concerns about
the COPS program, if there are concerns about the Fire Act,
then I would like to hear those concerns from the
administration head-on. There is no reason in the world we
cannot have an honest discussion of that, but these are pre-9/
11 priorities, and those priorities have not gone away. They
are still there, whether we fund them from the federal
government or fund them from some other source, they have got
to be addressed.
At the same time, we are now asking first responders to do
a lot of things we never used to ask them to do, and so there
needs to be a new source of funding for those new priorities.
That is, in my view, certainly what these terrorism
preparedness grants are supposed to be all about. So if instead
of dealing with any concerns about the pre-9/11 programs head-
on, we sidle into the decision to cut them by asserting that
the terrorism preparedness are now doing that double duty, they
are making up for the lost Fire Act funds or making up for the
lost COPS funds, then we risk putting that risk-based funding
for terror in direct conflict with the necessary year-in and
year-out funding for law enforcement, for fire protection, for
emergency services.
Now, the budget provides roughly $3 billion for state and
local terrorism preparedness assistance and roughly $500
million for fire grants to put this in perspective, but it does
not tell us, with these figures, what we are going to do about
the maintenance of these programs separately or jointly. We
have had some discussion about that here today. I do think that
there are serious hazards of attempting to merge them all
together and robbing Peter to pay Paul.
So I would leave you with that thought.
Chairman King. Ms. Christensen, do you have another round
of questions?
Mrs. Christensen. No.
Chairman King. Okay.
Mr. Weldon?
Mr. Weldon. Mr. Chairman, just to make a final commercial,
if you will, as we begin the new session.
Chairman King. Curt, do you promise it is final?
Mr. Weldon. It is the final one.
[Laughter.]
I am partial, as are many of the members here, to the
volunteer fire service. I am because there is no other group of
people in America, the volunteers. I mean, our military
volunteer, but they get paid. The volunteers get no money and
they lose 100 of their brothers and sisters every year. You
cannot name another group of volunteers in America that do not
get paid for their job and die, or they have serious injuries.
They are so much more than firefighters.
In the 32,000 towns where they operate, they are the
backbone of the community. If we ever had to pay for fire
protection for those volunteer towns, it would bankrupt America
overnight. Now, there are 180,000 paid firefighters, but the
bulk of the country is protected by volunteers. And it does not
take a lot of big dollars to keep their momentum high and to
keep their morale high.
I want to just give you three things to focus on. The
perception right now is that the administration does not care
about the identity of the Fire Administration. The perception
right now is that the administration does not care about the
Fire Academy. I could imagine if there was a proposal to
eliminate the FBI Training Center at Quantico what an uprising
it would cause. The perception of the Fire Academy and the Fire
Administration, they are small-ticket items, but that
perception is felt by every fire department in America because
they train the trainers there. It is where they train the state
training officials.
Please, in your deliberations this year, do not do anything
that creates a misperception that we do not care about the Fire
Administration and the Fire Academy. The Fire Administration
dates back to Richard Nixon, when the U.S. America fire burning
report was issued, way back in the 1970s. So please be
sensitive to that.
And one other thing, the bulk of our firefighters are
volunteer and they are having a problem recruiting. We have
talked about the AmeriCorps and the new initiative, Fire Corps.
There is another thing that happened last year that is a
terrible tragedy. The Department of Justice administers the
Public Safety Officer Death Benefit Program. That program is
designed to provide death benefits for public safety officers
killed in the line of duty. It was never the intent of Congress
25 years ago to have the federal government define what a
firefighter is. That is up to the states. For the last 25
years, the states have determined that a volunteer firefighter,
as long as the states recognize that person in their job, is
eligible. We have given grants to the Public Safety Officer
Death Benefit Program to 78-year-old volunteer firefighters who
were killed directing traffic in the street; an 80-year-old
firefighter who was coming to the firehouse and got in an
accident.
We give the grants to firefighters who were killed, but
last year the Justice Department, in a case involving a junior
firefighter, now there are four cases, legitimately identified
as a junior firefighter by their states, given state benefits,
given insurance proceeds, were denied the Public Safety Officer
death benefit. That has created a national concern for fire
departments that have junior programs. Many of these junior
programs are a part of Explorer scouts. So they run them
through a scout program; they are junior firefighters; they are
under tight supervision. The states that have junior programs
have tight regulations. The Justice Department should never
have ruled the way they did. We need to get that corrected.
Where you can be helpful is to weigh in as a part of the
administration that works for the fire service on the
importance of the Justice Department and the Congress and the
administration clarifying that in fact the federal government
should not be determining what a firefighter is. If it is, then
we get into age requirements, then you are going to have a very
big battle nationwide. We need to correct that inequity. It is
a very small dollar amount, and it only applies to junior
firefighters. Most states have them at 16 years, some at 14
years, but we need to get that change made that was erroneously
made by the Justice Department.
Thank you.
Chairman King. Mr. McCaul, Mr. Reichert, do you have any
questions?
Mr. McCaul. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reichert. No, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman King. Dan, do you have any questions?
Mr. Lungren. No.
Chairman King. Okay.
With that, again I thank the witnesses for their testimony
and the members for their questions. The members of the
committee may have some additional questions for you, and we
will ask you to respond to these in writing. The record will be
held open for 10 days.
I thank all the members for being here today, and the
committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
--________
Questions and Responses for the Record from the Honorable Penrose
``Parney'' Albright
Training
Question: 1. What mechanisms, if any, does the Department utilize to
coordinate training programs developed within academic and private
affiliates of OSLGCP with the S&T Directorate's Centers of Excellence?
Response: 1. The primary educational mission of the Centers is to
promote scholarly opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students
through research assistantships and similar means so as to develop a
cadre of experts in broad-based multi-disciplinary research on Homeland
Security topics. The Science and Technology Directorate has awarded
grants to four Centers of Excellence: the Center for Risk and Economic
Analysis of Terrorism Events; the National Center for Food Protection
and Defense, the National Center for Foreign Animal and Zoonotic
Disease Defense, and the National Center for the Study of Terrorism and
Responses to Terrorism. These Centers perform mission-directed research
in economic-based risk modeling, food protection and animal health, and
the social and behavioral aspects of terrorism and counter-terrorism.
The Centers are intentionally focused on solving the larger scientific
questions in their specific mission areas using a broad-based multi-
disciplinary approach from which other agencies and organizations could
then take the research and apply to their own specific training program
initiatives. The focus of these DHS Centers of Excellence and their
research areas have been coordinated with OSLGCP as well as other
government agencies.
To what extent does the Department incorporate research performed by
the Centers of Excellence as well as the research activities of other
Directorates and agencies into the design and planning of training and
exercises?
Response: The Centers of Excellence are intentionally focused on
solving the larger scientific questions in their specific mission areas
using a broad-based multi-disciplinary approach from which other
agencies and organizations could then take the research and apply to
their own specific training program initiatives. As an example, the
risk assessment models produced by the Center for Risk and Economic
Analysis of Terrorism support the mission of S&T's Critical
Infrastructure Protection portfolio, which in turn develops tools and
systems to aid facility managers and public safety officials in
planning and responding to attacks on the nation's infrastructure.
The Department anticipates that the proposed Center for the Study
of High Consequence Event Preparedness and Response will have a more
direct role in supporting the Department's EP&R Directorate and Office
of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness including
training programs and exercises. The Department is currently seeking
proposals for this Center; full proposals in response to the Science
and Technology Directorate's Broad Agency Announcement are due April
22nd.
Interoperable Communications
Question: 1. To what extent do homeland security grant guidelines
incorporate standards and requirements set forth by the Office for
Interoperability and Compatibility and its SAFECOM Program?
Response: 1. The Office of State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness (SLGCP) has worked closely with the SAFECOM program to
incorporate standards and requirements into its grant guidance on
interoperable communications equipment into its application kits.
On coordination from OIC and SAFECOM, SLGCP has integrated National
Incident Management System (NIMS) guidelines into several levels of
grant program guidance, including:
Guidance assigning priority to promotion of short-term
incident level interoperability in service of long-term
solutions; and
Updated fiscal year 2005 grant solicitations are
aligned with requirements of the National Incident Management
System (NIMS).
This coordinated grant guidance provides the emergency responder
and public safety community with consistent guidance, standardized
application processes, and similar requirements across grant programs.
In addition, SLGCP is currently partnering with SAFECOM as part of
the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) to ensure
the requirement of a tactical-level emergency interoperable
communications capacity is developed and tested in the fifty highest
risk urban areas in the Nation. This initiative has elevated the value
of tactical-level interoperability and inserted a new requirement into
their grant packages: a requirement for grantees to develop plans that
enable their communities to achieve, at a minimum, tactical-level
interoperability. In a joint effort, SAFECOM and SLGCP have co-authored
a Tactical Interoperable Communications Planning Guidance and Template
for Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) sites and State designated
jurisdictions. Theses grantees will also reference the ``SAFECOM
Continuum'' as a framework for its planning. This initiative builds on
an effort led by SAFECOM in fiscal year 2004 called RapidCom that
focused on achieving tactical-level emergency interoperable
communications in the following ten major urban areas: New York,
Chicago, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia,
Houston, Jersey City, Miami, and Boston. SLGCP provided the technical
assistance for RapidCom.
Are grants for interoperable communications coordinated with assistance
provided by the S&T Directorate through RAPIDCOM, SAFECOM, or other
pilot projects and programs?
Response: The Office of State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness (SLGCP) is currently working very close with SAFECOM as
part of the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) to
ensure that a tactical-level emergency interoperable communications
capacity is developed and tested in the fifty highest risk urban areas
in the Nation. This initiative has elevated the value of tactical-level
interoperability and inserted a new requirement into their grant
packages. Grantees will develop plans that enable their communities to
achieve, at a minimum, tactical-level interoperability. In a joint
effort, SAFECOM and SLGCP have co-authored a Tactical Interoperable
Communications Planning Guidance and Template for UASI sites and State
designated jurisdictions. Theses grantees will reference the ``SAFECOM
Continuum'' as a framework for its planning.
This tactical interoperability grant guidance builds on an effort
led by SAFECOM in fiscal year 2004 called RapidCom that focused on
achieving tactical-level emergency interoperable communications in ten
major urban areas. These areas were selected by DHS in coordination
with SAFECOM as part of the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) to
enhance the security of areas with high density populations and
critical infrastructure, ports, and mass transit systems. SLGCP also
provided the technical assistance for RapidCom through it Interoperable
Communications Technical Assistance Program (ICTAP).
There is a pilot project underway between SAFECOM and SLGCP to
share an existing ODP web-based ``ESP'' portal. This ``one stop shop''
for emergency responders and public safety agencies will help provide a
single resource for interoperable communications information. It also
will include, planning and management applications, grant guidance's,
collaborative tools, best practices and lessons learned data and
information for the public safety community.
Question: 2. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
contained numerous provisions concerning interoperability. What are the
Department's plans for issuing letters of intent to commit multiple-
year funding to promote long-term planning and significant investments
in interoperable communications systems?
Response: The Department's Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP),
within SLGCP, administers two major grant programs designed to enhance
the prevention and preparedness capabilities of State and local
emergency preparedness communities. These are the State Homeland
Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and the Urban Areas Security Initiative
(UASI). Grants distributed under both of these programs are provided
every fiscal year to States and selected urban areas, respectively. The
project performance period for use of these funds by recipients is 30
months. The Department believes that the 30 month life-cycle is
sufficient to cover project costs and ensure sufficient long-range
planning. Further, given that monies under these programs are
appropriated and awarded annually, multi-year letters of intent would
be difficult to implement and reduce Federal and state flexibility.
Letters of intent are generally used to support long-term construction
projects, and not the incremental communication investments funded by
SHSGP and UASI.
How does the Department plan to expand the technical assistance
provided to high-risk, urban areas through RAPIDCOM?
Response: RapidCom was a quick turn-around program. SAFECOM will build
on it to develop common curricula for technical assistance efforts
addressing tactical level interoperable communications. This assistance
will provide a comprehensive approach to defining requirements,
developing governance structures to support multi-jurisdictional and
multi-disciplinary communications projects, providing recommendations
to enhance communications interoperability architectures, helping
implementation and integration efforts for communications equipment,
developing standard operating procedures for incident response, and
testing and evaluating communications solutions through scenario-based
exercises and training. SAFECOM's other continuing efforts to ensure
greater interoperability include:
Development of common criteria (``best practices'') for
technical assistance to ensure consistency in its content and delivery.
Accelerated development of standards, so localities can ensure
new investments will support the national interoperability strategy.
These standards will emphasize open architectures and non-proprietary
interfaces.
Provision of common grant guidance to every program that
provides funding for public safety communications and interoperability
initiatives to local or state agencies. This guidance was developed
with the involvement of major local and state emergency responders and
government associations to foster cross-jurisdictional and multi-
disciplinary interoperability planning and funding.
Continued creation of replicable tools and models for state
interoperability planning, like the plan SAFECOM recently helped
Virginia construct. SAFECOM published the Statewide Communications
Interoperability Planning (SCIP) Methodology as a tool for regions and
states to reference as they develop their own unique interoperability
plans. The locally driven approach used to develop this plan can serve
as model for any state or region interested in developing a strategic
plan for interoperability. States must develop plans in close
coordination with the local agencies since they own, operate, and
maintain most of the communications infrastructures in each state.
Publication of a national public safety architecture
framework. This framework, coupled with the national Public Safety
Statement of Requirements for Communications and Interoperability,
serve as tools to help the nation's emergency response agencies
understand the technical requirements and national migration path
toward fully interoperable communications systems without imposing
requirements so stringent that they stifle innovation. These tools will
also serve as collective guidance to industry on the needs and
requirements of public safety communications.
Incorporation and dissemination of lessons learned from pilot
projects involving interoperable communications.
What is the status of the 90-day regional model strategic plan pilot
projects?
Response: SAFECOM has developed criteria for the Regional
Interoperability Model (RIM) pilot projects, and is in the process of
contacting officials and potential participants. The RIM pilots will be
selected based on criteria that include the level of risk to a region;
the number of local, state, and Federal law enforcement agencies
located in the area; the number of potential victims from a large scale
terrorist attack in a region; the level of commitment and buy-in of a
particular region; the articulation of a defined interoperability need
by the region; and the ability of the pilots to serve as national
models. We are preparing a report for Congress in accordance with
section 7304 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 (Public Law 108-458).
The RIM projects will focus on developing models around the
Interoperability Continuum. The Continuum is a framework based on
lessons learned from RapidCom to help the public safety community and
local, state, tribal, and federal policy-makers plan and implement
interoperability solutions. These elements include governance, standard
operating procedures, technology, training or exercises, and use of
interoperable communications. This framework helps provide a
comprehensive perspective on improving public safety communications and
interoperability.
First Responders Technologies
Question: 1 .How does the Department coordinate the establishment of
priorities for technology development and procurement between OSLGCP
and the S&T Directorate's Centers of Excellence, ORD, HSARPA, Federally
Funded Research Centers, and Federal Labs?
Response: 1. Priorities for research and development for the S&T
Directorate are established using a risked-based approach and is
oriented toward identifying critical capability gaps before attempting
to identify or develop technology solutions. In developing solutions,
the process engages the end-user throughout requirements definition,
development, testing and transition. The process considers the product
life cycle from the outset, including planning and budgeting for
production, deployment, operations and support. It is this process
which allows us to prioritize both within and across fields. The Office
of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, as well as
all the organizational elements of the Department, are heavily involved
in the S&T Directorate's process--formally through the Science and
Technology Requirements Council (SRC) and informally through frequent
interactions at the staff level.
Within the S&T Directorate, the Office of Plans, Programs and
Budgets manages and executes the planning, programming and budgeting
system (PPBS) cycle for the Directorate. It sets short-, mid-, and
long-range goals aimed at achieving the needs set out by the
Administration. These goals include, for example, countering the threat
of weapons of mass destruction and addressing the needs of the
operational Directorates in the Department and of state and local
entities. Functionally, leadership from all of our executing Offices--
HSARPA, ORD and SED--participates actively in the PPB process through
the integrated product teams (IPTs). These IPTs are integral to the
planning process. The IPTs for each portfolio work as a team to
determine their mission space, their strategic goals for the next five
years, and a list of prioritized deliverables.
Research and development priorities as well as funding levels for
ORD (including the Centers of Excellence and Federal Labs), HSARPA, and
SED determined through our IPT process and are dependent on where the
best expertise is found to conduct the RDT&E that will most effectively
meet the Department's mission to ensure the safety of the nation.
To what extent, if any, does the S&T Directorate utilize threat
assessment and vulnerability analysis in determining R&D priorities?
Response: 2. The S&T Directorate's research, development, testing and
evaluation (RDT&E) process uses a risked-based approach to planning and
is oriented toward identifying critical capability gaps before
attempting to identify or develop technology solutions. It is this
process which allows us to prioritize both within and across fields.
The S&T Directorate works in concert with the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Directorate to share information related to threat
assessment and vulnerability analysis.
The RDT&E process consists of four main sub-processes: 1) needs and
risk assessment, 2) strategic planning, 3) program definition, and 4)
program execution. The first two sub-processes ensure that the Science
and Technology Directorate considers user needs, available
intelligence, big-picture risks, national goals and inputs from other
external agencies and advisory bodies to establish its annual RDT&E
program. The second two sub-processes provide a framework for program
execution using the best available systems engineering and program
management techniques. Threat assessments and material threat
determinations developed by DHS are critical factors in the
determination of requirements for medical countermeasure acquisitions
under Project BioShield.
Question: 2. To what extent does OSLGCP utilize the S&T Directorate's
Technology Clearinghouse when distributing technical assistance, best
practices, and grant guidance to State and local governments?
Response: 2. S&T is establishing a clearinghouse that will assist ODP
to disseminate information. This will complement ODP's Responder
Knowledge Base (RKB) at the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of
Terrorism (MIPT) which ODP uses to disseminate information about
standards, equipment, and to announce the Commercial Equipment Direct
Assistance Program (CEDAP). Physical transfer of commercial equipment
is the responsibility of ODP CEDAP managers. S&T was consulted
regarding technology for possible incorporation into CEDAP, as were
other organizations in government that develop technology. Moreover,
information ODP collects about how well commercial technologies work in
practical, small, rural law enforcement and first responder agencies
will be reported back to S&T for incorporation in their development
programs. ODP also collaborated with and funded MIPT to develop and
host the web site on best practices called Lessons Learned Information
Service (LLIS). LLIS contains information contained in after action
reports and reviews written following major exercises. ODP releases
information about grants via the Department's grants.gov web site.
What mechanisms does the Department utilize to identify and transfer
available and developing technologies for use by first responders?
Response: Overall, the Department has made great strides in leveraging
ongoing work to identify, develop and transfer technologies to first
responders. Nowhere is this more evident than in the relationship that
has been forged between the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T)
and the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). In April 2001, under
the sponsorship of ODP, the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of
Terrorism (MIPT) began an effort aimed at improving local, state, and
federal emergency responder capabilities for mitigating the effects of
terrorism. In April 2004, MIPT published the results of this in the
National Technology Plan for Emergency Response to Catastrophic
Terrorism. Through their production of this report, twelve terrorism
response objectives were identified and the technology capabilities
required to address these objectives were explored in the report. This
report has served as an excellent foundation for S&T's work to initiate
research and development in this area. S&T has continued the good work
started by ODP and MIPT and continues to build upon the Project
Responder process by drilling down within these objectives to identify
specific technologies that will provide needed capabilities and by
expanding the work to include technologies to enhance training and
exercise for large scale incidents. S&T has already solicited proposals
for several of these areas that will begin the effort to address some
of the most critical needs.
Another component of the MIPT work is the Responder Knowledge Base
(RKB), currently supported by ODP. The RKB provides a much-needed
screening tool for responders to access information pertaining to
commercially available equipment. The RKB allows queries by first
responders to determine the suitability of equipment to their needs
including technical specifications, compliance with relevant standards,
and applicable grants programs. The RKB also provides a very robust
forum for exchanging information between responders on how well a
particular piece of equipment performs. S&T and ODP are working
together to create a partnership between the Technology Clearinghouse
and the RKB to further leverage this valuable resource.
S&T has also incorporated work of the National Institute of
Justice, the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and other
federal agencies in the overall development of its research strategy
for first responders. For example, S&T captured the needs identified by
the NIJ in their report ``First Responder Needs Assessment.'' and the
recently released report by FEMA on Urban Search and Rescue
requirements.
DHS is also a strong supporter and sponsor of the Interagency Board
for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability (IAB). The scope of
the IAB includes:
Identifying and prioritizing CBRNE incident response
equipment requirements
Encouraging manufacturers, governmental, military, and
private agencies to sponsor research, development, test and
evaluation programs to satisfy local, state, and federal CBRNE
requirements
Providing assistance and/or guidance to agencies,
associations, and manufacturers, for operational testing of new
and emerging CBRNE response technologies
S&T continues to host numerous workshops, conferences and focus
groups including Federal, state, and local emergency responders, as
well as participate in a variety of activities dealing with first
responder needs sponsored by ODP, the Department of Energy, the Office
of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology and other federal agencies.
Through the creation of S&T Requirements Council, S&T has reached
out to DHS senior management at the Assistant Secretary level, to
provide a forum for all DHS components to voice the technology
capability needs of their respective constituencies. This allowed the
DHS components to use their ongoing relationships and traditional
stakeholder venues to gather these technology requirements and provide
them, through a prescribed process which included prioritization, to
S&T for programming and budgeting processes.
Question: What role do the end-users (i.e., other Directorates and
offices within the Department as well as first responders) play in
identifying needs and modifications of potential homeland security
technologies?
Response: The S&T Directorate considers the operational components of
the Department as its customers. To ensure the Directorate meets
customer needs, the S&T Directorate has established the Science and
Technology Requirements Council (SRC) to bring forward a set of vetted
needs from the entire Department. This is an Assistant Secretary level
committee with representation from across DHS that has been chartered
to assist in the solicitation, validation, and prioritization of all
science and technology requirements. The council includes
representation from the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness to ensure that state and local needs are
being met. This council is intended to help the S&T Directorate
identify those needs most crucial to the DHS mission and to develop the
most effective S&T program possible using existing resources. As part
of their mission, the SRC reviews DHS operational requirements and
needed capabilities that require S&T solutions, and identifies those
opportunities that have cross-cutting technology solutions. Prioritized
Departmental needs are then presented to me as a recommendation for
consideration, in conjunction with all externally derived S&T
requirements (e.g., statutory, national guidance), for inclusion in the
S&T Directorate's Planning, Programming, and Budgeting Cycle Guidance.
The inaugural meeting of the SRC took place September 30, 2004, and
was attended by representatives from Border and Transportation Security
(BTS), Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP&R), Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP), the Office of Domestic
Preparedness (ODP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS),
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and U.S. Secret Service (USSS). Our initial
meeting resulted in new requirements and a validation of the needs that
our portfolios had already identified through their interactions with
the rest of the Department. It further served to bring together the
many disparate groups from across DHS and facilitated a new dialogue
that will be necessary to produce a successful S&T RDT&E program. The
input we received at the September 30, 2004, meeting was used to adjust
the fiscal year 2006 budget request and is currently being integrated
into our fiscal year 2007-2011 Planning, Programming and Budgeting
cycle.
Question: How does the Department identify and evaluate military
technologies for possible homeland security purposes?
Response: The Department is often asked about the transfer of
technologies between Departments, specifically between DHS and DoD. The
Science and Technology Directorate is very interested in the
opportunities available through technology transfer. Under the fiscal
year 2003 DOD Authorization Act, Section 1401, DOD is working with DHS
and DOJ to identify and transfer military technology relevant to
Federal, State, and local responders.
Section 1401 of Public Law 107-314 is entitled, ``Transfer of
Technology Items and Equipment In Support Of Homeland Security.'' It
tasks the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior official of the
Department of Defense to coordinate all Department of Defense efforts
to identify, evaluate, deploy, and transfer to Federal, State, and
local first responders technology items and equipment in support of
homeland security. That senior official is the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense.
Over the course of 2004, DOD, DOJ and DHS have met to address
courses of action and opportunities arising from section 1401. These
meetings culminated in an agreement on December 8, 2004, on the
importance of firm commitment to this process, a nominal timeline for
technology-related events, initiation of work on the design of the
transfer process (e.g., that it must be two-tracked, one for research
and development, the other for technology items already developed and
in production), and most importantly, an outline of the major features
of a compliant technology transfer process. They initially assigned
responsibilities for process ownership. An MOU formalizing the
important steps of this process is expected to be ready for signature
in the summer of 2005.
Often, technology developed for one purpose, such as a military
application, cannot be transferred in a straightforward manner to civil
operations. The requirements for maintenance and support, for
performance, and for total cost of ownership often inhibit such
transfers. Although the basic scientific principles that underpin a
particular technology may be leveraged, nevertheless significant re-
engineering is required to make the technology suitable for homeland
security purposes.
DHS S&T has an established relationship with the Technical Support
Working Group that represents eight government agencies with similar
tasks, technology requirements and goals. HSARPA continues to monitor
some of the more than 90 projects from the first joint DHS/TSWG BAA
which closed in June, 2003. DHS provided $60M [$30M in fiscal year 2003
and $30M in fiscal year 2004] to fund the most meritorious proposals.
Our personnel participate in the requirements setting working groups
and the Director, HSARPA is a member of the TSWG Executive Committee
which allows any redundancy to be identified. DHS S&T will continue to
fund [$12M in fiscal year 2005] proposals of mutual benefit and
interest to DHS and TSWG members.
Other issues associated with transferring technologies to the
homeland security operating environment include the need for ease of
operations, extremely low total cost of ownership, providing liability
relief, providing incentives for non-federal actors to purchase useful
technologies, developing and promulgating standards and providing
technical assistance to aid those purchasers in their procurement
decisions. While the Department has made tremendous progress in all
these areas, much remains to be done, and sustained effort is needed.
SAFETY Act
Question: 1. How well-versed do you believe State and local first
responder equipment and service buyers are on the benefits of procuring
equipment or services that have been given full SAFETY Act protection?
Response: The Department, and the Office of Safety Act Implementation
(OSAI), has proactively engaged relevant communities, including groups
representing emergency responders and firms that supply their equipment
and services. Efforts like this are critical to helping these
communities understand the benefits of the SAFETY Act and the process
by which the Department extends such benefits, especially as relates to
non-federal procurements. More education is needed. However, we have
taken a number of measures to facilitate consultations with the OSAI,
including establishing (i) a simple pre-application process to address
questions and provide guidance to an applicant, (ii) an interactive web
site, and (iii) a phone-in help desk. We use these techniques not just
to educate stakeholders, but also to solicit suggestions for how the
Department can institute improvements to our processes and procedures.
It is worth noting that DHS has in fact received several applications
relating to products designed for emergency responders.
Question: If you believe they are well-versed, what do you attribute
that to? If you believe that they are not well-versed, what should DHS
be doing to enhance their awareness of this program?
Response: Although OSAI has engaged in active outreach efforts, much
remains to be done. The Department, and OSAI, will continue to reach
out proactively to inform relevant communities--first responders;
state, local, and tribal agencies; the private sector; the legal
profession; federal agencies--of the benefits and processes associated
with the SAFETY Act. In addition, the Department will continue to
solicit feedback from these communities regarding how the Department
can better implement the Act.
Question: 2. How much liability, in the aggregate, do you believe first
responders have assumed by purchasing equipment or services utilizing
DHS grant funds?
Response: Purchasing equipment or services utilizing DHS grant funding
should generally not significantly impact the potential liability of
emergency responders. First responders generally have no liability for
the failure of a technology that they use in the course of performing
their duties. Moreover, those employed by the government are entitled
to qualified immunities for acts or omissions that occur within the
scope of their duties. In addition, government agencies themselves
enjoy certain immunities. Others may be protected by the ``Good
Samaritan Laws'' in effect in all 50 states and the District of
Columbia. SAFETY Act protections are designed for the providers of
anti-terrorism technologies that may be employed by emergency
responders. As of March 3, 2005, the OSAI had received several
applications for technologies that are particularly relevant to the
emergency responder community.
Question: How do you suggest we mitigate this risk that first
responders may be taking on unknowingly?
Response: As addressed in the answer to the previous question, it is
not clear that emergency responders are assuming greater risks of
liability, unknowingly or otherwise. We believe the SAFETY Act,
consistent with the intent of Congress in promulgating the legislation,
provides an appropriate measure of liability and risk mitigation for
those firms supplying products and services in support of emergency
responders.
Question: 3. What trends have you seen arise over the last year or so
in terms of first responders linking their procurements with SAFETY Act
coverage?
Response: In general, it has not been the first responder community
that has been linking procurements to SAFETY Act protections, but
rather commercial vendors who, in a very few number of cases, have been
linking their response to a procurement solicitation from state, local,
and federal agencies to SAFETY Act protections. The Department is
working proactively with procurement agencies to develop processes and
procedures to better integrate SAFETY Act protections into the state,
local, tribal, and federal procurement process.
Question: What role do you believe DHS can or should play to encourage
formal linkage between procurements at the State and local levels and
SAFETY Act coverage decision-making by the Federal government?
Response: DHS has been working with procurement officials throughout
the federal government to develop outreach and education materials, and
to identify how the SAFETY Act review process and the procurement
processes of DHS and other federal agencies can best be aligned. The
Department intends to do the same with state, local and tribal
agencies. In addition, the Department is working proactively with
procurement agencies to develop processes and procedures that render
inclusion of SAFETY Act protections a part of the state, local, and
federal procurement process. However, as the SAFETY Act is predicated
upon voluntary participation, we have no immediate plans to formally
link procurement decisions at the State and local level with decisions
on an application for SAFETY Act protections. We believe the
coordination of the SAFETY Act application process and the government
procurement selection process is best addressed through outreach and
education efforts in order to ensure that government procurement
officials and SAFETY Act application evaluators can each perform their
respective important public and fiduciary duties. The SAFETY Act
website, www.safetyact.gov, was modified last year to create a section
for public procurements. We will provide there special instructions
that will apply to applications for technologies that are the subject
of a government procurement and detail a streamlined application
process with reduced information requirements for applicants applying
for SAFETY Act benefits in connection with a specific public
procurement.
Question: 4. Critical infrastructure owner-operators are also, in many
ways, required to act as first responders if an incident occurs inside
the gates of their facilities. How has the SAFETY Act office reached
out to this community to educate their procurement officials on the
benefits of the program?
Response: The Department, and OSAI, will continue to reach out
proactively to inform relevant communities--first responders; state,
local, and tribal agencies; the private sector; the legal profession;
federal agencies--of the benefits and processes associated with the
SAFETY Act. In addition, the Department will continue to solicit the
views of these communities on how to better implement the Act. The
Department is working proactively with procurement agencies to develop
processes and procedures that render inclusion of SAFETY Act
protections a part of the state, local, and federal procurement
process. Although procurements by private companies are simpler to deal
with in this regard, we expect that the policies implemented for
government procurements will inform private sector practices. The
Department will also look to improve coordination between the
leadership of the Directorate for Science and Technology and the
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate to
identify means for increasing the awareness of the SAFETY Act within
the protective security community and among other owners and operators
of critical infrastructure.
Question: 5. How would you describe the effect that the current pace of
SAFETY Act designations and certifications has had on the ability of
State and local first responders and critical infrastructure owner/
operators to purchase the very best equipment or services?
Response: The SAFETY Act review process cannot guarantee that anyone
will be able to purchase ``the very best'' product or services. It is
designed, as required by the statute, to help individual effective
technologies overcome market barriers on an application-by-application
basis. We make no judgment about what equipment or services are
``best.'' The Department has received a number of Pre-Applications and
Full Applications from firms providing products and services related to
critical infrastructure protection. We are unaware of any impediments
to date placed on procurement actions due to SAFETY Act processes or
procedures. It should be noted, further, that it is important that the
OSAI be in a position, through data delivered in the application, to
satisfy its statutory requirements under the SAFETY Act legislation,
and in particular be able to determine the effectiveness of the
technology. As noted earlier, assuring that state, local, tribal, and
federal agencies, and the private sector owner/operator communities
receive the benefits of the SAFETY Act requires an understanding of the
requirements of the SAFETY Act. The Department, and OSAI, will continue
to reach out proactively to inform relevant communities--first
responders; state, local, and tribal agencies; the private sector; the
legal profession; federal agencies--of the benefits and processes
associated with the SAFETY Act. In addition, the Department will
continue to solicit the views of these communities for how the
Department may better implement the Act.
Question: In your view, have State or local officials procuring anti-
terror technologies or services had access to a full range of the best
anti-terror technology or services?
Response: DHS has made significant strides in working within the
Department, other Federal Agencies and directly with State and Local
officials to assure that the best available anti-terror technology or
services are accessible to state and local emergency responders and
other government officials.
An example of this is S&T and ODP support of the Memorial Institute
for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) through Project Responder, the
Responder Knowledge Base, the Lessons Learned Information System, and
the SAVER Program. These programs have made significant strides not
only in getting important technical information regarding anti-terror
technologies in to the hands of emergency responders, but also provide
information pertaining to best practices, lessons learned and existing
capability gaps.
The implementation of S&T's Regional Technology Integration
Initiative is specifically focused on expediting the transition and
integration of advanced homeland security technologies to state and
local communities. This initiative is a partnership between ODP and S&T
and recognizes the need for COTS/GOTS equipment and other legacy
systems to interface with newly developed technologies.
S&T and ODP will continue to work together and with other Federal
partners (particularly DOD) to facilitate the transfer and
commercialization of defense technologies to the emergency response
community.
Question: 1. The President's fiscal year 2006 budget request includes a
decrease of $420 million, or more than 10%, from the current year for
the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness.
On what basis did the Administration determine that the proposed
funding was the right amount?
Response: The funding provided to our nation's first responders has
been sufficient to address their most critical needs. Between fiscal
year 2002 and fiscal year 2004 the Office for Domestic Preparedness
(ODP) awarded homeland security grants totaling $6.1 billion. In fiscal
year 2005 ODP anticipates awarding over $3.6 billion in grants.
The Department firmly supports the fiscal year 2006 budget request,
continues funding a the level requested for the last two years,
providing significant assistance to our Nation's state and local
emergency prevention and response communities. As outlined in the SLGCP
grant announcements, each year's funding builds on previously developed
capabilities. Federal preparedness assistance is not intended to
subsidize existing state and local public safety activities.
Many states have adopted a regional approach in their planning and
allocation of these homeland security resources, with the knowledge
that every community cannot build and sustain a comprehensive response
and recovery capability. DHS recognizes that communities of all sizes
depend upon one another in times of need, and advocates this regional
approach in the allocation of resources. Additionally, DHS has begun
focusing the application of homeland security funding more finely--
targeting it through proscriptive guidance and requirements to address
critical national priorities and capability gaps. For example, in its
fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program, DHS requires states
and local jurisdictions to begin active, multi-jurisdictional
operational planning and to achieve tactical interoperability in key
urban areas in all 56 states and territories.
As national priorities and capabilities are further defined through
the HSPD-8 process, homeland security grant guidance will continue to
become more directive, ensuring that funding is expended to close
critical capability gaps nationally. DHS will remain committed to
ensuring that critical funding necessary to support our nation's first
responders continues to be made available in a timely and effective
manner.
Question What does the Administration believe is the right amount of
first responder funding, and how many years will it take to get there?
Response: Combating terrorism is an ever-evolving challenge, based on
the adaptive and immoral nature of the terrorists who wish to attack
the homeland. Our policies, processes and funding must reflect the
characteristics of this challenge. We are engaged in a competitive
learning contest, so policies must be anticipatory, rather than
reactive, and our processes must be as agile and dynamic as the threats
we face.
HSPD-8 directly addressed the need to better link grant funding to
national preparedness goals and objectives. The National Preparedness
Goal will lay out the path for achieving and sustaining risk-based
target levels of capability for prevention, preparedness, response and
recovery for major events. The Department is in the final stages of
developing a universal task list of items that need to be accomplished
during an emergency, and the capabilities required to complete those
tasks. DHS will then use performance metrics to assess our nation's
preparedness, based on these tasks and target capability levels. The
results of this process will provide the most accurate measure possible
of our true national preparedness needs at all levels of government.
As that process develops, the President's fiscal year 2006 budget
request of more than $3.6 billion for our Nation's state and local
emergency responders is sufficient in continuing to enhance the
Nation's level of preparedness. When coupled with the last four years
of funding, the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request will serve
to allow the Nation to continue making significant strides in its
prevention and preparedness activities.
Question: 2. Given the priority that many first responders place on
interoperable communications, it is troubling that the Fiscal Year 2006
budget request for DHS includes a small cut in funding for the Office
of Interoperability and Compatibility. But it is even worse that one
third of the existing funding, which has been provided by other
participating agencies, is not included at all. What is the projected
effect on each ongoing program at OIC of a projected 30% budget cut?
Response: The Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) was
created to focus on the need to develop consistent technical
requirements among DHS programs. As part of its mission OIC
incorporated the SAFECOM program, which began as an e-Government
initiative of the Office of Management and Budget. Like other cross-
cutting initiatives, SAFECOM received funding through federal funding
partners. In fiscal year 2005 the Communications program area of OIC
has approximately $32 million available for interoperability efforts.
The $32 million is comprised of $21 million appropriated to OIC for
communications efforts as well as up to $11 million from its federal
funding partners. In fiscal year 2006, as it graduates from an e-
Government program to a DHS-managed program, SAFECOM will no longer
rely on funding contributions from partner agencies, and will be
entirely financed from DHS resources.
Question: 3. What was the cost in 2004 of the RAPIDCOM project to
provide training to ten major metropolitan centers for interoperable
communications at a major incident?
Response: RapidCom, a joint initiative between DHS and DOJ, used a
portion of the budgets from several programs, including the Department
of Justice's 25 Cities Project, ODP Interoperable Communications
Technical Assistance Program (ICTAP), the National Institute of Justice
Commtech Program, and SAFECOM, to accomplish its mission. All these
programs also provided staff support for RapidCom. One of RapidCom's
most important lessons learned was that equipment procurement was not
the most immediate need, as for the most part tactical equipment was
already in place. The real need was to make equipment operational
through training and technical assistance,. The costs of such an
initiative were directed at supporting the development and
implementation of governance structures, standard operating procedures,
training and exercises, technical assistance, and other forms of
planning assistance.
Question: Has DHS offered to expand the program to other interested
metropolitan areas?
Response: The initial RapidCom program, designed to ensure a basic
level of public safety interoperability in ten high-threat urban areas,
concluded in December 2004. However, related initiatives are ongoing.
DHS has made tactical interoperability a major priority for the 50
cities participating in the fiscal year 2005 Urban Area Security
Initiative, and DHS is also collaborating with DOJ on 25-city High-Risk
Metropolitan Area Interoperability Assistance Project.
Question: How much would such an expansion cost DHS, on a per-city
basis?
Response: The cost of ensuring tactical level interoperability in an
urban area is highly dependant on the site of the area, the conditions
on the ground, what assistance the city has already received, and what
equipment that city has been able to purchase.
Currently there is no consistent way to measure the state of
interoperability. SAFECOM is working on a national Baseline assessment
of public safety interoperable communications, which it intends to
complete by the end of fiscal year 2005. When the Baseline is complete,
SAFECOM will develop a tool to help areas assess themselves and
identify gaps between public safety requirements and the current state
of interoperability nationwide. The Baseline will enable us to measure
improvements in public safety communications and interoperability. This
information will be crucial to the development of a rational method for
prioritizing the nation's needs and allocation of the Department's
resources.
Question: 4. Dr. Albright, you stated in the hearing that you would
support some form of a DHS certification process by which commercial
equipment could be vetted, and information on the testing be provided
to state and local purchasers. Assuming that such a system could be
fee-based, what would it take for DHS to establish, or contract out,
such a testing capability?
Response: DHS is evaluating the need for certification for a variety of
homeland security related equipment and coordinating the development of
suitable programs in key areas. These certification programs will
provide federal, state and local purchasers with confidence that these
products meet security performance, safety and usage standards and
requirements.
In order to establish an effective certification program several
elements need to be in place. These include appropriate standards and/
or technical requirements, test protocols, factory quality surveillance
systems and a demand driver for the certification. Since, DHS is not a
regulator for these equipments in most cases federal procurement
requirements and grant guidance for state and local procurement using
federal grant money will drive the demand for certified security
products. We anticipate that state and local purchasers will make
extensive use these programs.
DHS is working in several areas to develop the needed technical
requirements, standards and test protocols as well as working with
public and private sector organizations involved in laboratory testing,
certification and laboratory accreditation to coordinate security
equipment certification systems. Specific examples include radiation
detectors, bio metric access devices and inter operability of public
safety radio equipment.
Question: 5. What will happen in the event of a terrorist attack if the
first responders who do not have SAFETY Act protection are sued and
there is no liability protection?
Response: Again, first responders generally have no liability for the
failure of a technology that they use in the performance of their
duties. Moreover, those employed by the government are entitled to
qualified immunities for acts or omissions that occur within the scope
of their duties. In addition, government agencies themselves enjoy
certain immunities. Others may be protected by the ``Good Samaritan
Laws'' in effect in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. SAFETY
Act protections are designed for, among others, the providers of
technologies that may be employed by emergency responders. As of March
3, 2005, the OSAI had received several applications for technologies
that are particularly relevant to the emergency responder community.
Questions and Responses for the Record from Mr. Matt A. Mayer
Terrorism Preparedness Grants
Question: 1. In light of the President's budget request and support for
risk-based allocation of terrorism preparedness grants, does the
Department plan to consolidate the State Homeland Security Grant
Program (SHSGP) and the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) into a
single, risk-based grant program?
Response: While the Department plans to incorporate risk and need into
the SHSGP process in fiscal year 2006, the intent is not to consolidate
SHSGP and UASI into a single, risk-based grant program. The Department
has proposed a redesign of the homeland security funding process to
award SHSGP funds based on risk and needs, in contrast to previous
years where funding was apportioned according to the USA PATRIOT Act
formula. Under this proposal, awards will be based on a relative
evaluation of risk and application-based review of need, with no state
receiving less than 0.25 percent at the appropriated level of funding.
Eligibility for participation in the UASI program will be
determined by the Department based on an analysis of several risk
factors. Applications will be reviewed and evaluated based on how
proposed activities align with identified capability gaps, strategic
goals and objectives, and national priorities. Award determinations
will be made based on an evaluation of both need and risk.
The Department believes that it is important to maintain the
integrity of both SHSGP and UASI as separate grant programs. Their
relative funding levels should be part of the annual budget process,
not be driven by statutory formulas. UASI is designed to address the
unique risks and needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas while
SHSGP ensures that all states receive a minimum threshold of homeland
security assistance. We still see the need to balance the heightened
risk of urban areas with the imperative to build a baseline, nationwide
capability to prevent, respond to, and recover from terrorism.
Is the Administration considering consolidation of other risk-based
grant programs, such as the proposed Targeted Infrastructure Protection
program, into one, risk-based grant program? If not, why is it
necessary to have multiple, separate risk-based grant programs?
Response: The Department does not plan to consolidate all risk-based
grant programs into a single risk-based program. While it is imperative
for the Department to integrate risk into homeland security assistance
allocations, it is also important to maintain initiatives targeted
toward specific program areas and national priorities.
In recognition of both the need to consolidate programs where
possible and the high priority assigned to critical infrastructure
protection, the Department has proposed consolidating various
infrastructure protection grants into a single, comprehensive Targeted
Infrastructure Protection program with additional funds. This effort
will encompass key infrastructure elements such as seaports, mass
transit, railways, and chemicals sites into a broader program that is
based on need, risk, and national priorities. This consolidated program
will maximize the Department's flexibility to allocate funds across
critical infrastructure sectors according to the greatest risk.
However, the Department continues to see value in maintaining
several separate programs that each seek to address specific needs
based on the level of government. For example, UASI addresses the
unique risks and needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas; SHSGP
helps states build capabilities to prevent, respond to, and recover
from terrorism; and DHS will administer the Targeted Infrastructure
Protection Program to focus on high-risk critical infrastructures
across the country.
To what extent does OSLGCP utilize the IAIP Directorate's risk
assessments, intelligence, and other resources?
Response: SLGCP actively coordinates with IAIP regularly on risk
assessment and critical infrastructure protection efforts. For example,
SLGCP worked closely with IAIP on the threat data use to identify and
prioritize jurisdictions eligible for the fiscal year 2005 UASI
program. In addition, with the release of the fiscal year 2005 Buffer
Zone Protection Program, IAIP was responsible for identifying the sites
included in the program and worked with SLGCP in determining the state
allocations and providing the program guidance based on that
information. This relationship will be even stronger in fiscal year
2006, as SLGCP anticipates working closely with IAIP on evaluating
threats and vulnerabilities for allocating State Homeland Security
Grants and Target Infrastructure Protection Grants.
Question: 2. The risk-based funding formula used to allocate fiscal
year 2005 funds to UASI jurisdictions relied on a combined threat
index. How will at-risk jurisdictions with small police forces and few
resources dedicated to counterterrorism and intelligence activities be
able to compete with the largest cities for UASI funds if the level of
funding is directly related to a jurisdiction's ability to engage in
voluntary counterterrorism activity and reporting?
Response: The purpose of the UASI program is to provide financial
assistance to address the unique planning, equipment, training, and
exercise needs of high risk urban areas, and to assist them in building
an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, respond to, and
recover from threats or acts of terrorism. The UASI program is intended
to both prioritize funding, and ensure that funding is not distributed
so widely that it dilutes the ability to effect significant
improvements in the homeland security posture in the selected high
threat, high population urban areas.
In fiscal year 2005, the size of local police forces and their
level of dedicated counterterrorism activities did not factor into the
allocation methodology. UASI funds were allocated to urban
jurisdictions based solely on risk factors reflecting population,
population density, vulnerable infrastructure, and Federal threat data.
In fiscal year 2006, the UASI allocation formula will be similar, but
with consideration for estimated needs as well.
In determining the eligible UASI sites this year, DHS began with an
analysis of any city, and counting any asset within a city, against
which there was an identified credible threat. Further examination
included a detailed focus on cities with a core population exceeding
225,000. From this analysis and prioritization, 50 cities/urban areas
were objectively selected to receive funding in fiscal year 2005 under
the UASI program. DHS recognizes that to prevent or respond to an event
in the designated urban area (city) that there must be a regional
approach. This is why the program is flexible for states to determine
others who should be a part of the planning and share funding.
What safeguards will the Department install to ensure that the 20
percent designations for law enforcement terrorism prevention
activities under SHSGP and UASI are consistent and properly
coordinated?
Response: In the proposed fiscal year 2006 SHSGP and UASI programs,
states and urban areas will identify upfront proposed activities to be
used with law enforcement and terrorism prevention funds. SLGCP will
leverage our robust monitoring program and reporting capabilities to
ensure consistency and proper coordination. The on-site monitoring
program and detailed program implementation reports will show how
funding is allocated and expended under each program's guidelines.
3. It is important for OSLGCP to encourage the adoption of written
mutual aid agreements, particularly in light of the use of such
agreements in the UASI risk-based formula.
Response: SLGCP agrees with the importance of establishing formal
mutual aid agreements. Utilizing mutual aid is a key aspect in
preventing and responding to incidents nationally.
What assistance, if any, does the Department intend to provide for
jurisdictions unable to formalize such agreements?
Response: SLGCP, and DHS as a whole, strongly supports expanding mutual
aid and FEMA has developed model intra-state mutual aid and guidance
for states to use to formalize such agreements. Guidance and assistance
is also available through ODP and the NIMS Integration Center (NIC).
Should OSLGCP or FEMA provide such assistance?
Response: SLGCP and FEMA are coordinating closely and feel it is best
to leverage all resources available due to the importance of
establishing formal mutual aid agreements. SLGCP recognizes that FEMA
has had considerable experience in this area, and coordination with the
NIC is key in ensuring our programs compliment one another in providing
this type of assistance.
Question: 4. What mechanisms are in place for ODP to identify,
investigate, and remediate the misuse or methods of spending Federal
homeland security assistance?
Response: The Office for State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness (SLGCP) provides oversight for program expenditures in
several ways. For programs awarded in Fiscal Year 2003 and before, all
items purchased had to be identified on budget detail worksheets. These
budgets are submitted from local governments, through the State
Administrative Agencies (SAA), to the ODP Preparedness Officer for
line-item review and approval. All equipment is compared to the
Authorized Equipment List and relative program guidance verifying that
requested costs are allowable. ODP approval must be obtained before
State or local governments can draw-down federal funds for expenditure.
To keep pace with the increasing complexity of its homeland
security programs, SLGCP improved its reporting mechanisms in fiscal
year 2004 by implementing the Initial Strategy Implementation Plan
(ISIP) report and Bi-annual Strategy Implementation Report (BSIR) in
place of budget detail worksheets. Focusing on statewide projects and
their relationship to the goals and objectives of the State Homeland
Security Strategy, the ISIP details how the State has allocated its
funds and certifies that it has obligated 80% to local governments. The
BSIRs are submitted every six months for the life of the respective
grant and further refine the project data, their obligations, and
expenditures. SAAs are required to maintain the budget detail worksheet
accountability for equipment purchased.
All grants, regardless of fiscal year, have the requirement of
submitting quarterly financial status reports to show rates of
obligation, expenditure, and draw-down. These are reconciled by SLGCP
staff against draw-down information obtained from internal financial
data systems to monitor expenditure trends and ensure the accuracy of
State reports compared to internal tracking mechanisms.
Annually, a comprehensive financial review of all active grants is
conducted for each State by SLGCP staff. This desk-side review is part
of the preparation for an on-site monitoring visit conducted by SLGCP
preparedness officers to each State. While on site, preparedness
officers are focusing on programmatic accomplishments, types of
equipment purchased and deployed, contributions of respective State
training programs, lessons learned from exercises, and identifying best
practices to be shared with other States. Simultaneously, however, the
flow of funding from SLGCP, through the State, to local governments in
support of all of these activities is discerned to help identify
difficulties or errors in both the processes and specific procurements.
Training
Question: 1. What mechanisms, if any, does the Department utilize to
coordinate training programs developed within academic and private
affiliates of OSLGCP with the S&T Directorate's Centers of Excellence?
Response: The primary educational mission of the Centers is to promote
scholarly opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students through
research assistantships and similar means, so as to develop a cadre of
experts in broad-based multi-disciplinary research on Homeland Security
topics. The Science and Technology Directorate has awarded grants to
four Centers of Excellence: the Center for Risk and Economic Analysis
of Terrorism Events; the National Center for Food Protection and
Defense, the National Center for Foreign Animal and Zoonotic Disease
Defense, and the National Center for the Study of Terrorism and
Responses to Terrorism. These Centers perform mission-directed research
in economic-based risk modeling, food protection and animal health, and
the social and behavioral aspects of terrorism and counter-terrorism.
These Centers are intentionally focused on solving the larger
scientific questions in their specific mission areas using a broad-
based multi-disciplinary approach from which other agencies and
organizations could then take the research and apply to their own
specific training program initiatives. The focus of these DHS Centers
of Excellence and their research areas have been coordinated with
OSLGCP as well as other government agencies.
To what extent does the Department incorporate research performed by
the Centers of Excellence as well as the research activities of other
Directorates and agencies into the design and planning of training and
exercises?
Response: The Centers of Excellence are intentionally focused on
solving the larger scientific questions in their specific mission areas
using a broad-based multi-disciplinary approach from which other
agencies and organizations could then take the research and apply to
their own specific training program initiatives. As an example, the
risk assessment models produced by the Center for Risk and Economic
Analysis of Terrorism support the mission of S&T's Critical
Infrastructure Protection portfolio, which in turn develops tools and
systems to aid facility managers and public safety officials in
planning and responding to attacks on the nation's infrastructure.
The Department anticipates that the proposed Center for the Study
of High Consequence Event Preparedness and Response will have a more
direct role in supporting the Department's EP&R Directorate and Office
of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, including
training programs and exercises. The Department is currently seeking
proposals for this Center; full proposals in response to the Science
and Technology Directorate's Broad Agency Announcement are due April
22nd.
One of the mechanisms the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP) uses to coordinate
training programs is the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination (SLGC). SLGC was established to serve as a single
point of contact for facilitation and coordination of
Departmental programs that impact state, local, territorial,
and tribal governments. The Department has brought together
many organizations with a long history of interaction with, and
support to, state, local, territorial, and tribal government
organizations and associations, and the Office is working hard
to consolidate and coordinate that support.
SLGC facilitates the coordination of DHS-wide programs that
impact state, local, territorial, and tribal governments;
serves as the primary point-of-contact within DHS for
exchanging information with state, local, territorial, and
tribal homeland security personnel; identifies homeland
security-related activities, best practices, and processes that
are most efficiently accomplished at the federal, state, local
or regional levels; and utilizes this information to ensure
that opportunities for improvement are provided to our state,
territorial, tribal and local counterparts. Within the SLGC
structure is a coordinator assigned to the Department's Science
and Technology (S&T) Directorate. One of the roles of this
office is to aid coordination efforts between offices within
SLGCP, namely the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP), with
S&T. An example of one of these on-going coordination efforts
is ODP's Agro-Terrorism Training Initiative.
In fiscal year 2005, the ODP Training Division established an
Agro-Terrorism Training Initiative with a working group that
included others involved in agro-terrorism initiatives. The
purpose of this working group was to ascertain and characterize
specific information that would be reflected in an agro-
terrorism matrix. The matrix will be used to identify agro-
terrorism training gap areas and the coordination of the
development of new training to address these areas. There were
representatives from the Center for Domestic Preparedness
(ODP's operational training center); other ODP training
partners developing and/or administering agro-terrorism
training including Dugway Proving Grounds, Louisiana State
University's National Center for Biomedical Research and
Training, Kirkwood Community College, University of California
Davis; the Department's S&T's two Centers of Excellence in
agricultural security (University of Minnesota and Texas A&M
University); and U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in the working group.
The next Agro-Terrorism Training Initiative Summit is scheduled
for March 15-16, 2005, at the Center for Domestic Preparedness
in Anniston, Alabama. The main goal of the summit is to
coordinate the development of guidance for fiscal year 2004 and
fiscal year 2005 Competitive Training Grant awardees towards
gap areas identified within the DHS Agro-Terrorism Training
Initiatives.
In the agro-terrorism risk reduction effort, the IAIP
Directorate is integrating the efforts of the Pre and Post
Harvest Centers of Excellence into our effort to deploy the
National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) across the food
and agriculture sector. For example, we are working with the
Center based at Texas A&M to develop new vulnerability
assessment tools for use in the livestock industry. The Center
based in Minnesota is developing similar tools for food
processors and retailers.
Question: 2. To what extent has the Department utilized training
facilities and expertise that exist at State and local training
institutions in order to reach a maximum number of first responders?
Response: The ODP 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.
In an effort to meet identified training needs while supporting
state and local efforts to institutionalize WMD awareness training, ODP
developed a standardized WMD awareness training program. 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. The required
information includes 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/or 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; and
Comport with applicable Federal, State, and/or
local certification, regulatory, and policy
requirements deemed appropriate for the types and
levels of training being taken
Additionally, FEMA's Emergency Management Institute (EMI) reaches
nearly 4,000 State and local students in residence annually at the
Emmitsburg, Maryland, facility, and another 2,600 at the Noble Training
Center in Anniston, Alabama. Specific train-the-trainer courses are
conducted for State and local officials for courses in the
comprehensive exercise curriculum, the Homeland Security Planning
course, the Hospital Emergency Response Team course, and also for the
various courses in the radiological series of courses. These courses
are part of the field training program and are delivered by State
emergency management agency staffs for local disaster response
personnel throughout the nation. In all, EMI makes available 102
courses for delivery at the State and local level, with the majority
having an all-hazards approach to disaster mitigation, preparedness,
response, and recovery. State emergency management staff deliver these
field training courses to other State agency personnel and local
officials, in order to meet their respective training needs. Many of
EMI's independent study courses are downloaded and taught in group
classroom sessions by State emergency management agencies and/or local
personnel, adding to the number of State and local personnel served.
EMI also developed independent study courses that serve as the
orientation and initial training for State and local officials to help
implement HSPD-5 that requires all levels of government to use the
National Incident Management System (NIMS) when responding to a
disaster. More courses for delivery at the State and local level
related to NIMS, and specifically the Incident Command System, are
under development.
Finally, the National Fire Academy, the center for the Nation's
system of fire service training and education, conducts resident
training at the National Emergency Training Center (NETC) facilities in
Emmitsburg, Maryland; and uses the infrastructure and assets of all 50
State fire training systems, 150 of the largest municipal fire
departments, colleges and universities, and electronic distance
education. The all-hazards curriculum is delivered through resident and
off-campus classroom training in all 50 States, for-credit college
courses and NETC virtual campus courses to more than 60,000 volunteer
and career fire service students in fiscal year 2004. Performance
measurement of the effectiveness of the training has been outcome-based
since 1998.
There are 11 curriculum areas: Executive Development, Management
Science, Emergency Medical Services, Incident Management, Planning and
Information Management, Hazardous Materials, Fire Investigation, Fire
Prevention: Management, and Fire Prevention: Technical, Public
Education and Training Management. The courses in all curriculum areas
are open to both the career and volunteer fire service and allied
professions (e.g. building officials).
There are seven principal curriculum delivery methods:
A resident program consisting of one and two week
courses.
A two-day course program in which each State receives
nine courses. Some States choose to have those courses
delivered on the NETC Campus and travel from as far away as
Florida and Wisconsin; other States choose to have their nine
delivered within the State. Each State choose their nine
courses from a menu of 32 different courses.
A Regional delivery program in which each of the ten
FEMA regions receives three one-week courses. Each region
chooses their three courses from a menu of 21 different
courses.
A college program in which 13 courses are distributed
to fire-degree granting colleges and universities.
Distance Education / technology based delivery.
Hand-off courses in which certain courses are
developed and handed-off to State fire training systems, and
150 largest fire departments. The 150 largest departments cover
most of the career personnel, while the State training system
trains the smaller career and volunteer departments.
Endorsed courses are courses which are developed by
State and local systems, peer-reviewed by evaluators from the
State and local systems, and if approved, are endorsed as NFA
courses. This allows the State and local system access to
courses that the NFA cannot develop, while at the same time,
giving national recognition and reciprocity to courses that
would otherwise be unavailable. This reduces the cost of course
development and course redundancy for State and local fire
training systems.
Each year, the NFA sets aside four weeks, distributed throughout
the year, solely for the delivery of courses to the volunteer fire
service. Only members of the volunteer fire service are admitted, and
the courses are designed specifically for that audience.
Please explain the approval process for how first responders and State
and local governments may utilize Federal homeland security assistance
to receive Federal-mandated terrorism preparedness training at State
and local training institutions.
Response: States are no longer required to submit advance requests for
personnel to attend certain Federal courses that fall within the SLGCP
mission scope. States and Urban Areas simply report via the training
section of the ODP website on all Federal training they are supporting
with SLGCP funds. This information includes 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.
Several broad categories of courses are automatically included in
the list of eligible Federal courses:
All National Incident Management System (NIMS)
training approved by the NIMS Integration Center (NIC)
is eligible for use of SLGCP funds.
All Incident Command System (ICS) training
offered through the National Fire Academy and the
Emergency Management Institute is eligible for use of
SLGCP funds. This guidance applies to resident
training, train-the-trainer, and field delivery of
courses.
In conjunction with the release of fiscal year 2005 Homeland
Security Grant Program guidance, SLGCP has published a list of eligible
Federal courses that fall within its mission scope. The list is posted
on the training section of the ODP website and is updated regularly as
additional Federal courses become available.
These courses must 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.
Federal funds must be used to supplement--not supplant--existing
funds that have been appropriated for the same purpose. Thus, if the
State or Urban Area has already budgeted for personnel to attend
courses, SLGCP funds may only be used to send additional individuals
above and beyond those previously budgeted.
Question: 3. What are the Department's plans for utilizing existing
training facilities, expertise, and train-the-trainer networks that
exist at the National Fire Academy and the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center to perform terrorism preparedness training?
Response: The National Fire Academy is one of three schools within DHS
FEMA which also houses the Emergency Management Institute and Noble
Training Center. All three schools have been actively engaged in
performing terrorism preparedness as well as all hazards training.
The National Fire Academy serves as a national center for fire
service training and education. NFA also uses the infrastructure and
assets of all 50 State fire training systems, 150 of the largest
municipal fire departments, colleges and universities, and electronic
distance education. Since September 11, 2001, the US Fire Academy has
provided direct training for 50,000 first responders through its
resident courses, and 450,000 trained through our off campus
partnerships to include 275,000 through our ever-growing distance
learning capabilities.
The US Fire Administration has been instrumental in supporting the
effort to quickly develop training in support of DHS's efforts to
promulgate the National Incident Management System (NIMS), and the
National Response Plan (NRP) nationwide.
The Emergency Management Institute is the national focal point for
emergency management training. During Fiscal Year 2004, EMI was
combined with FEMA's newest training activity, the Noble Training
Center in Anniston, Alabama. EMI created a new curriculum for Noble
that was designed to prepare healthcare and public health officials to
deal with mass casualty events caused by terrorism and other hazards.
EMI offered 19 courses at Noble during fiscal year 2004 and will offer
70 courses there in fiscal year 2005. . The majority of training
offered in residence at EMI is designed to address an all-hazards
approach, with the exception of the Integrated Emergency Management
Course/Homeland Security, that uses various CBRNE scenarios as part of
this exercise-based course. Additionally, the Homeland Security
Planning course teaches state, local, and tribal officials how to
develop planning annexes to deal with all CBRNE. EMI's field training
program conducted by state emergency management agencies as well as the
EMI's independent study program, reach a larger training audience with
emphasis on all-hazard preparedness. At the Noble Training Center, the
Healthcare Leadership course, the Hospital Emergency Response Training
course, and the radiological series of courses conducted at Noble, all
contain scenario activities dealing with response to chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive devices. Also at Noble,
several offerings of the Integrated Emergency Management Course,
designed for Metropolitan Medical Response Systems communities, are
offered with a response to CBRNE emphasized in the training scenarios.
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) provides
consolidated law enforcement training and services for eighty-one
Partner Organizations, as well as numerous state, local and
international entities and provides assistance to several military
activities. FLETC staff is comprised of subject matter experts from
each of these law enforcement agencies who are responsible for
developing and delivering contemporary law enforcement training courses
and programs, to include residential and export train-the-trainer
programs. Through this collaborative network of agencies, the FLETC
maximizes efficiency of resources and capitalizes on the expertise of
its' Partner Organizations.
More than a decade before the terrorist events of September 11,
2001, the FLETC was providing terrorism awareness and preparedness
training in all of the basic training programs, and had developed and
delivered advanced and specialized programs to address mission specific
needs. Since 9/11, the FLETC has optimized existing training facilities
and utilized the multi-agency instructional cadre to expand and enhance
current programs, and has developed new courses to meet the changing
mission requirements of its' Partner Organizations. Nearly all of these
agencies now have a stated mission to prepare, detect and prevent
terrorist acts, both foreign and domestic. In fact, more than a dozen
of these agencies now deploy their officers and agents into high risk
environments around the world.
The Department plans to continue to rely on the FLETC to coordinate
the development and delivery of Anti- and Counterterrorism training
facilities, programs and courses to prepare Federal law enforcement
agents and officers to prevent and respond to terrorist events, foreign
and domestic.
Should OSLGCP serve as a one-stop-shop for first responders to
attain terrorism preparedness courses offered by other Federal
Departments or agencies, such as the Department of Energy, the
Department of Justice, or the Department of Defense?
Response: OSLGCP is the principal component of the Department
responsible for preparing the United States for acts of terrorism. In
carrying out its mission, ODP is the primary office responsible for
providing training, funds for the purchase of equipment, support for
the planning and execution of exercises, technical assistance and other
support to assist states and local jurisdictions to prevent, plan for,
and respond to acts of terrorism.
Because of ODP's experience and lasting presence in supporting
State and local training, ODP should continue to work as a coordinating
body for civilian terrorism preparedness training programs. This does
not supplant the authority of other agencies to offer course, or work
with their state and local stakeholders.
ODP's role in the coordination of intra-Departmental training is
based on collaboration, especially as 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 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, 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 the United
States Department of Agriculture (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 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 and 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
within DHS 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.
Exercises
Question: 1. How will TOPOFF III incorporate new national initiatives
required in HSPD-5 and HSPD-8, such as the National Response Plan, the
National Incident Management System, and the National Preparedness
Goal?
Response: TOPOFF 3 provides an extraordinary opportunity for planners
and senior officials to internalize and use the newly released NRP and
provides the first national level opportunity to validate NIMS in an
exercise environment. One principal objective of the TOPOFF exercise
series is to provide a realistic scenario against which Top Officials,
at all levels of government, can test their plans, procedures, and
policies in response to an incident of national significance. The T3
Scenario is predicated on the concepts and procedures in the National
Response Plan (NRP) and National Incident Management System (NIMS). The
NRP and NIMS will be the standard used to evaluate overall response to
the incident. Subsequently, exercise participants will be evaluated
against their understanding and implementation of these national
guidance documents. Recommendations and lessons learned, reflected in
the T3 After Action Report/Improvement Plan, will help determine any
necessary revisions or enhancements to the NRP, NIMS. Deficiencies and
gaps identified in the AAR/IP should be addressed through additional
training, planning and equipment acquisition, which will support the
intentions of the National Preparedness Goal.
Additionally, it should be noted that both the NRP and the NIMS
address involvement of the private sector in all planned responses. To
this end, the private sector engagement in TopOff 3 is an important
initiative and substantially broadens the effectiveness of such
national exercises. Further, it sets the right examples for state and
local government in the planning and conduction of their training and
exercise events.Sec.
Question: What standards are the participants being evaluated against
in this exercise?
Response: Federal, State and local officials will be evaluated against
their respective plans, policies and procedures. From a national
perspective, the NRP and NIMS protocols will be used as standards for
participant response to the scenario. State and local jurisdictions
will validate their respective plans and regulations (e.g., Continuity
of Operations, OSHA regulations, local Standard Operating Procedures,
etc.) during response. Trained Data Collectors will be using Exercise
Evaluation Guides (EEGs) from the Homeland Security Exercise and
Evaluation Program (HSEEP) to evaluate participant response against
prescribed tasks in the EEGs. For example, one of the many EEG tasks
(Task# VI-2) describes `Conduct for Search and Rescue Operations' and
lists the steps that ideally would be performed to accomplish this
task.
Who established those standards and were they agreed upon by
participants--particularly down to the local responder level?
Response: Throughout the planning process for T3, Federal, State and
local partners used their existing plans, policies and procedures as a
basis for the standard to which participants will be evaluated against
during the exercise. The tasks contained in the HSEEP EEGs, which are
used to evaluate the standards against, were vetted by Subject Matter
Experts comprised of Federal, State and local officials. These tasks
are written to be applicable to not only Federal and State levels, but
local levels as well. For example search and rescue operations are
performed at all levels.
How will the participants know, based on their performance, whether
they are performing to an established standard or not?
Response: The After Action Report/Improvement Plan is an analysis of
the participants' response to the standards prescribed in the plans,
procedures and protocols used during the design and conduct of the
exercise. The AAR/IP will identify the responders' compliance with
those standards, recognizing that a wide range of factors affect
performance.
If there are no established or agreed upon standards upon which to base
performance, on what measures will the after-action report be based?
Response: The TOPOFF After Action Report (AAR) is based upon how well
stated objectives are met and how effectively each agency or
organizations' plans, policies and procedures were executed and if
those plans are effective, as written. As stated in answers above, the
observations and recommendations contained within the AAR identify and
analyze the participants' response using established plans, policies
and procedures (e.g., NRP, NIMS, State and local SOPs). Each
observation and recommendation within the AAR is tied to a task within
the Exercise Evaluation Guides utilized by Data Collectors to evaluate
the response to those standards.
Question: 2. Please explain how DHS will amend or update the NRP, NIMS,
and/or NPG in response to outcomes from the completed exercise?
Response: DHS will use the Secretary's Remedial Action Program
(SecRAMP) to specifically identify areas that need improvement and
assign agencies to incorporate changes to these plans and policies
(NRP, NIMS and NPG).
Will the Department solicit the input of Federal partners, State and
local governments, and first responders?
Response: Yes. Through the planning and conduct of the exercise, the
individual responder and discipline debriefings, and the After Action
and Improvement Planning Conference, input will be solicited and
incorporated into the final report. The draft AAR/IP will be
disseminated to all participating agencies and their respective
feedback will be incorporated into a revised final AAR/IP.
What actions will OSLGCP perform to assist first responders and
government officials to incorporate the designs, techniques, scenarios,
and lessons learned from TOPOFF III and other exercises?
Response: SLGCP will utilize various forums to incorporate the designs,
techniques, scenarios and lessons learned from all exercises it
conducts, including the TOPOFF exercise series. Currently SLGCP takes
innovative exercise designs and scenarios and places them within its
Secure Portal as part of the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation
Program (HSEEP) Volume IV. The HSEEP reference manuals deliver an
exercise program that helps address identified planning, training, and
equipment needs and provides homeland security professionals with the
tools to plan, conduct, and evaluate exercises to improve overall
preparedness. The four volumes include:
HSEEP Volume I: Overview and Doctrine provides requirements and
guidance for the establishment and maintenance of a homeland security
exercise program.
HSEEP Volume II: Exercise Evaluation and Improvement offers proven
methodology for evaluating homeland security exercises and implementing
an improvement program.
HSEEP Volume III: Exercise Program Management and Exercise Planning
Process helps planners establish an exercise program and outlines a
standardized design, development, conduct, and evaluation process
adaptable to any type of exercise.
HSEEP Volume IV: Sample Exercise Documents and Formats provide
sample exercise materials referenced in HSEEP Volumes I-III. These
materials are available on a secure Web-based portal.
In an attempt to standardize the language and concepts that have
been adopted and used by various agencies and organizations in the
exercise planning process, ODP ensures consistent use of the
terminology and processes described in HSEEP. Whereas the focus of DHS/
ODP-sponsored exercises is on terrorism/WMD, the HSEEP series of
reference volumes also can be adapted to a variety of scenarios and
events (e.g., natural disasters, terrorism, technological calamities).
The intent of HSEEP is to provide a common process, consistent
terminology, and a program that is practical and flexible enough for
all exercise planners, whatever their sponsoring agency or organization
may be.
Exercises and the resultant After Action Reports (AARs) and
improvement plans not only provide lessons for exercise participants,
they also offer a valuable source of information that can be analyzed
at the national level to identify lessons learned and best practices
that can be shared to enhance preparedness across the country. Lessons
learned encompass knowledge and experience (positive and negative)
derived from observations and historical study of actual operations,
training, and exercises. Best practices encompass peer-validated
techniques, procedures, and solutions that work and are solidly
grounded in actual experience in operations, training, and exercises.
Exercise AARs should identify lessons and highlight exemplary
practices, and are submitted to DHS/ODP for inclusion in the lessons
learned/best practices Web portal (www.llis.gov), which serves as a
national network for generating, validating, and disseminating lessons
learned and best practices.
With support and oversight from DHS/ODP, the National Memorial
Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) in Oklahoma City has
developed this secure Web-based network of peer-validated best
practices and lessons learned. This network, known as Lessons Learned
Information Sharing (LLIS), is designed to help emergency responders,
homeland security officials, and healthcare professionals learn from
each other and share information. LLIS offers access to a wide variety
of original best practices and lessons learned, developed in
consultation with frontline emergency responders and validated by
emergency response and homeland security professionals. This network
also assists these professionals on lessons learned on exercise design
and conduct from all levels of exercises, from the TOPOFF series to
State and local exercises.
Question: 3. The intent of the National Exercise Program (NEP) is to
facilitate the integration and coordination of the vast number of
exercises being conducted at all levels of government to ensure
standardization of procedures, minimize of resource waste, and
implement a more efficient and effective use of participants and
critical resources. What is the status of the NEP?
Response: The NEP is currently being executed with multiple ongoing and
concurrent efforts. The TOPOFF 3 Full Scale Exercise (T3 FSE) will be
conducted April 4-10, 2005, to be closely followed by the TOPOFF 3
Large Scale Game, devoted to long-term recovery operations and issues
relative to the T3 FSE scenario. Senior Officials Exercises are also
ongoing, with multiple iterations in work, each devoted to a specific
national-level response challenge. The NEP has developed a National
Exercise Schedule and is in the process of adapting a DOD software
program (Joint Training and Information Management System--JTIMS) to
provide a comprehensive, on-line data management system that will
improve exercise scheduling, planning, execution, and reporting. In
June 2004, SLGCP conducted the first interagency scheduling conference
to obtain inputs regarding planned exercise activities from across the
Federal government. This initial effort will be followed up by a
subsequent conference in June 2005 to further consolidate exercise
schedules from numerous agencies at all levels of government. An
effective foundation has been developed for the NEP and has thus far
realized tremendous returns on investment and will continue to evolve
and grow. In addition, the foundation for NEP's policy and doctrine,
the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP), has been
finalized, adopted by all 56 State and territories, and endorsed by
several Federal partners (i.e., FEMA, CDC, TSA, IAIP, etc.) as a
standardized policy and guidance for designing, developing, conducting
and evaluating exercises.
Is the NEP to be a consolidated program with a unified structure and
oversight or is it to be a series of individual initiatives?
Response: The National Exercise Program (NEP) is a consolidated program
with unified structure and oversight, consisting of preparedness
related exercises. The NEP reinforces identified training standards and
provides an evaluation of readiness. The NEP is comprised of the TOPOFF
exercise series, Senior Official Exercises, the National Exercise
Schedule and will grow in scope to support exercises at all levels of
government. A primary intention of the NEP is to provide common
doctrine and methodology through the Homeland Security Exercise and
Evaluation Program to key homeland security stakeholders with exercise
responsibilities and has been very successful in this regard. As can be
expected, the NEP is still in its infancy and will take some time
before all intended stakeholders are fully integrated into the
procedural framework of the NEP.
Is the NEP envisioned to be a series of TOPOFF exercises or something
more comprehensive?
Response: The NEP encompasses the entire exercise program that SLGCP
administers. The NEP is being utilized to further integrate exercise
schedules, activities, terminology, and methodology throughout the
Nation at all levels of government (i.e., Federal, State and local).
Although the NEP was founded on experiences from managing the TOPOFF
program, it it's focus is now broader, supporting Senior Officials
Exercises, National Security Special Events exercises, the National
Exercise Calendar, the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation
Program, the Prevention and Deterrence Exercise Program, other
national-level exercises, a remedial action program, Cross-Border
(International) exercises, as well as the integration of other legacy
exercise program content.
Question: 4. ODP issued and then pulled a Request for Proposal (RFP)
that was seeking extensive contract support related to the NEP. What
happened? When, if ever, will ODP reissue the RFP?
Response: The initial procurement attempt for the NEP was challenging
in multiple respects. This was to be the most comprehensive and
progressive exercise program for civilian development and
implementation in recent history. The focus of the NEP was to be
national in scope, however, the NEP also had to be responsive to local
and State level government needs and priorities, as well as Federal
government needs and priorities. As this was an unprecedented
initiative and maintained the highest levels of potential consequence
(positive and negative) regarding decisions made by government leaders,
criteria for choosing industry partners had to be very deliberate and
very effective. The difficulties culminated during a protracted
procurement process during which numerous communications and ongoing
reviews failed to yield a proposal that was agreeable to both GSA and
ODP. During this entire process, demands for coordination of NEP
activities continued to mount, leading to decision to set aside the
action in favor of an interim award, while a comprehensive overhaul of
the full NEP proposal was undertaken.
While simultaneously executing the fiscal year 2004 and now fiscal
year 2005 NEP activities, ODP has been preparing to initiate a
subsequent procurement action, sanctioned through the Department of
Homeland Security procurement system that will broaden the focus of the
NEP proposal to encompass support required for all SLGCP Exercise
Division activities, combining them into a single, competition driven
model. In this new construct more vendors will be able to participate
in NEP procurement activities. Much was learned from the first attempt
at procuring services for the NEP and ODP has great confidence that
with the support of DHS procurement and cooperation from the vendor
community, NEP services will be procured for the long-term and with
appropriate expertise levels in calendar year 2005.
Question: 5. Other than the TOPOFF series, what other exercises will
OSLGCP be involved in or provide assistance to?
Response: SLGCP is involved in many other exercises other than the
TOPOFF series. Since March, 2001, SLGCP has been in involved in over
400 exercises, mostly delivered at the State and local level. SLGCP
will continue to deliver exercises to all 56 States and territories
through its Direct Support program.
Other exercises OSLGCP will be involved with include:
Senior Officials Exercises: A Senior Officials Exercise (SOE) is
designed to validate policies or procedures, develop concepts or focus
issues, or rehearse for specific events, at the policy level. (The
policy level may include principals, deputies, senior department/
agency management, or combinations thereof.) DHS/ODP will design and
logically execute SOEs as deemed necessary by senior leaders at DHS,
the Homeland Security Council (HSC), or other agencies.
National Special Security Events: The Federal government designates
certain events as requiring special security because of their high
visibility and potential attractiveness to threat elements. DHS/ODP
provides support for designing, planning, conducting, and evaluating
exercises in preparation for designated National Special Security
Events (NSSEs) such as the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.
These exercises provide a forum to practice the coordination and
response to specific challenges that could arise if a terrorist
incident occurred during the event.
International Exercises: Participation in regional and
international exercises is a crucial aspect of emergency preparedness
for many communities across the country. From Seattle and Vancouver to
San Diego and Tijuana, communities need to plan with their neighbors
for emergencies that cross State or national borders. Terrorist
incidents do not stop at political borders, and neither should
preparedness activities. Interstate and international resources should
be incorporated into plans and used as appropriate. In some locales,
such as in the Pacific Islands, international assistance is the closest
available mutual aid. Communities should familiarize themselves with
the resources available from potential regional and international
partners and share their response concepts and standard/emergency
operating procedures (SOPs/EOPs) with these groups. To date OSLGCP has
conducted five exercises with Canada with the states of Vermont, Maine,
Minnesota, Ohio, and Alaska, with more scheduled for fiscal year 2005.
How does DHS integrate all the various exercise programs across the
U.S. government down to and including the local levels?
Response: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for State
and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (DHS/SLGCP)
implemented the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program
(HSEEP) to assess and enhance terrorism prevention, response, and
recovery capabilities at the Federal, State, and local levels. The
HSEEP is a threat and performance-based exercise program that helps
shape the policies that govern the planning, execution and evaluation
of exercises. The HSEEP employs exercise activities of varying degrees
of complexity and interaction. In addition, the HSEEP is flexible
enough to be used with exercises other than just terrorism based
scenarios.
HSEEP has been in place since March of 2003 and is being used in 56
states and territories as required by the State Homeland Security Grant
Program. As part of this requirement, states use a portion of their
grant money in establishing and conducting exercises. They are required
to use HSEEP in order to qualify for the grants. As a result, all
states and territories are conversant with HSEEP and its requirements.
HSEEP has been endorsed and adopted by several other Federal
agencies, such as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), and Strategic National Stockpile (SNS).
Other agencies are incorporating HSEEP into their current methodology
and training, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The
HSEEP methodology is also going to be taught at the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Emergency Management Institute, through their
Master Exercise Practitioner Program. As a result, all exercise design
courses available through DHS will be in line with the HSEEP doctrine.
HSEEP standardizes the language and concepts that have been adopted and
used by various agencies and organizations in the exercise planning
process, and ensures consistent use of terminology and methodology.
This is consistent with the National Response Plan (NRP) and the
National Incident Management System's (NIMS) goals.
DHS, along with State, local, tribal and Federal partners, utilizes
a secure but unclassified on-line exercise scheduling tool (the
National Exercise Scheduling System, or NEXS) and many participants
have begun to use NEXS to schedule activities. The system supports
scheduling of activities for state and local exercise programs,
ensuring Federal, state and local exercises can be jointly reviewed for
opportunities to consolidate activities and integrate objectives. Over
the course of the next two years, program participants will forge
consensus on a standardized schedule and annual level of effort. This
will eliminate the problem of multiple exercises competing for
participation, resources, and management attention.
Do you have the resources capable to do this and, if the NEP is not in
place as envisioned, when you intend to have such resources
in place?
Response: The NEP has resources in place to effectively move toward
addressing the needs of a truly comprehensive national program for
homeland security exercises. DHS/ODP is also coordinating with other
Federal exercise programs (e.g., Transportation Security
Administration, FEMA, CDC, etc.) to ensure efforts are not duplicated
and resources are shared to meet the ultimate goal of an integrated
program. Just as training is a vital responsibility for operational
agencies at every level of government, they must be willing to allocate
time and resources to engage in exercises as well.
Interoperable Communications
Question: 1. To what extent do homeland security grant guidelines
incorporate standards and requirements set forth by the Office for
Interoperability and Compatibility and its SAFECOM Program?
Response: Our coordinated grant guidelines incorporate these standards
and requirements by outlining eligibility for grants and the purposes
for which grants may be used. We also have issued guidelines for
implementing a wireless communication system. These are intended to
help maximize the efficiency with which funds for public safety
communications are allocated and spent. To ensure consistency in
interoperability grants solicitations, this guidance was incorporated
in the Department of Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) and Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency
Management Association (FEMA) grants in fiscal year 2003, the COPS
Interoperability grants in fiscal year 2004, and the Office for
Domestic Preparedness (ODP) guidance for its state block grants in
fiscal year 2004. SAFECOM guidance will also be included in the
guidance for both the COPS Interoperability grants and ODP grants in
fiscal year 2005. The Administration is strongly committed to ensuring
that all communications-related grant programs use SAFECOM grant
guidance, and that grantees are held accountable for compliance.
Are grants for interoperable communications coordinated with assistance
provided by the S&T Directorate through RAPIDCOM, SAFECOM, or other
pilot projects and programs?
Response: In addition to SAFECOM's guidance for grant solicitations,
the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) now offers
guidance and a set of best practices for technical assistance. These
will help develop curricula for interoperable communications technical
assistance. SAFECOM will also incorporate lessons learned from RapidCom
into the technical assistance guidance for all interoperable
communications. However, the sheer number of interoperability projects
funded by DHS each year makes direct coordination on each grant
impracticable. If grantees request technical assistance, both SAFECOM
and ODP can provide more detailed coordination.
First Responders Technologies
Question: 1. How does the Department coordinate the establishment of
priorities for technology development and procurement between OSLGCP
and the S&T Directorate's Centers of Excellence, ORD, HSARPA, Federally
Funded Research Centers, and Federal Labs?
Response: Priorities for research and development for the S&T
Directorate are established using a risk-based approach and is oriented
toward identifying critical capability gaps before attempting to
identify or develop technology solutions. In developing solutions, the
process engages the end-user throughout requirements definition,
development, testing and transition. The process considers the product
life cycle from the outset, including planning and budgeting for
production, deployment, operations and support. It is this process
which allows us to prioritize both within and across fields. The Office
of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, as well as
all the organizational elements of the Department, are heavily involved
in the S&T Directorate's process--formally through the Science and
Technology Requirements Council (SRC) and informally through frequent
interactions at the staff level.
Within the S&T Directorate, the Office of Plans, Programs and
Budgets manages and executes the planning, programming and budgeting
system (PPBS) cycle for the Directorate. It sets short-, mid-, and
long-range goals aimed at achieving the needs set out by the
Administration. These goals include, for example, countering the threat
of weapons of mass destruction and addressing the needs of customers in
the operational Directorates in the Department and of state and local
entities. Functionally, leadership from all of our executing Offices--
HSARPA, ORD and SED--participates actively in the PPB process through
the integrated product teams (IPTs). These IPTs are integral to the
planning process. The IPTs for each portfolio work as a team to
determine their mission space, their strategic goals for the next five
years, and a list of prioritized deliverables.
Research and development priorities as well as funding levels for
ORD (including the Centers of Excellence and Federal Labs), HSARPA, and
SED determined through our IPT process and are dependent on where the
best expertise is found to conduct the RDT&E that will most effectively
meet the Department's mission to ensure the safety of the nation.
To what extent, if any, does the S&T Directorate utilize threat
assessment and vulnerability analysis in determining R&D priorities?
Response: The S&T Directorate's research, development, testing and
evaluation (RDT&E) process uses a risked-based approach to planning and
is oriented toward identifying critical capability gaps before
attempting to identify or develop technology solutions. It is this
process which allows us to prioritize both within and across fields.
The RDT&E process consists of four main sub-processes: 1) needs and
risk assessment, 2) strategic planning, 3) program definition, and 4)
program execution. The first two sub-processes ensure that the Science
and Technology Directorate considers user needs, available
intelligence, big-picture risks, national goals and inputs from other
external agencies and advisory bodies to establish its annual RDT&E
program. The second two sub-processes provide a framework for program
execution using the best available systems engineering and program
management techniques.
Within many critical infrastructure sectors, the IAIP Directorate's
vulnerability assessment efforts will lead directly to the
identification of technology and capability gaps. This gap
identification process will, over time, help drive R&D requirements
that the S&T Directorate will address.
Question: 2. To what extent does OSLGCP utilize the S&T Directorate's
Technology Clearinghouse when distributing technical assistance, best
practices, and grant guidance to State and local governments?
Response: S&T has not established a clearinghouse that is useful for
ODP information dissemination purposes. Several years ago, ODP
established the Responder Knowledge Base (RKB) at the Memorial
Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) which ODP uses to
disseminate information about standards, equipment, and to announce the
Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program (CEDAP). Physical
transfer of commercial equipment is the responsibility of ODP CEDAP
managers. S&T was consulted regarding technology for possible
incorporation into CEDAP, as were other organizations in government
that develop technology. Moreover, information ODP collects about how
well commercial technologies work in practical, small, rural law
enforcement and first responder agencies will be reported back to S&T
for incorporation in their development programs. ODP also collaborated
with and funded MIPT to develop and host the website on best practices
called Lessons Learned Information Service (LLIS). LLIS contains
information contained in after action reports and reviews written
following major exercises. ODP releases information about grants via
their grants.gov. website.
What mechanisms does the Department utilize to identify and transfer
available and developing technologies for use by first responders?
Response: Overall, the Department has made great strides in leveraging
work that has already been or is being done to identify, develop and
transfer technologies to first responders. Nowhere is this more evident
than in the relationship that has been forged between the Science and
Technology Directorate (S&T) and the Office for Domestic Preparedness
(ODP). In April 2001, under the sponsorship of ODP, the Memorial
Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) began an effort aimed
at improving local, state, and federal emergency responder capabilities
for mitigating the effects of terrorism. In April 2004, MIPT published
the results of this in the National Technology Plan for Emergency
Response to Catastrophic Terrorism. Through their production of this
report, twelve terrorism response objectives were identified and the
technology capabilities required to address these objectives were
explored in the report. This report has served as an excellent
foundation for S&T's work to initiate research and development in this
area. S&T has continued the good work started by ODP and MIPT and
continues to build upon the Project Responder process by drilling down
within these objectives to identify specific technologies that will
provide needed capabilities and by expanding the work to include
technologies to enhance training and exercise for large scale
incidents. S&T has already solicited proposals for several of these
areas that will begin the effort to address some of the most critical
needs.
Another component of the MIPT work is the Responder Knowledge Base
(RKB), currently supported by ODP. The RKB provides a much-needed
screening tool for responders to access information pertaining to
commercially available equipment. The RKB allows queries by first
responders to determine the suitability of equipment to their needs
including technical specifications, compliance with relevant standards,
and applicable grants programs. The RKB also provides a very robust
forum for exchanging information between responders on how well a
particular piece of equipment performs. S&T and ODP are working
together to create a partnership between the Technology Clearinghouse
and the RKB to further leverage this valuable resource.
S&T has also incorporated work of the National Institute of
Justice, the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and other
federal agencies in the overall development of its research strategy
for first responders. For example, S&T captured the needs identified by
the NIJ in their report ``First Responder Needs Assessment.'' and the
recently released report by FEMA on Urban Search and Rescue
requirements.
DHS is also a strong supporter and sponsor of the Interagency Board
for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability (IAB) The scope of
the IAB includes:
Identifying and prioritizing CBRNE
incident response equipment requirements
Encouraging manufacturers,
governmental, military, and private agencies to
sponsor research, development, test and
evaluation programs to satisfy local, state,
and federal CBRNE requirements
Providing assistance and/or guidance
to agencies, associations, and manufacturers,
for operational testing of new and emerging
CBRNE response technologies
S&T continues to host numerous workshops, conferences and focus
groups including Federal, state, and local emergency responders, as
well as participate in a variety of activities dealing with first
responder needs sponsored by ODP, the Department of Energy, the Office
of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology and other federal agencies.
Through the creation of S&T Requirements Council, S&T has reached
out to DHS senior management at the Assistant Secretary level, to
provide a forum for all DHS components to voice the technology
capability needs of their respective constituencies. This allowed the
DHS components to use their ongoing relationships and traditional
stakeholder venues to gather these technology requirements and provide
them, through a prescribed process which included prioritization, to
S&T for programming and budgeting processes.
What role do the end-users (i.e., other Directorates and offices within
the Department as well as first responders) play in identifying needs
and modifications of potential homeland security technologies?
Response: The S&T Directorate considers the operational components of
the Department as its customers. To ensure the Directorate meets
customer needs, the S&T Directorate has established the Science and
Technology Requirements Council (SRC) to bring forward a set of vetted
needs from the entire Department. This is an Assistant Secretary level
committee with representation from across DHS that has been chartered
to assist in the solicitation, validation, and prioritization of all
science and technology requirements. The council includes
representation from the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness to ensure that state and local needs are
being met. This council is intended to help the S&T Directorate
identify those needs most crucial to the DHS mission and to develop the
most effective S&T program possible using existing resources. As part
of their mission, the SRC reviews DHS operational requirements and
needed capabilities that require S&T solutions, and identifies those
opportunities that have cross-cutting technology solutions. Prioritized
Departmental needs are then presented to me as a recommendation for
consideration, in conjunction with all externally derived S&T
requirements (e.g., statutory, national guidance), for inclusion in the
S&T Directorate's Planning, Programming, and Budgeting Cycle Guidance.
The inaugural meeting of the SRC took place September 30, 2004, and
was attended by representatives from Border and Transportation Security
(BTS), Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP&R), Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP), the Office of Domestic
Preparedness (ODP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS),
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and U.S. Secret Service (USSS). Our initial
meeting resulted in new requirements and a validation of the needs that
our portfolios had already identified through their interactions with
the rest of the Department. It further served to bring together the
many disparate groups from across DHS and facilitated a new dialogue
that will be necessary to produce a successful S&T RDT&E program. The
input we received at the September 30, 2004, meeting was used to adjust
the fiscal year 2006 budget request and is currently being integrated
into our fiscal year 2007-2011 Planning, Programming and Budgeting
cycle.
How does the Department identify and evaluate military technologies for
possible homeland security purposes?
Response: The Department is often asked about the transfer of
technologies between Departments, specifically between DHS and DoD. The
Science and Technology Directorate is very concerned about technology
transfer. Under the fiscal year 2003 DOD Authorization Act, Section
1401, DOD is working with DHS and DOJ to identify and transfer military
technology relevant to Federal, State, and local responders.
Section 1401 of Public Law 107-314 is entitled, ``Transfer of
Technology Items and Equipment In Support Of Homeland Security.'' It
tasks the Secretary of Defense to coordinate all DOD efforts to
``identify, evaluate, deploy, and transfer to Federal, State and local
first responders technology items and equipment in support of homeland
security.
Fourteen representatives from DOD, DOJ and DHS met on December 8,
2004 to initiate work on executing the intent of the Congress. Among
many other conclusions and recommendations, the representatives agreed
on the importance of firm commitment to this process, constructed a
nominal timeline for technology related events, began work on the
design of the transfer process (e.g., that it must be two-tracked, one
for research and development, the other for technology items already
developed and in production) and most importantly, outlined the major
features of a compliant technology transfer process. They initially
assigned responsibilities for process ownership. An MOU formalizing the
important steps of this process is expected to be ready for signature
in the summer of 2005.
Often, technology developed for one purpose, such as a military
application, cannot be transferred in a straightforward manner to civil
operations. The requirements for maintenance and support, for
performance, and for total cost of ownership often inhibit such
transfers. Although the basic scientific principles that underpin a
particular technology may be leveraged, nevertheless significant re-
engineering is required to make the technology suitable for homeland
security purposes.
DHS S&T has an established relationship with the Technology Support
Working Group that represents eight government agencies with similar
tasks, technology requirements and goals. HSARPA continues to monitor
some of the more than 90 projects from the first joint DHS/TSWG BAA
which closed in June, 2003. DHS provided $60M [$30M in fiscal year 2003
and $30M in fiscal year 2004] to fund the most meritorious proposals.
Our personnel participate in the requirements setting working groups
and the Director, HSARPA is a member of the TSWG Executive Committee
which allows any redundancy to be identified. DHS S&T will continue to
fund [$12M in fiscal year 2005] proposals of mutual benefit and
interest to DHS and TSWG members.
Other issues associated with transferring technologies to the
homeland security operating environment include the need for ease of
operations, extremely low total cost of ownership, providing liability
relief, providing incentives for non-federal actors to purchase useful
technologies, developing and promulgating standards and providing
technical assistance to aid those purchasers in their procurement
decisions. While the Department has made tremendous progress in all
these areas, much remains to be done, and sustained effort is needed.